Ben Santer
From Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Ben Santer is a man with a lot of accolades under his belt: A recipient of the MacArthur “genius” grant; an E.O.Lawrence Award; a Department of Energy Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER) Distinguished Scientist Fellowship; contributor to all four assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore; and now an American Geophysical Union fellowship.
But he’d give all the awards up if it meant he could present his research on human-induced climate change to a patient audience — an audience that would listen to all the facts before making judgments about reality of a “discernible human influence” on climate.
Human-induced climate change is likely to be one of the major environmental problems of the 21st century, and effective policies to mitigate human effects on climate will require sound scientific information.
Providing that information is what climate scientist Santer continues doing as the Laboratory’s winner of the AGU fellowship.
Santer, an expert in the climate change research community, has worked in the Laboratory’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) for nearly 20 years, and is a frequent contributor to congressional hearings on the science of climate change. He credits his success to the exceptional scientists he collaborated with at LLNL. “The best reward (award) is working together with great colleagues.”
In 1996, his chapter of the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report came to the cautious but then-controversial conclusion that the “balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”
From that point on, it has been an uphill battle for Santer to show that climate models do, in fact, replicate many different observations of climate change, and that models can serve as a valuable tool for understanding the climate changes likely to occur over the 21st century. “Ideally, governments will use the best-available scientific information to make rational decisions on appropriate policy responses to the climate change problem,” Santer said.” My colleagues and I have the job of providing that information. The AGU fellowship gives me encouragement to continue PCMDI’s research into the nature and causes of climate change, and to continue explaining what we do, what we’ve learned and why our work matters.”
Only one in a thousand members is elected to AGU fellowship each year. Santer is one of six LLNL employees who have been elected an AGU fellow. Rick Ryerson, Bill Durham, Al Duba, Joyce Penner and Hugh Heard are the others.
Santer will receive his award at the December 2011 Fall AGU Meeting in San Francisco.
Santer’s achievements include:
- Pioneering use of novel pattern-based statistical techniques, called “fingerprint” methods, to identify the effects of human-caused changes in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles in observational surface temperature records.
- Analysis of atmospheric temperatures, water vapor, and the height of the stratosphere-troposphere boundary, showing that accurate model simulations of climate change require inclusion of radiative forcing from human activities.
- Contributions to the Scientific Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
================================================================
UPDATE: Steve McIntyre passes on this video link, featuring Dr. Ben Santer, to us in comments. Surely this must have been the work that wowed the AGU?
BTW if you want some real science, rather than “Santer Cartoon Science” regarding the snowpack loss on Kilimanjaro, try these:
Kilimanjaro regaining its snow cap
More proof that Kilimanjaro’s problems are man-made; but not what some think it is
Unless an individual worked long and hard on faking his/her facial expression (and has a special inborn knack for it), most of the things you need to know about a man or a woman is written openly on his/her face.
We’ve been taught by the harshest of teachers, the evolutionary selection process, over hundreds of thousands of years, to be instinctively alert to the true intentions and character of the person from the first sight (because those who needed a second sight may not have lived long enough to have descendants).
Persistent brainwashing can blunt this intuitive skill but most of the people use it every day, especially in important, unstable, or dangerous situations — usually without consciously realizing that they are judging people by their faces and body language alone.
Look with open eyes, alert to any sign of danger and deception. Look at the pictured face as you would look at the stranger that suddenly appeared without invitation in your guestroom. Is it a friendly face? Can you trust this person? Should you call the police? Is it a time to grab your shotgun and ask him to get lost ASAP? Or should you shoot without warning?
What, in this kind of a situation, would be your reaction to Ben Santer?
Just look at his face!
@ur momisugly Phil Bratby above. Thanks for posting these emails, very germane. From the emails above about AGU nominations for fellowship it is clear that some years after Wegman et al, the Fiddlestick Team carry on with their back scratching without a care in the world.
Phil says 52 papers, Mann says 62?
Can anyone throw any light on Henry’s exotic locations?
Notice how Mann seems to be going beyond the call of duty in putting together Phil’s application and then one year later he asks Phil to return the compliment. (wink).
Is Mann a controlling mind?
I am astonished that the AGU would honour Ben Santer because, they say,
“Santer’s achievements include:
■Pioneering use of novel pattern-based statistical techniques, called “fingerprint” methods, to identify the effects of human-caused changes in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles in observational surface temperature records.”
However, Santer’s work in this regard is tantamount to scientific fraud in that it utilised a short sequence selected from a data set because the data he selected fitted his claim and he failed to report the rest of the data set.
The matter was exposed in a ‘Letter’ to Nature magazine by Michaels and Knappenburger which can be read at
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/Michaels_Knappenberger_Nature96.pdf
In that link, please note the graph.
The ‘filled’ black dots are the ones selected and reported by Santer and the line in (a) is the trend that Santer reported as showing the ‘fingerprint’ he had detected.
The unfilled dots either side of those used by Santer are the remainder of the data set that was available to Santer for analysis.
In the light of these documented facts, the AGU would have been more reasonable if it had expelled Santer instead of elevating him to be a Fellow for his “use of novel pattern-based statistical techniques”.
Richard
jae says:
April 25, 2011 at 8:03 pm
LOL. They should also award him the Nobel peace prize, to emphasize how shallow and political these “prizes” are these days. What is funny an ironic is that NOBODY is fooled by all this crap!
RockyRoad says:
April 25, 2011 at 8:15 pm
harvey says:
April 25, 2011 at 7:06 pm
@bernd
may your children weep
No, all of my children are old enough (ages from 19 to 32) to be LAUGHING at what these AGW acolytes spew.
_________
This is not for LAUGHING and it’s not FUNNY. It’s very very DANGEROUS.
Like Lisa P Jackson EPA or Janet Napolitano Homeland Security or Timothy Geithner Treasury and many more. Very very dangerous. They also thought A. Hitler was a nobody. It’s all about making us slaves. If they win in the USA it’s over. look how they want to get rid of the constitution. And the Patriot Act ? Same thing. 1984
Peer review
Larry and Curly agreed that Moe is awesome, just as Curly and Moe agreed that Larry is awesome, and just as Larry and Moe agreed that Curly is awesome. — Don Surber
When I got my teaching quals, a friendly professor gave me a warning;
“Remember that any big organisation is like a sewerage settling tank – the big chunks ALWAYS float to the top!”
Seems quite appropriate for Santer.
Yes human-statistical-induced climate change will probably, most likely, under any circumstances, be the most important thing they’ll work with during the 21st century. It is what they do for a living, after all, and come 22ed century they all be dead.
Just writing, this time to wish Tim Ball all the best in the future and to let him know I no longer bother to read CFP.
And to Steve McIntyre; I watched the whole cartoon in one go and came away with the idea that Ben Santer must believe the “Snows on Kilimanjaro” will be gone by 2020. – So, it may be an idea to keep that video as future proof of what Santer and his gang were teaching our children in the beginning of the 21st century. – The nasty CO2 critters seem to be able to trap the sunshine too.
Is it just coincidence that his initials are BS?
“Pioneering use of novel pattern-based statistical techniques, called “fingerprint” methods,”
And some day, he’ll read the forensics literature regarding the perils of FMR and FNMR, or as Richard S Courtney points out, he may already be aware of those. The rest of the AGU may not.
Steve McIntyre says:
April 25, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Heck Steve! I only clicked the vid because you posted it! Now I have to bleach my ears and eyes!
At what point will honest people stop supporting and cooperating with the AGU and other organizations which aid and abet this conduct?
Richard Feynman had some thoughts on how people get chosen to be in these type of organizations. You might be surprised at what he says.
“I don’t like honors…..”
Tim Ball says:
April 25, 2011 at 7:49 pm
How much longer will such behaviour be rewarded?
It would seem that as soon as the large amounts of money sent to study ‘manmade global warming’ leaves so will the behavior.
… A contributor to all four assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)……
A reasonable scientist, who cared about his own reputation and that of the institution he may work for, would surely be washing his hands from any reference to the IPCC…
So Santer is now a Fellow with the American Geopolitical Union (AGU). Good for him.
Richard Feynman, what a “fine man”.
Beth Cooper says:
April 26, 2011 at 4:36 am
“Is it just coincidence that his initials are BS?”
hehe.
It is also the same initials as for Baldur von Schirach.
Go watch Atlas Shrugged part I. I think Ben was in the movie.
I think I could take him. It might go 18 rounds though, and he would probably fight via a proxy armed with a hockey stick.
/yes of course its sarcasm.
That video reminds me of my own first grade terror:
Mind you, that 1974 video had no effect on making me brush my teeth. It managed to scare the pants off of me, and I recall I ran home that day. I still didn’t brush regularly though.
Somewhere I remember Richard Lindzen writing about how the activists got a member into each key organization, and then that member opened the door to enough other activists, via legal loopholes, to have the capacity to sway the vote.
Lucy Skywalker:
The paper in which Richard Lindzen details the problem – and names names – is a shocking and entertaining read. It is;
Lindzen RS, ‘Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?’ Physics and Society (2008).
It can be read as a pdf at
http://climatephysics.com/2008/08/31/lindzen-climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/
Everybody needs to read it.
Richard
But, it is possible for members/fellows to revolt?
It was at the UK Royal Society last November anyway:
The UK’s national academy of science, the Royal Society, has launched a new guide to the science of climate change.
The guide has been updated partly as a result of complaints by 43 of the Royal Society’s members who were concerned about the tone of its previous guide. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11438570
Below is an excerpt from Ben Santer’s email of December 2, 2008 in which he acknowledges that he got a complaint from DOE headquarters that ” my behavior is bringing LLNL’s good name into disrepute.”
“Dear folks,
There has been some additional fallout from the publication of our paper in the International Journal of Climatology. After reading Steven McIntyre’s discussion of our paper on climateaudit.com (and reading about my failure to provide McIntyre with the data he requested), an official at Department Of Energy headquarters has written to Cherry Murray at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), claiming that my behavior is bringing LLNL’s good name into disrepute. Cherry is the Principal Associate Director for Science and Technology at LLNL, and reports to LLNL’s Director (George Miller). ”
My source for this is:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
The web link has a long series of the famous climategate emails, with commentary. Santer’s are highlighted in purple font. Reading the emails is quite illuminating and entertaining. I am skeptical of the email content as reported by others, so I prefer to read them myself.
After the ‘beat the crap’ comment, Santer continues to Phil Jones: “The only reason these guys are going after you is because your work is of crucial importance – it changed the way the world thinks about human effects on climate.” This is what I would say of Santer himself.
But Santer’s crucial importance to the history of science is much more than that he help change the way the world thinks about AGW. And so I am impelled to make a belated comment on this post to follow the comments of Tom Ball and Jim Owen (Jim – I want to know more!).
What happened late in 1995 to Chapter 8 of the IPCC report will go down in history as a turning point, not only in the corruption of the IPCC, but in the political corruption of public-funded science. And Santer seems to be the man who carried the standard of environmental activism over the line.
Up until this point the IPCC was holding back against the likes of Hansen and their apocalyptic senarios. Restrained. Conservative. Despite the pressures.
And then as the LLNL puff (quoted above) puts it, Santer’s chapter of the IPCC’s SAR concluding that the “balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” This was the breakthrough. This got the headlines. Then Kyoto. And the rest is history.
Sure, science has been corrupted by politics before, but never so pervasively. Santer did what Hansen couldn’t do, and so he stands heroic — head and shoulders above Jones, Mann and all those who followed in the wake. In fact, I suggest that his belated inclusion, his interpolation, of ‘discernible human influence’ might become for environmental activist in Science, what 1 john 5:7-8 has become for Trinitarianism in Theology.