Tom Nelson points out quite an admission:
“Blogging is affecting me profoundly. Obviously, Mr. McIntyre has profoundly affected my life”.
That’s from this video:
The General Public: Why Such Resistance? (to global warming)
(February 25, 2010) Ben Santer, a research scientist from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, discusses the recent problems with the use of the freedom of information act for non-US citizens to demand complete records, including emails, on scientific research projects. Santer posits that this is a dangerous dilemma that will ultimately inhibit scientific research.
This course was originally presented in Stanford’s Continuing Studies program.
The video and several key points of interest in the video follow.
Nelson writes:
The video is 1 hour 46 minutes long. The best stuff is around 42:30 to the end.
Santer uses words like harassment, frivolous, nonsense, hatred, bullies, “forces of unreason”, abuse, and McCarthyism. He’d like to get some support/protection from the Obama administration.
Santer at 1:26:37 “Blogging is affecting me profoundly. Obviously, Mr. McIntyre has profoundly affected my life”.
More interesting stuff from Santer re: establishing human culpability, professional PR help, and nearly two dozen workshops (funded by NSF?) bringing together climate scientists and the media
▶ Chris Mooney and Dr. Benjamin Santer on Communicating Climate Science – YouTube:
“[Uploaded Sept 2010] Climate Science Watch spoke with climate scientist Dr. Benjamin Santer and Chris Mooney, a science and political journalist and author, about how climate scientists communicate complex research findings to the public in an atmosphere of fierce politicization and competing demands.”
At 1:38, Santer says “I had always assumed that if the science was credible, we could just rest our case on the science. It was enough to publish high-quality papers, to establish some human culpability in observed climate change, and that ultimately that would be good enough, and that policymakers would take the right decisions based on the best available scientific evidence.”
At 11:08, Santer says Lawrence Livermore National Lab has a “high-quality very professional public affairs department. They’ve been extremely helpful in my interactions with the media…They’ve given me a lot of advice and guidance…I’ve been very grateful that I haven’t had to face this on my own.”
At 12:40, Santer mentions “series of workshops organized by Bud Ward, a journalist who’s brought together the leading climate scientists with people from the media world-newspaper editors, news anchors, TV weathermen and women…a series of probably nearly two dozen workshops organized that enable each side to understand the problems of the others.”
Thanks to a series of workshops funded by the National Science Foundation, journalists and climate scientists have been able to address these barriers and develop recommendations for effective communication. These highly interactive workshop dialogues formed the basis of a new resource guide on communicating about climate change for editors, reporters, scientists, and academics.
It’s only cretins and fraudsters who can think they are paid but don’t have to share all of their work with the people they get paid from.
In other news, Santer doesn’t look like a fraudster.
ps I work in a heavily regulated industry and know perfectly well that each and every one of my emails and any other writings and phone conversations can appear in a court of law, one day, for whatever reason. Rather than demanding protection from any of that, I do my work to the best of my abilities.
“He’d like to get some support/protection from the Obama administration.” Yeah, I’d like some protection from them too. Oh, maybe he meant get assistance in getting protection from the rabble.
Maybe I should watch the video and then snark. Nah….
“If you like your lies you can keep your lies.” Ain’t it the truth.
Is Santer jealous of the notoriety of his colleagues Schmidt, Hansen and Mann? He’s just as militant and just as wrong-headed, but not as famous. It just doesn’t seem right.
How could McIntyre profoundly effect Santer with a blog if the blog is just full of nonsense? Indeed the wording itself is typically fuzzy. I guess he assumes that we will understand that the effects were uniformly bad. History will ultimately recognize that the internet has greatly improved science, let light and air into the unhealthy culture of modern science. Such a reaction! Mobilize the media and PR specialists to get the half-baked, undisciplined, unreviewed and finally falsified stuff across. Dr. Santer, what the blog has done, particularly the likes of Steve McIntyre and WUWT is provided the kind of filter that you guys need to convert a love-in to a science. Yeah, good science is hard, frustrating, punishing. It’s so much easier to put dreams down on paper.
Santer: “I’d really like to talk to a few of these “Auditors” in a dark alley.” Now that’s good science communication which the public can understand.
It would seem that it is auditors who need protection from Santer.
Like the rest of ‘the Team’ Santer is only affected in the first place thanks to their own poor behaviour and lack of scientific rigour . No matter how much he ‘believes’ and no matter how much he ‘cares’ , he is making great demands so rightly great proof is asked for , and in supplying this they total fail.
Ben Santer:
Please explain why there is need for “professional PR help” to promote scientific findings which are so clear that you assumed “policymakers would take the right decisions based on the best available scientific evidence”.
Richard
Is this the same Ben Santer who emailed Phil Jones on 09/10/2009 and stated:
“Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him.Very tempted.” – charming – resort to violence when your arguments fail.
Didn’t he also say
“I looked at some of the stuff on the Climate Audit web site. I’d really like to talk to a few of these “Auditors” in a dark alley.” – not sure why we wants to meet people in a dark alley – presumably for further violence or perhaps sex?
If I ever meet Ban Santer at a scientific meeting I shall tell him I think he is a sycophantic pseudo-scientist! Go and get a real job Ben!
It’s worth reviewing Santer’s haughty response to McIntyre’s polite request for data.
Santer is one of the most objective scientists we have ever seen. He doesn’t go into any high quality research with any pre-conceived idea or worried about policy. Policy if for policy makers so policy does not concern him at all. Well done Dr. Santer, you are an ‘arset’ to the Climastrology community.
17 years to distinguish noise from the human ‘fingerprint’ of catastrophic no warming.
Santer says “I had always assumed that if the science was credible, we could just rest our case on the science.”
Calling Captain Obvious: Yes, Ben, you all and the Climate Clowns had to do was provide credible climate science. After three decades of ‘research’ and trillions of wasted dollars, we can’t even trust our historical temperature data. Good job ‘Team’, keep up the good work!
I wonder if the PR geniuses at Livermore were the onest that got him this gig.
For those of you who haven’t seen this one discussed before, stay with it for at least the first 30 seconds and then take a look at ~ the 7 minute mark. Pretty much says it all with regard to Santer’s PR savvy.
‘Climate communication’ = vainly hoping that new lipstick will beautify the same old and ugly climate pig.
Well said! They want us to overhaul the entire energy infrastructure of the planet by giving policy makers what they want to see, afterall the policy makers paid the piper. They want us to pay higher energy bills. Yet they want protection and the ability to hide from the cold hard disinfectant called the internet, aided by Google cache and the Wayback Machine.
“if the science was credible…”
Need we say more?
Ah Benny, legend in his own mind, delusional fool in reality, significant amusement factor on the Web.
Ben,
Go write better papers. Steve will leave you alone.
Policymakers are taking the right decisions.
After being briefly seduced by the ever-attractive idea of ‘Saving The World’, they’re increasingly choosing to ignore his scaremongering.
Why don’t thy just make their datasets public, wouldn’t that just solve the problem?
“Thanks to a series of workshops funded by the National Science Foundation, journalists and climate scientists have been able to address these barriers and develop recommendations for effective communication. These highly interactive workshop dialogues formed the basis of a new resource guide on communicating about climate change for editors, reporters, scientists, and academics.”
a.k.a Propaganda
To paraphrase Alexi Sayle (English comedian / writer / actor) – “Anyone who uses the word workshop outside of light engineering is a twat.”
Quote, not paraphrase…..
Colin Indge:
This is only a tip.
In the minds of some who frequent WUWT, it is bad form to quote a self-professed communist such as Alexi Sayle even when he is right. But I take this opportunity to repeat your quote because it is right
Richard
Why don’t thy just make their datasets public, wouldn’t that just solve the problem?
That is exactly Santer’s point: making the data sets public would not solve his problems with hyping global warming.