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.
Just in case Ben Santer does not know,” Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent”
Isaac Asimov (fondly remembered)
Phil Ford says:
January 18, 2014 at 8:10 am
__________________
To be fair, in the US, CBS news has recently done a little bit of actual/factual journalism.
Resistance is futile. Stop thinking and start doing exactly as you are told, i.e. “making the right choices.” Of course, our President and his underlings are making these choices for us, everyday, with the lack of Keystone XL, opposition to fracking, offshore drill bans, etc.
Again, resistance is futile. But it is more fun than capitulation! Fight on brothers and sisters.
If you click through to the Metcalf pdf, you will find Michael Mann listed as an attendee at the November 2003 original meeting and the June 2005 one at Columbia University. Stephen Schneider is also at several.
I have been pointing out the media need not write alarming stories on CAGW now as they have K-12 and university education right where they want them as indoctrination zones. Having Andrew Revkin listed at several workshops was disturbing since he is also listed as involved in the Garrison Institute’s Behavior and Mind Change work called “Hope for the Future of Climate Change.” It’s going invisible where it becomes memes acting at unconscious but influential levels.
The strategies laid out in those workshops are exactly what the new K-12 science curricula being pushed by the Smithsonian and National Geographic among others are designed to do. Create influential worldviews that alter prevailing perspectives in ways that have everything to do with social and political change and little with hard science.
To: Dr. Benjamin Santer
Re: Protection
Please wear a condom.
0.42:20+ “They got a result they liked and they published it.”..
“We has met the enemy and they is us”…
OK Ben, let’s try it the other way round – you hand over your wallet to ME and watch while I help myself and see how long YOU keep quiet.
Robin says:
January 18, 2014 at 9:14 am
________________________
Thank you for that glimpse into the depths…
Santer says “I had always assumed that if the science was credible, we could just rest our case on the science.”
Ben’s use of the word “credible” makes me think of Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means”
A timely message for Ben from Tim Robbins:
“For most people, self-awareness and self-pity blossom simultaneously in early adolescence. It’s about that time that we start viewing the world as something other than a whoop-de-doo playground, we start to experience personally how threatening it can be, how cruel and unjust. At the very moment when we become, for the first time, both introspective and socially conscientious, we receive the bad news that the world, by and large, doesn’t give a rat’s ass.”
You can’t trust the news in China because the government controls the journalists.
In my politics, work and life I have always kept to one simple premise.
Never do anything in private you are not prepared to defend in public.
Would it be churlish of me to point out that Mr. Ben Santer and his pals have profoundly affected my wallet?
“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.”
Santer says:
“Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”
Since RSS now has 17 years and 4 months of no warming, does that mean that policymakers should do nothing, or have many of us totally misinterpreted this statement?
mrmethane says: @ur momisugly January 18, 2014 at 7:29 am
Santer’s apparent hubris in response to being caught out leaves me wondering if there’s any credibility at all in academia.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There isn’t and that is what they are really worried about.
As Richard Courtney has said several times, Copenhagen was supposed to be the time and place where an international agreement was signed that wiped out what is left of our freedoms. China put a spoke in that wheel. link
The climastrologists are not stupid. They know the run of warm weather can not continue and now they have a real mucked-up mess on their hands with China walking off with western manufacturing and jobs.
People in the UK are in “fuel poverty” and dying because “Green Energy” is very expensive and worse will never work. The deep pockets of tax payers are running empty as the real unemployment has skyrocketed to ~23% here in the USA. The money printing press will have to stop soon or you will get hyperinflation especially if China and the rest of the BRICS countries demote the USD from world reserve currency status. The biggest fear though is the internet is letting the unemployed college grad and his dad, Joe Plumber know EXACTLY who is to blame for the entire mess and who is ripping off the money and who has help in the rip-off. During 2011, 53 percent of all Americans with a bachelor’s degree under the age of 25 were either unemployed or underemployed. (Article is worth a read)
I am sure Santer and his buddies are thinking of 2011 London riots and wondering if universities might become a target down the road. University riots are not unknown. Heck Michigan State University students celebrating their football team’s first invite to the Rose Bowl in decades by rioting and burning trees and furniture just this December.
Ted Clayton says: @ur momisugly January 18, 2014 at 8:03 am
…What Dr. Santer is sidling up to here, intimating, is Scientocracy….
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Reportedly at the Bilderberg/Trilateral meeting in 1991 in Baden Baden, Germany, David Rockefeller made the following statement:
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” ` excerpted from the book, The Bilderberg Group by Daniel Estulin
Rockefeller does say in his book Memoirs on page 405,
“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”.
Now I need to go take a shower. How do these people stand themselves?
Phil Ford says: @ur momisugly January 18, 2014 at 8:10 am
….When will ABC, BBC or any of the major media outlets start investigating The Greatest Heist of Modern Times? When will they actually start doing their job?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NEVER!
They have been “In on it” from the beginning. See: Who Owns The media
Ugh! At 5 minutes in, that talking pratt was still introducing Santer… and my gorge had risen to dangerous levels. I’m going to take a shower, go for a looooong walk on this sunny but cool (36F) day, and perhaps pick this up again later….
Robin says:….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Robin I love your information but it is so depressing.
Thanks for all the research you have done on the trashing of our education system.
To others if you haven’t looked at Robin’s site it is worth a visit: http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/
troe says:
January 18, 2014 at 9:57 am
“You can’t trust the news in China because the government controls the journalists.”
What have the words “in China” for a purpose in that sentence?
Phil Ford says:
January 18, 2014 at 8:10 am
“When will ABC, BBC or any of the major media outlets start investigating The Greatest Heist of Modern Times? When will they actually start doing their job?”
They’ve been doing what is their job all the time. (German ARD and ZDF as well).
troe says: @ur momisugly January 18, 2014 at 9:57 am
You can’t trust the news in
Chinathe USA because thegovernmentbankers control the journalists and Congress.There fixed it for ya. :>)
Ben Santer wishes that science operated on his terms. That scientists could write papers and make claims without ever having to provide data or assist others in replicating results because that might lead to criticisms of the methods used or even the discovery of errors. Pons and Fleischmann probably wished the same thing after the reaction they got to their announcement on the discovery of cold fusion. I bet they wished they could have just rested their case on the science without providing any data or answering any questions. But while such a scientific method, which relies on trust without verification, would undoubtedly be beneficial for the careers of individual scientists, it would be udderly disastrous for the advancement of science.
Prof. Santer’s got a product he will sell you but he doesn’t want you to see how it is produced. He seems to cue off of mushroom growers. However, they have a better product.
Hi Ben,
It’s refreshing to see you have recognized how profoundly affecting the truth can be.
Regarding your life being affected by the truth. Perhaps if you cannot deal with the heat of truth you should avoid the kitchen of science and trying to cook it.
Your life and activism may be a better fit for the Joe Romm or Bill McKibben approach.