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.
I live next to Livermore were the ‘good’ scientist works. He is employed at LLNL, this prestigious institution filled with prestigious scientist doing prestigious things all the time… If LLNL is so good and filled with all A+++ prestigious players then why can’t the prestigious one question there own LLNL weather stations.
(http://www-metdat.llnl.gov/cgi-pub/index.pl)
As of 8AM this morning (PST): Site LLNL ~ 36.716F, Site 300 ~ 54.896F, Sandia Livermore ~ 45.5468F, My home ~ 5 miles from LLNL 30.2F with frost. Huge difference in air temperature. So who are you going to believe your frozen butt or our thermometers? If the ‘good’ scientist is so concerned that he would threaten physical violence for the ’cause’ then why would he not pay attention to his own charge ie… the LLNL weather station accuracy.
‘good’ = sarc/
Prestigious = self important.
73
Michael
I’m hardly a Warmer, but Santer makes some good points (watched about thirty minutes starting from the ~42:30 mark) in regards to his time getting monopolized in bureaucracy of FOIA requests.
A fix for such monotony is a streamlined bureaucratic flow in how these virtual experiments (the vast majority of Warmer science these days in done in the office on a computer) are made available to the world.
For instance, the Climateers could quite easily document their virtual experiments’ computer code, datasets, etc. in an HTML document with links to respective files on the Livermore FTP. There would be then no need for an FOIA request at that point, from either Santer’s detractors or supporters, who want to analyze his scientific output.
Gail Combs says @ur momisugly January 18, 2014 at 11:10 am;
My hunch is that Mr. Rockefeller and his fellow World Government travelers take nationalistic identity (Nationalism) as having arisen after/as a consequence of Nationalism. Nations as they define regions today are a thing of relatively recent history … and so (the thinking evidently goes) the ‘problem’ of national identity (which stands in the way of (an obviously superior [sic]) Globalism) … is one merely of modifying group-identification processes.
Actually, I will guess that easily-recognized ‘Nationalism’ predates the Middle Paleolithic. That what the Globalists really know about what they’re really up against here, will fit in the recess beneath the edge of a fingernail, and will be worth about as much as what we normally find there, in the service of their fondly imagined Conquest of Everything.
… about as likely as society being run from a scientific Ivory Tower.
Not that they can’t – either one of them – make a mess worthy of the History books, trying.
HAL-9000 says:
January 18, 2014 at 12:19 pm
“Santer makes some good points…in regards to his time getting monopolized in bureaucracy of FOIA requests.”
______________________
I disagree.
Santer is stuck in a mudhole of his own making. The signature activity of climate science has been to hide all references to actual work and data which might lead to the falsification of their pronouncements.
I disagree.
Santer is stuck in a mudhole of his own making. The signature activity of climate science has been to hide all references to actual work and data which might lead to the falsification of their pronouncements.
I guess I should qualify my above statements that if Santer’s motivation is to hide references, work, data, etc. than he has nothing to complain about – i.e. he’s getting what he deserves.
“Climate science”? More like “Climate séance” for the ‘human-caused-global-warming fraternity’.
Poor Santer, crying his crocodile tears as he makes such scientific pronouncements as “Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him.Very tempted.” and “I’d really like to talk to a few of these “Auditors” in a dark alley.” He made his own cesspool, now he can sleep in it.
HAL-9000 says: @ur momisugly January 18, 2014 at 12:19 pm
I’m hardly a Warmer, but Santer makes some good points (watched about thirty minutes starting from the ~42:30 mark) in regards to his time getting monopolized in bureaucracy of FOIA requests….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry HAL you have it completely WRONG. If you publish your result you include ALL the DATA and the method and everything else.
Science is about being able to validate and verify the results. The criminal sloppyness in Journals and science is starting to have a major effect and it is comming back to BITE SCIENTISTS in the arse!
A few samples:
Re: Latimer Alder says:
January 18, 2014 at 6:47 am
“‘Climate communication’ = vainly hoping that new lipstick will beautify the same old and ugly climate pig.”
The “climate pig” always squeals the loudest, when it feels cornered, and can’t see a way out.
Can you imagine then how peer review would affect Sensitive Ben if peer review were actually critically meaningful in some little way – on par, say, with that Canadian blogger.
troe says:
January 18, 2014 at 9:57 am
You can’t trust the news in China because the government controls the journalists.
========
And in the UK the politicians – some of whom were caught defrauding the tax-payer for personal gain, in the expenses scandal, unveiled by a newspaper – the politicians, the self-same politicians, want to control the press.
Well, we all know politicians – left or right, or muddle-in-the-middle – all of them, are saints, with immaculate judgement, and perfect timing, utter devotion to those they serve – and to their spouses.
[Sarc. – might a few have guessed?]
So, if they think global warming causes floods (and we’ve had a few), they’re obviously entirely correct – even if their degree is in Politics, Philosophy and economics – not physics or meteorology, or statistics
HAL-9000 says @ur momisugly January 18, 2014 at 12:19 pm;
I would agree that his irritation is ‘understandable & human’, but whether he is soundly based on a “point” that will support his protests & complaints is a different thing.
What it looks like in this case, is that his time is being monopolized by his own efforts to resist, obstruct and fight (legal, legitimate) FOIA requests. If he simply provided the requested materials, it would be only a passing matter. Really, those materials should be posted already.
FOIA and those who use it don’t seem to be the cause of Dr. Santer’s trauma & turmoil. He appears to the author of all that drama, himself.
Michael,
Your thermometer vs LLNL?
What are the altitudes of these thermometers?
US and EU media occasionally run pieces on how the media in China among other places is controlled or manipulated by the government. The implication is always that they stand as our guardians against such practices.
The Metcalf Institute program and its alumni list look like something you would expect to see run by a guy in a silk Mao suit.
That was my point and I know most here got it.
troe says:
January 18, 2014 at 1:17 pm
US and EU media occasionally run pieces on how the media in China among other places is controlled or manipulated by the government. The implication is always that they stand as our guardians against such practices.
The Metcalf Institute program and its alumni list look like something you would expect to see run by a guy in a silk Mao suit.
That was my point and I know most here got it.
__________________
Bears repeating.
Without climategate, we would not know about the disturbing background of Santer et al 2008..
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html
It is actually one of the all time classics of the failure of peer review,and obstruction of science.
Without climateaudit.org, we would not know about Santer’s disturbing tricks.
http://climateaudit.org/category/modeling/santer/
Ted Clayton says: @ur momisugly January 18, 2014 at 12:32 pm
…Actually, I will guess that easily-recognized ‘Nationalism’ predates the Middle Paleolithic….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes. A version of see the stranger, hate the stranger, kill the stranger. (And take all his women.) Thanks to the horse and wheel the small tribes just got bigger.
They are trying to erase that reality from the textbooks of course.
“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.””
1. Structured scientific revolution in which a community of experts and researchers develop a new paradigm, check
2. Universities, Unions, Societies and Journals world wide adopt new paradigm in a remarkable international lock-step, check
3. Well funded and hand selected scientists get all the evidence to fill in the paint-by-numbers scientific paradigm, because “the evidence matters,” check.
4. Publish the paradigm in high-quality journals with peer review by those who share the paradigm, check.
5. Call politicians by any other name. “Policymakers.” check
He’s right. They followed protocol, what on earth could have gone wrong?
Trying to see both sides of the argument, my line of thought goes like this : If you have done good honest science, and it is being countered in the public arena by an ideological pressure group, then it would be reasonable to be upset about it. But surely the first thing to do would be to revisit your science and make absolutely sure that it is in fact good. And the public, before accepting the counter arguments, need to check them carefully too. The point of this is that in other similar situations the ‘Ben Santer’ could be right and the vocal opposition wrong.
So thanks, David L. Hagen (Jan 18 8:01am) for your Richard Feynman quote “it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing“.
John F. Hultquist says:
January 18, 2014 at 11:51 am
“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.”
Sausage-making comes to mind, as well.
“He’d like to get some support/protection from the Obama administration.”
Santer is meant to be doing science. Do the experiment, share the method and data. Let others replicate your work. If it’s right it will replicate, if it’s wrong it will not. In what way is this process personal? It’s not, it’s science.
People say all sorts of stupid crap on the internet but if it is demonstrably reproducible then it’s not crap. What can the Obama administration possibly do to help?
The bloggers hurt the establishment because the scrutiny is valid.
Re: Latimer Alder says:
January 18, 2014 at 6:47 am
“‘Climate communication’ = vainly hoping that new lipstick will beautify the same old and ugly climate pig.”
The “climate pig” is happiest when its “snout is in the trough”. But it is also the most dangerous. Climate pigs will not share, and any attempt to question the quality of its fertilizer production, can result in a violent outburst. They jealously guard their trough, and their wallowing hole, and will attack anyone trying to “clean up the mess”.
“For instance, the Climateers could quite easily document their virtual experiments’ computer code, datasets, etc. in an HTML document with links to respective files on the Livermore FTP.”
Real programmers would have a wiki and an SVN (or similar) code repository. But I’m guessing only Harry even knows what that means.
Russ R. says: @ur momisugly January 18, 2014 at 2:10 pm
You are insulting pigs who are actually clean and intelligent. How DARE you compare the poor animal to Climastrologists.
(and yes I have owned pigs)