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.
Dear Ben,
There are many disgruntled people who will affect you profoundly in a dark alley, so do be careful what you wish for.
Funny how the mainstream media and climate scientists have been in lockstep along their vastly profitable but misled journey, and are falling into disrepute at the same time. Could it be that “just the facts, please” discipline gave way to “this is my interpretation” in both sectors at about the same time, the 1970s?
“Unfortunately, just because A is smarter than B does NOT imply that A’s ideas are correct.”
Neither does it imply that C, D, E, etc. are not smarter than A.
PR firms will instruct their clients to paint themselves as the victim.
M Seward says:
January 18, 2014 at 2:25 pm
I am an engineer who designs things that people are in and on and in sometimes very harsh environments. I expect that every page of notes, every email or letter , every drawing, calculation, working paper etc etc of mine will be ‘discovered’ should some event occur that warrants the legal system getting cranked up. I live with it and do my work carefully and rigorously. I don’t employ PR people. WTF is Ben Santer on about?
Exactly Right, M. Seward!
I’m an engineer as well. Hail Fellow Pragmatist and well met! I have been a party to several ‘legal discoveries’, as ne’er-do-wells were brought to justice or simple (but expensive!) mistakes were legally resolved. As serendipity would have it, I was a key ‘player’ in discovering inappropriate actions by folks that should have known better. My emails, spreadsheets, and even paper copies with hand annotated notes in the margins became required disclosures… and I had to defend those communications as an engineering ‘expert’.
I understand the mewling and puking by Santer and Friends to be another blatant ‘hopey/changey’ attempt to get dictatorial exemption to open disclosure US FOIA law from Our Dear Socialist Leader, an executive and administration that is the most secretive and deliberately opaque since Woodrow Wilson.
“If you like your climate change fraud, you can conceal your climate change fraud!”
Mac
noaaprogrammer says: @ur momisugly January 18, 2014 at 6:41 pm
….Indeed! I would like to see a histogram of these monetary amounts per capita arrayed in ascending or descending order for all countries of the world who are fleecing their sheeple.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh it gets better than that and it is something all of us missed. (Anthony please take note)
Effects of U.S. Tax Policy on Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2013
(Other similar books are linked at bottom of page. Robin take note they have a report: A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas)
On November 01, 2012 Fox had a story Eco-Taxes? Study Financed by U.S. Treasury Will Link Tax Code to Carbon Emissions
The Project has been completed and can be seen here: Effects of U.S. Tax Policy on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The link to people involved in the project is now dead but the finished report lists as authors
William D. Nordhaus, Stephen A. Merrill, and Paul T. Beaton, Editors; Committee on the Effects of Provisions in the Internal Revenue Code on Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP); Policy and Global Affairs (PGA); National Research Council
As Fox News said:
I think I am going to be ill.
As a professional burglar the Police and their interference wirh my work is a dangerous dilemma which will eventually affect the work I do.
mareeS says: @ur momisugly January 18, 2014 at 8:12 pm
……. Could it be that “just the facts, please” discipline gave way to “this is my interpretation” in both sectors at about the same time, the 1970s?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NO!
1915
NOW:
You can see the rest of my research into who controls the media HERE
Top Senate Democrat Dick Durbin: “And the banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.”
We lost control of our federal government in 1913.
1. The Federal Reserve Act gave control of money and therefore the economy to private bankers.
2. The 16th amendment took the Senate away from state legislatures and gave it to the general population now controlled by the propaganda printed in the MSM.
3. The 17th Amendment allowed the federal government the right to tax individuals. Citizens are now giving up about three quarters of their wages or more via various taxes. That does not include payments on all the fraudulent bank ‘Loans’ (As Justice Mahoney stated in the case of First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969): Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis,… did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry…A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. so that makes bank loans fraud.)
The last blow was the reinterpretation of the Commerce Clause allowing its use for control of everything including the tomato plant in your back yard.
Another comment elsewhere stated that as soon as a bureaucracy is formed it immediately becomes the target for takeover by the Cabal it is supposed to control. Think John Taylor, lawyer for Monsanto controlling the FDA and ruling GMO is the same as natural and therefore requires no testing. There are plenty of other examples of the Corporate-government Revolving door
And if you have not figured it out by now big corporations lean left. They LIKE government control. See: E.M. Smith’s “Evil Socialism” vs “Evil Capitalism”
ed mister jones says:
January 18, 2014 at 8:33 pm
“Unfortunately, just because A is smarter than B does NOT imply that A’s ideas are correct.”
Neither does it imply that C, D, E, etc. are not smarter than A.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“Those that can do, those who can’t teach, those who can’t teach teachers.” seems that old saying is truer than ever.
Although perhaps it should be changed to:
“Those that can do, those who can’t face reality teach teachers.”
Time to revisit this gem. I understand the “one single study” was Ben’s
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1939.txt&search=wealth+of+others
“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest.”
Mr. Santer could fix this problem by coming on this blog and answer questions. Oh, by the way Ben is that alley idea open to anyone who disagrees with you?
We have a name for people like Santer in the UK!…WANKER! stop moaning and man up
Ben Santer seems to [ or pretends to] have absolutely no conception of the fallout that occurs when governments around the world take his findings and those of his fellow warmists as unassailable truths —as some sort of gospel that must not be questioned, as has happened with the former government in Australia.
Economies and livelihoods are seriously damaged if not destroyed on his word and that of his fellow warmists, with no alternative science tolerated at all—with politicians intimidated into public acceptance because to question the ‘consensus’ invites political annihilation—and questions from the public, even to a Climate Council whose brief is supposed to be to take their questions and inform them on the subject, are met with sneers , angry reminders that the ‘science is settled’ , ‘over’ , accepted by 97% of scientists worldwide etc, and with an aggressive shutdown of questioning.
In Australia we have had all of this and more—a shutdown and manipulation of information by warmist true believers in the claims of Ben Santer and his colleagues, warmist zealots who run the show in our mainstream media—a carbon tax that has decimated manufacturing in our country—a former government that is obstructing the new government’s policy to repeal the defeated former government’ s 23% and rising carbon tax that cascades through our economy damaging industry and business and costing jobs——obstruction that’s in defiance of the will of the Australian people who voted that carbon-taxing government out in a landslide.
All of this happens because Ben Santer and his colleagues demand to be free of normal scientific scrutiny, and to be the gatekeepers of climate science , as they showed in their Climategate emails—– and here in Australia, as is shown by the treatment of dissenting scientists in our universities and science institutions.
We even have the aforementioned Climate Council, made defunct by the new government, setting themselves up with crowd funding in parallel to the democratically -elected government , to ensure that their warmist dogma, channeling Santer and colleagues —–is the only story the Australian people get via their 100% supportive MSM ‘journalists’.
Such is the influence of the disingenuous Santer and his cohort who demand freedom from scrutiny as they orchestrate the rejigging of world economies and global politics—and people’s lives.
Show me the science!
“Ben,
Go write better papers. Steve will leave you alone.”
Good advice. Ben should take heed.