Dressing Properly for Ben Santer's Invitation

“We have spent our careers developing computer models of the climate system…”
Well there it is folks. I guess when you spend your career on something you don’t want to hear that you wasted your time. Computer models are their babies and they have developed a maternal instinct to defend them.

the ” We have spent our career” statement is the worst thing to begin with. I mean, they would have been better of by chosing a real profession … Lol

“Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.”
Here is the measure of the scientist, Ben Santer.
Hello, Ben Santer, and I know you are reading this, what have you to say about the significance of 18 years without warming? Does it make you want to beat the crap out of the data?

From the letter, “Over our lifetimes, a human-caused warming signal has emerged from the background noise of natural climate variability.”
A human signal emerged, well who knew, I always thought humans lived in a bubbles and never interacted with our environment at all. Very profound and enlightening.
And I never thought that all other living matter from plants, to fish, to insects, to bacteria, to all mammals, and non-living things like the Sun, water, gravity, clouds, and land masses, were just background noise, quite insignificant when put in relation to the “human signal”.
My goodness I think we need to re-investigate whether the sun revolves around the earth, no never mind, investigate whether the universe revolves around the earth since our signal seems to overwhelm all other living and non-living matter (background noise) in the universe.
Ok I am being bombastic and sarcastic, but what to do in the face of ” human warming signal ” and additional statements like this from the letter, “This warming signal is discernible not only over the land surface, but also in the Earth’s oceans, lower atmosphere, and snow and ice cover.”, which are an extreme stretching of the truth if not outright fibs.

Don’t forget this other Santer gem from the Climategate e-mails:
“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.”

“Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.”
So if Dr. Koonin is planning to accept Santer’s invitation to join in some scientific collaboration, maybe he ought to show up wearing hockey gear.

No hockey gear needed. People that say things like that are overcompensating pussies. They very rarely attempt to make good on the threats they make to third parties, safely behind the back of the person they are fantasizing about dominating. And when they do it very rarely ends well for them.
Their problem is, they have built a mental model of their own physicality that does not come close to reality. Deep down, most of them know that. That knowledge keeps them from actually testing that model against observations, or from actually risking their own health or resources on their public claims. In that sense, pussy bravado is very much like “climate science”.

He needs to debate Pat. “The Thriller in Manila”. Or, something like that-Lol

The first action that exposed the modus operandi of the IPCC occurred with Santer’s actions in the 1995 second Report. He exploited a very limited editorial policy to dramatically alter the findings of Working Group I of the IPCC in the Summary. It is likely he did this with guidance from those controlling the output, because he was a very recent graduate and appointee to the IPCC. An action in itself that was questionable.
Benjamin Santer was a Climatic research Unit CRU graduate. Tom Wigley supervised his PhD titled, “Regional Validation of General Circulation Models” that used three top computer models to recreate North Atlantic conditions, where data was best. They created massive pressure systems that don’t exist in reality and failed to create known semipermanent systems. In other words he knew from the start the models don’t work, but this didn’t prevent him touting their effectiveness, especially after appointment as lead-author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Report titled “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes” Santer determined to prove humans were a factor by altering the meaning of what was agreed by the others at the draft meeting in Madrid. Wigley moved to Colorado where he continued to fund and direct his disciples. Witness Wigley’s brief appearance in the 1990 documentary, The Greenhouse Conspiracy and the need to look after his graduate students.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-x4YbXZtIA
Here are the comments agreed on by the committee as a whole followed by Santer’s replacements.
1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
2. “While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”
3. “Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
4. “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”
Santer’s replacements
1. “There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols … from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change … These results point toward a human influence on global climate.”
2. “The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”
As Avery and Singer noted in 2006, “Santer single-handedly reversed the ‘climate science’ of the whole IPCC report and with it the global warming political process! The ‘discernible human influence’ supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world, and has been the ‘stopper’ in millions of debates among nonscientists.”
The model situation has deteriorated since Santer’s first efforts because they reduced the number of weather stations used and adjusted the early temperature record to change the gradient to create the outcome to support their thesis. Santer, like all the others, will never be held accountable and so he continues to believe he did nothing wrong, even though he admitted he made the changes.

Seems to me that if Dr. Koonin is going up against Ben Santer he needs to “put on the foil”.