At least Dr. Ben Santer didn't threaten to 'beat the crap out of [me]'

People send me stuff. In this case it is a video by Dr. Ben Santer from the execrable online course on ‘climate denial’ aka Denial101x taught by cartoonist turned climate activist John Cook. I have made it a point to ignore John Cook’s state-sponsored hatefest on this website, but this was just too good to pass up:

santer-wuwtI find a lot of humor in this, because it shows that WUWT has an effect. If Dr. Santer has to devote so much time to suppressing WUWT in his interview, I’d say that’s an improvement in his demeanor from the pre-climategate days:

I’m really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted. –Dr. Ben Santer, Climategate emails

In light of recent developments, Santer’s unfortunate missive pretty well sums up the left’s view of climate change thought – “submit or succumb”.

Here is the video:

Based on the number of view so far, it looks like WUWT will be providing the most views for this course, rather than John Cook’s sycophantic students.

Advertisements

154 thoughts on “At least Dr. Ben Santer didn't threaten to 'beat the crap out of [me]'

  1. sheesh, my teeth are clenched from the no natural causes could do this statement..
    when he admitted theyd NEVER had anything prior to actually be able to use to be so damn sure.

  2. I don’t see much of this in the Aussie MSM, which mostly holds the alarmist view, maybe give it a miss too? Only adding fuel to the Cook’s fire IMO!

  3. So let me get this straight volcanos and solar cycles are not a natural variability?
    I am confused. Define a natural variability for me please.

    • John May 3, 2015 at 5:33 am — Both volcanoes and solar cycles have nothing to do with the Pause. I have determined that the so-called “volcanic cooling” shown on global temperature charts is simply non-existent (see “What Warming?” pp. 17-21). . What are shown as volcanic coolings are all misidentified La Nina valleys belonging to ENSO. I have checked the sunspot data for the last century and found no connection with global temperature. The last weak cycle is not going to change anything.

    • Me too. How are these not natural ? Either Santer is making it up or he has data that says Vulcanism and solar quiet spots are unnatural,

    • I think it’s a matter of semantics. To the IPCC crowd, the sun and volcanoes are considered external forcings, while “natural variability” implies unforced internal variations in the fluid motions of the climate system.
      Not defending it. Just pointing out differences in terminology.

      • Understood. But unless there had been some significant changes in volcanic activity, or solar TSI in last 20 years, how does it matter?

    • Natural variability definition : something that has or may have a short term effect on climate but no long term effect on climate.
      john – yes you obviously are confused. You have confused “natural variability” with “not well understood”. The climate models have comprehensive logic for natural variability. Factors that are not well understood are handled by “parameterization”. All of the natural variability is handled by “parameterization” because it is also not well understood. All “parameterization” is “constrained by observation”, and because climate has always been stable (as shown by multiple proxies such as tree rings) this means that it all reverts to the mean. That in turn gives us the above definition of “natural variability”. There is only one factor in the climate models that does not revert to the mean : man-made GHG forcing. Solar forcing is almost an exception in that the direct forcing from TSI is allowed for, but variations in TSI have been so small that solar cycles have had almost no effect in the past[*], and because the behaviour of the sun is not at all well understood there is no provision for future changes.
      I hope that clears it up for you.
      [*] Some people have argued that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA) were caused by solar variation, but the models contain such a small solar effect that they cannot reproduce any such global warm or cool periods, so therefore the MWP and LIA were just local or regional not global. Note : one of the rules in climate science is that places without thermometers (ex-Europe in the past, deep ocean, etc) can be given whatever temperature is convenient.

    • I am still trying to understand where humanity suddenly became unnatural and are no longer part of natural variability. Did humanity suddenly exempt itself from evolution, if so I missed the article. Was there the second coming and we are now all just supernatural beings that no longer interact with the natural world? Missed that one too.
      I understand the difference between man-made and natural made. Nature makes trees, man makes buildings, it’s really simple. People like John Cook assert nature is a bit player in weather and climate, it is man who tells nature what weather and climate to make and apparently nature acquiesces without complaint. Quite a bit of ego there I would say. On the plus side John Cook has yet to claim man makes trees, even though in his addled mind, to him planting a seed and watching it grow may be the same as making trees.
      Man is part of natural variability, but believing man is the director of weather and climate vs. man being one of many players in the epic drama called earth is extreme self-indulgence to the point of delusion.
      For John Cook, maybe an intervention would help. Or maybe some drugs. Or maybe a lot of drugs. Probably a lot of drugs.

  4. I won’t watch the whole thing, but a few comments while he’s talking.
    He says water vapor concentrations are increasing – how does that jibe with other observations of declining humidity? That’s one thing I’m not all that familiar with.
    He emphasizes “internal climate variability.” That’s one of my least favorite phrases and one of the things I like about WUWT is we don’t use it much – we look at solar, cosmic, and a plethora of other effects. They may add up to “internal climate variability” but when I hear that phrase from a climate scientist, I think they should go off and learn something about it.
    He also says we’ve had a lot of volcanic activity and blames some of the pause on that. The last I saw from studies of atmospheric clarity, volcanoes are are being falsely blamed. But we should keep watching!

    • Ric Werme May 3, 2015 at 5:42 AM — Santers’s “Internal Climate Variability” is just another spelling for “I have no idea.” And volcanism he babbles about is non-existent as I said to John above,

      • For anyone who wants the lowdown on Santer’s fingerprint argument, have a look at the transcript from the Koonin APS Climate Change Workshop here:
        http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf
        Pages 173 – 274 go into it in depth. John Christy gives his presentation on pages 330 – 391, where he discusses Santer’s fingerprint models. I highly recommend reading the whole document, or if time is short then these two sections. It was real eye opener for me on where the science is at today. Dr. Christy comes across as an honest scientist who wants more transparency into the science, he is in favor of independent auditing of climate science claims. Santer seems to be experiencing cognitive dissonance. I think the 90’s warming gave him the incontrovertible proof he was looking for, perhaps he jumped the gun a bit? He’s grasping for any straws he can find to support his argument.

    • @Ric Werme
      May 3, 2015 at 5:42 am
      and
      John
      May 3, 2015 at 5:33 am
      hello there.
      Considering your comments above, I will try to explain how and what I understand from Ben in this one.
      First for you to get my point is to consider that the problem with AGW is not only the temp hiatus but also the ppm of CO2 going up with no regard to the temps.
      Second the human CO2 emissions are basically in g/tones….not ppm……the connection and the link between ppm(s) and g/tones exist only in the AGW scenario, where the ppm and the temps have a very strong connection and dependance and always towards the warming only.
      The reality shows a 20 years of that connection been broken, ppm(s) do not seem to care about temp while still going up.
      Our g/tones of CO2 can not cause the ppm to go up without warming……..but still that is happening.
      Ben in mentioning the volcanoes is trying the last and the only remaining line of defence for the AGW .
      Is understandable and acceptable that internal variability can cause some impact on the supposed AGW.
      For example the oceans can influence a hiatus in temps but after a period of 7 to 10 years if oceans will persist in “killing” the warming also the oceans will start “killing” the ppm(s)………..more warming “killed” by the oceans then less CO2 in the atmosphere, more CO2 absorbed by the oceans..
      So the hiatus can be explained by the oceans behavior only up to a decade at max……..so they already have lost the oceans.
      The only thing left there is the volcanoes.
      For AGW to still survive, a cooling and the CO2 ppm(s) going up in the same time, should be offered by some kind of a process or variability.
      And the only thing shown that can do that is the volcanoes.
      The GCMs must have confirmed that to likes of Ben.
      But there is a very heavy complication with that.
      Fist it means that if Ben favors this as an explanation, than Ben looses any proof that for the last two decades there is any human finger print in climate, unless Ben implies that the volcanoes are not and do not consist as natural or natural variability.
      Because simply considering the reality, than we have experienced a period of the CO2 moving up from somewhere of 370ppm and at least up to 400ppm only due to volcanic activity, when the same activity at the same time has caused the hiatus through aerosols and dimming.
      So every thing that Ben has been searching for these last couple of decades it was not there in the first place. (probably that is why he still keeps going back and sticks with his science and the human finger print in the past and looking at the all wrong places.)
      Second, for such an event to happen there will be needed a “crazy” volcanic activity, one that will not have being missed even if we were completely “blind’ and ‘dumb”.
      But never the less if it can be simulated in a GCM then it must be true and real for these guys., even while that one too still missing in the reality.
      The beauty is that these guys had still to ask the GCMs for help….funny.
      In the end that whole interview of Ben was only a confession and a try to separate himself from Cooks and Nucitellis kinda of science.
      WUWT should be proud as an adversary when mentioned as a such, and SkS should be ashamed when trying to ally now with Ben, as that was not even mentioned in the interview, as far as I can tell.
      cheers

      • “So every thing that Ben has been searching for these last couple of decades it was not there in the first place.”
        If the whole idea that CO2 “warms” the surface turns out to be not so, and in fact, H2O and CO2 both are cooling agents then I suppose Ben will always be looking in the wrong places. In fact, most everyone involved in climate “science” may well be looking in the wrong places. It reminds me of the state sponsored “science” of the old USSR called Lysenkoism — totally wrong but the only politically correct answer to give.

      • Santer the modeller is like a carpenter with a loose board to secure. The problem can be solved with a hammer even if its not the best solution. His paycheck depends on it.

      • > The reality shows a 20 years of that connection been broken, ppm(s) do not seem to care about temp while still going up.
        I’d argue that the apparent connection in the preceding 20 years was also broken and that the temperature was climbing faster than the “it’s all CO2” hypothesis supported.
        BTW, it’s tonnes (or tons), not tones.
        > SkS should be ashamed when trying to ally now with Ben
        SkS has no shame.

      • Insert cartoon here: Drunk looking for lost keys only under the lamppost because that’s where the light is.

      • Ric Werme
        May 3, 2015 at 9:41 am
        “I’d argue that the apparent connection in the preceding 20 years was also broken and that the temperature was climbing faster than the “it’s all CO2″ hypothesis supported.”
        ——————————
        Yes of course you can argue that and you would have a point too, similar, but you see at that time still both were going up, not a very strong arguing against.
        Is like you trying a show a bad marriage so to speak……..when I am point to a clear divorce here…….no warming but ppm(s) still going up the same……. SUCH A LONG TIME DIVORCE THAT CAN NOT EXPLAIN AGW OR BE EXPLAINED UNDER THE AGW APPROACH……
        Hope you get my point in this one.
        Please be so kind and do not mind my grammatical errors or typos, especially if you get the point.
        Some times even the spellchecker fails me….:-)
        cheers

      • markstoval
        May 3, 2015 at 9:17 am
        Very clever..:-)
        Thank you for the reply…..appreciated a lot, honestly. 🙂
        cheers

      • “…For example the oceans can influence a hiatus in temps but after a period of 7 to 10 years if oceans will persist in “killing” the warming also the oceans will start “killing” the ppm(s)………..more warming “killed” by the oceans then less CO2 in the atmosphere, more CO2 absorbed by the oceans…”
        CO2’s solubility in water is an inverse ratio to the temperature of the water. CO2 is less soluble in warmer water. When the water cools, more CO2 enters solution.
        The ocean can not be blamed for the hiatus, or pause. That ‘joules’ of temperature increase alarmist supposition assigns temperature accuracy to equipment that is not that accurate. Nor can cooking the data with statistics reach an ‘average’ temperature of greater accuracy than individual equipment.
        Ben Santer is punch drunk.
        What Santer must know, as well all allegedly competent alarmist climate scientists, is that the whole CAGW theory is busted.
        Temperatures do not match predicted CO2 increased temperatures.
        The whole sad soiled pit of despair known as historical climate data is based on defiled data.
        GCMs, (Global Climate Models), have failed repeatedly. GCMs lack authority because there is no confidence in GCM performance; other than wasting human and super computer time.
        Climate alarmists waving their hands not only fail to pull rabbits out of their, erm, hats, but they also fail to rationally explain climate whether CO2 enhanced or not.
        My apologies for all of the ‘alarmist’ usages; but my other descriptives for those despicable sods make cretinism positively beneficial.

    • Ric, on water vapor Santer is half right. Observed Specific humidity in the upper troposphere (where it matters most for the water vapor feedback) is observationally rising, but not as much as models predict (which is roughly constant relative humidity). Essay Humidity is still Wet. Explains part of model oversensitivity.
      Santer and Solomon’s volcanos excuse for the pause started at 25%, then got reduced in a subsequent paper to 15%. In observational reality rather than statisrical model land, it is zero. The references, explanation, and data are contained in essay Blowing Smoke in book titled the same.

  5. Sorry, but the ‘lecture’ was too cringeworthy for me to endure until the segment on WUWT. IMO, any ‘lecture’ by Ben Santer must be accompanied by supporting data presentations for me to take him seriously. Affirmations from an acknowledged manipulator of the 1995 IPCC summary report is not credible.

    • The models can’t forecast and they can’t hindcast.
      Or for those of you who would rather use the word predict, the models can’t predict and they can’t postdict.
      (Both hindcast and postdict are real words so apparently this spell checker isn’t complete.)

  6. I don’t like to brag, but I also teach a Clmate Science course. It’s called “Making Sense of Climate Science”. I wrote a simple post in my blog to advertise it, and I’m getting a lot of business. I suspect people search the subject and they choose my link.
    This subject has to be incredibly popular. The subsequent post was called “Dark Matter” and it gets about 1/20th the number of views. I think I’m going to start naming my posts using global warming related titles. For example: “Dark Matter doesn’t cause global warming”….

  7. We can’t explain what that light in the sky is so it must be a UFO.
    We can’t explain why the atmospheric temperature is rising so it must be human generated CO2.

    • We can explain why the global lower troposphere warmed from 1977 to 1997. But invoking anthropogenic CO2 provides a much more lucrative means to reach other ideological ends. Scientific method not allowed though.

  8. Skipped through the ‘interview’ just to get a sense of the guy. Sort of a Lewandowsky without the loony eyebrow movements and facial manipulations.
    As far as the narrative, McDonalds brand CAGW. Yawn.
    ( sorry Macca’s – you don’t deserve that – you really are a victim of your own success)
    I increasingly just get this wonderful dose of schedenfreud watching Cook et al as they drivel out their lines. Gosh, it must pay well. It would want to you’d think.

    • The evidence I see in Santer is a facial complexion that cant be explained by “natural” causes, To mine, it is clear evidence of what a very clever lady described as a very “expensive” complexion – e. g. Anthropogenic Alcoholism. Gotta love those alliterations!..

      • “…schedenfreud…schadenfreude…”
        The correction spoils it. I thought we were getting an imported term from psycho-analysis.

  9. Not a single bit of evidence is presented here. Simply a series of provably false statements. Starting with the idea that the lower troposphere has warmed recently when both satellite data sets show that it has not.

    • That is what I got. This guy’s main talent seems to be the ability to lie through his teeth, shamelessly and outrageously, without a stutter or pause.
      Quite a talent. I bet the CAGW high priests just love him.

    • I think it started with his complaint about “early criticisms.” Not one reference for any of them, he just set up a the false controversy that he wanted to answer.
      Also perhaps we can stop saying “hiatus” or “pause” as these imply we know the temp rise will continue.
      and start saying plateaued, or “stabilized” global temps, since there has been no increase, and we can surmise there may well be a decline in the future.

      • I like the word stopped to describe the global temperature rise. Stopped it is and it will stay stopped until it starts again

  10. I watched about half of Santer’s talk and skimmed thru the rest. In the part about “Mr. Watts” and WUWT he misrepresents the views expressed here by Anthony, Willis, and virtually all others regarding the human contribution to the general Global Warming over the past several decades. There IS a human contribution, due to unprecedented burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, but our contribution is a fraction of the actual warming, and in no way a threat to the overall health of our environment. There is NO “tipping point”, NO impending “catastrophe”. As I put it in a WUWT posting, GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL, BUT NOT A BIG DEAL.
    (See my postings as a Guest Contributor http://wattsupwiththat.com/author/iraglickstein/)
    Santer talks about computer models and how a pause of a decade or more is possible due to natural variability, but he misrepresented the total failure of virtually ALL the officia models to project the current pause, now running to 18 years and still counting. And this in the face of continual CO2 levels rising at higher rates. The official models are handcuffed to CO2 levels and therefore unable to recognize that natural variability dwarfs the effects of the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect. In short, their estimate of CLIMATE SENSITIVITY (how much the surface will warm given a doubling of Atmospheric CO2) IS HIGH BY AT LEAST A FACTOR OF TWO, AND PERHAPS HIGH BY A FACTOR OF THREE OR MORE.
    And, did you all notice that, except for the first 10 seconds of his 35 minute talk, Santer couldn’t look his video audience directly in the eye?
    Ira Glickstein

    • GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL, BUT NOT A BIG DEAL.

      If I may suggest some refinement to that I’d rather choose the words
      Global warming SEEMS real, but IS not a big deal.

      • Gglobal warming SEEMS real, but IS not a big deal.
        ^Anthropogenic
        The null hypothesis is alive and well.

      • Thanks for your reply, Non Nomen, but the facts support my statement that Global Warming IS REAL (not simply that it SEEMS real).
        The official IPCC accounting of terrestrial thermometer readings shows a net increase of about 0.8⁰C (about 1.5⁰F) since 1880. While I think “data adjustments” have increased the apparent warming by a few tenths of a degree, I accept that net warming since 1880 is at least 0.5⁰C (about 1⁰F).
        The satellite record, which is certainly more precise and accurate than terrestrial thermometers, shows a net warming of about 0.3⁰C since 1979, which is also quite REAL.
        Of course, that same satellite record also shows no net warming in the most recent 18 years or so, during which CO2 levels have continued their rapid rise, which invalidates the IPSS Climate Sensitivity estimate of 1.5⁰C to 4.5⁰C, and argues for a Climate Sensitivity of less than 1.0⁰C, and perhaps below 05⁰C.
        Also, there is no doubt that the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect is REAL, and that “Greenhouse Gasses”, particularly H2O and CO2, are responsible for the Earth Surface being around 33⁰C warmer than it would be if our Atmosphere was, for instance, pure nitrogen.
        Ira Glickstein

    • Isn’t he responding to a person asking the questions off camera? And I don’t know if Santer was one of those CAGW supporters who said the failure of the models required 11 years, then 13 years, then 15 years and now he says 17 years?

    • I enjoy your posts & comments, Ira. Wondered last week where you’d been lately.

      • Jorgekafkazar: Thanks for your kind words and I fondly remember your past support and your informed and wise comments. For nearly a year now, I’ve been trying to fill out and document what I think may be an insight I’ve had regarding Einstein’s special and general relativity. I’m scheduled to talk about it at our Science/Technology Club here in The Villages, FL, on 22 June 2015 and I plan to post my ideas on my blog: TVPClub.blogspot.com Ira

  11. This is good stuff, I know people who have mixed beliefs about AGW, they know about the pause, but they also counter that the “climate catastrophe crowd” can’t just be a conspiracy. All I need do is show then this and their notion of reasonable and prudent climate scientists will go poof!
    As an aside, last year Climate Progress published an article about the Great Lakes “drying up” due to AGW. They used a picture at Greilickville, an unincorporated community adjacent to Traverse City. Yesterday there was a moderate north-north east wind off the West Arm of Grand Traverse and I had to use my windshield wipers on a warm sunny day because the water is so high that the breaking waves were sending spray onto M-22, at yes you guessed it, Greilickville.

  12. Anthony, you are in good company as both Judith Curry and Fred Singer also received honorable mentions.
    My take-away: he resented people attacking his research and not just accepting the 1995 Chapter 8 closing remark that humans by burning fossil fuels were (adversely) changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere.
    A number of his comments, given today’s attacks on Skeptic’s right of free speech, were telling as he complained of being demonized and being a target: (“going after the individual”, “Don’t try and demonize the individual scientist”, “going after the funding”, “go after the scientist” etc. etc.).
    He also does not like the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) as it takes time away from actual research.
    So you pesky Skeptic’s, stop asking questions, testing and asking for the data to back up those claims. The science is settled. Got it?

    • It would seem to be a real stretch of language to call what he does research. He knows the results, and always has, long before he does a single thing.
      Which makes him a tea leaf reader. And expert hand waver.

  13. To me “fingerprints” are simply observations that help provide hypotheses that need to be proven. They always seem to leave out that second part.

  14. Ben Santer,
    Since there is evidence in your video (used in the Edx online course ‘Making Sense of Climate Science Denial’) that you pay attention to WUWT blog discussions and that you think WUWT has impact on the climate science dialog, then I presume this comment will reach you.
    I would like you to point to links at the WUWT blog where Anthony Watts himself explicitly or implicitly stated the positions on climate science you say in your video he holds.
    Do you think a professional with integrity working at a US National Laboratory should refrain from intellectual trickery?
    John

  15. Isn`t Dr. Ben Santer that nice IPPC-guy who was mentioned in the leaked climategate e-mails 2009?
    In the Jesse Ventura Talkshow at 19.12.2009 Santer admittet to have deleted those parts from chapter 8 of the draft of the 2. IPCC-Report 1996, which expressly negated a human caused climate change.
    The so faked IPCC-Report 1995 was the crucial basis for the Kyoto-Protokoll 1997. Fred Singer wrote an Essay in 2000: media.hoover.org/documents/epp_102b.pdf
    By the way: UAH 6.0 shows 0,07 K global TLT-anomaly for april 2015: Where the hell ist global warming/climate change…?

  16. Most of these guys, like Santer, started off honest and excited about what seemed a plausible theory and were excited about the science. Hey, I too, believed we were possibly causing a serious problem early in the game. That they were naive about the ideologue opportunists in the background who were entrapping these fellows with endless research funds, exotic locales and rock star status into an enterprise they had no inkling of is clear when Santer mentioned sitting with Schneider in a Madrid bar. Schneider, sitting in his web, flattered Santer on the closing statement in the IPPC 1995 report (he still doesn’t get it) – ‘with those few words, your life will change forever’ (not exact quote). It still brings sweet memories to Santer. Let’s hall out the quote that defines Schneider for all time regarding getting the message out:
    “Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
    (it’s part of a much larger quote that still makes him look just as bad – google it)
    Let’s not forget that Schneider was also endorsing action on the “underestimated” seriousness of the cooling that was widely believed to bring us to our end in the 1970s.
    Now, after a span of most of a career, the unexpteced and dreaded ‘pause’ has interrupted Santer’s and friends’ festive climate Shangri la and is slowly eating them alive, protests to the contrary. They now are desperately fending off doubts, not by dissenters but in their own minds. This natural psychological DNile makes them a tad mean, especially against skeptics whom they could pooh pooh before, and dishonest to an extreme in how they characterize skeptics and how they rationalize the pause.

    • Warmists increasingly project the evil contents of their own Shadow upon those who disagree with them. It was clear from Climategate revelations that warrmist cant would grow increasingly shrill, violent, and outré, a perfect reincarnation of Socialist Lysenkoism.

  17. Do you think a professional with integrity working at a US National Laboratory should refrain from intellectual trickery?
    ===============
    why stop now? for 20 years climate science has been turning gold into lead.

    • ferdberple on May 3, 2015 at 8:42 am
      – – – – – – – – –
      ferdberple,
      I responded to your comment directed to me. It is below at John Whitman on May 3, 2015 at 11:21 am .
      John

  18. In the interview with Dr Santer he says about the recent spate of warming (I won’t mention the mislabelled “pause” or “hiatus”): “Volcanoes can’t do it. The sun can’t do it. Internal climate variability can’t do it, nor can some combination of natural causes: volcanoes, the sun, and internal variability generate that complex pattern of warming low down and cooling of the upper atmosphere. The only thing that we know of that can generate that distinctive fingerprint is human-caused increase in heat-trapping greenhouse gasses, and human-caused depletion in the upper atmosphere of stratospheric ozone.”
    This reminds me other similar arguments: we don’t know what caused the Big Bang – it must be God did it, or we don’t know how life originated on Earth – it must be God did it.
    Over the past million years there have been ice ages about every 100KY interspersed with warm interglacials. Each of those warming periods, including the current interglacial, have been as a result of natural causes and many of then considerably warmer than at present. (http://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-notes/glad-you-asked/ice-ages-what-are-they-and-what-causes-them/)
    Why would those natural causes no longer influence climate since about 100 years ago?

  19. This is just a discussion of every “excuse” in the book.
    It is just self-talk using every excuse possible trying to convince oneself you might still be right even though your brain sub-consciously knows you are wrong.
    In the long-run, when global warming does not happen, they will have to face reality and there will be some psychological breaks.

  20. I have looked and looked throughout my old undergraduate and graduate physics notes and just can’t find where we derived “fingerprints.” I must have missed that day.

    • FAH on May 3, 2015 at 8:54 am
      – – – – – –
      FAH,
      I think the supporters of the climate change movement trying to emulate science had little practical strategy when they said fingerprints, it makes more sense that they should have looked for footprints. N’est ce pas?
      John

  21. Could someone familiar with the satellite and balloon measurements comment on Santer’s claim that there is a “human fingerprint” in the vertical temperature gradient of the atmosphere?

    • Santer is wrong. And he knows it.
      See John Christy’s 2014 APS testimony for observational proof concerning three major ‘fingerprints’. Google to find either this at APS or via Climate Etc. links to APS.
      1. No tropical troposphere hotspot as predicted by CMIP5 models.
      2. Temperature lapse rate (vertical temperature gradient) not as predicted by CMIP5 models.
      3. Lower troposphere temperature not rising as predicted by CMIP5 models (the ‘pause’).
      Christy presents both satellite and radiosonde (weather balloon) data for all three.

  22. I’ll admit I was curious as to how many people clicked on the Cook denier-course YouTube videos. I added to those who have watched the Santer interview. Then I clicked on the main YouTube page for the course. It starts with an overview of the course.
    https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/cooks-denial-course-1.png
    As of about 11:30AM eastern (U.S.) today, that video had about 670 views.
    That’s really odd. According to Tony Thomas’s post at JoNova…
    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/uqs-denial-101x-putting-the-stink-in-distinction/
    …13,000 people had signed up for the course. So only about 5% of those who enrolled in the course took the time to view the overview.
    Looking at the rest of the playlist, the viewers ranged from less than 70 to less than 700, with the interview with Michael Mann bringing down a whopping 60 views. Again, it was reported that 13,000 people enrolled in the course. Could John Cook be inflating numbers again?
    https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/cooks-denial-course-2.png
    Odd how YouTube recommended for me the Rolling Stones “Sympathy for the Devil”.

      • I don’t know about Cook, but Psychology is well known for attracting people who are a little off, mentally. The psych instructor at my university confirmed that in class. For example:
        “My roomate my last two years of college was a psychology major and she said that at least 50% of her classmates were batshit insane upon arrival and she figured that was what attracted them to the study of mental illness in the first place…” –fshgrl *
        Fortunately, after developing some insight, and a little therapy in the course of their studies, many of them drop out. Perhaps Cook sensibly foresees a need for extensive therapy among his many warmist familiars when the global warming bubble bursts.
        * http://ask.metafilter.com/101795/Can-you-become-ill-by-studying-illness

    • Bob
      I also wondered about the 13,000 figure.
      Recently posted on JoNova’s site on that thread is this
      “Pat Lane
      May 4, 2015 at 3:58 pm · Reply
      The map on the course site show 2206 registered as of 3:49 PM AEST 4/5/2015. I’m not sure where 13,000 came from”
      So it looks like Cook is making figures up again !!!

      • He seems to have an issue with basic arithmetics. His epic 97% failure made it obvious before. May be he had a rash of recursive fury?

  23. Santer back then: Those stupid skeptics. They think its natural variability. It would take 17 years of no warming to disprove the models and show that natural variability dominates.
    Santer now: Those stupid skeptics. They just don’t understand that natural variability is dominant, that’s why there’s been no warming for the last 18 years.
    Erlich: Congrats. You’ve discovered the fine art of being completely and totally wrong and keeping your job.

    • davidmhoffer
      That pretty much sums up what Santer has said and says now.
      Thirty years ago it was skeptics who said that the “supposedly observed” warming might be attributable to internal variability (or natural variability as it was generally called at the time) in the climate system. The hotheads then wrote numerous PEER REVIEWED PAPERS debunking such a crazy idea. (The flat part of Mann’s hockey stick was a display of a climate that was unchanging for thousands of years before CO2 disrupted it.) CO2 was an all powerful fire breathing dragon scorching the earth!
      And then the pause.
      Suddenly internal variability was a fire extinguisher easily snuffing out the dragon. Forget all those peer reviewed papers and Mann’s hockey stick — all that SETTLED SCIENCE. (And most importantly forget about attributing the concept of internal variability to skeptics who were the first proponents of it. Can’t admit that skeptics were right about something. Just steal their work and pretend it is your own.)
      HEY! SANTER! WE AIN’T LIVING INSIDE THE NOVEL “1984”. THERE ARE NO MEMORY HOLES DOWN WHICH YOUR PREVIOUS “GENIUS” PRONOUNCEMENTS HAVE BEEN DISAPPEARED!
      Eugene WR Gallun .

      • Yes but just you wait until the CO2 Dragon gets his breath back. Then you will be sorry.

  24. Having listened to as much as I could, this gentleman should be encouraged to speak to the public more often, he is boring, overly certain of his infallibility and seems to love the sound of his own voice.
    As with The Mann, a natural anti agent for the cause he has staked his career on.
    Strikes me this could be the poster boy for voluntary funding of public science.
    Cancel any funding by taxpayer,let us fund these people directly.

    • john robertson on May 3, 2015 at 9:24 am
      – – – – – – – – –
      john robertson,
      Interesting point.
      I think most independent citizens, after listening to Santer’s video (used in the Edx online course ‘Making Sense of Climate Science Denial’), would not be enthusiastic about maintaining gov’t funding relevant to his contentions.
      The more public the positions of such science emulators are in the area of climate dialog, then the more clear the public realization will be that they are not purveyors of a circumspect position on climate.
      John

  25. I just watched the whole video, he is a good speaker.
    Not a word about human resourcefulness.
    I’m like, hit me with your best shot Gaia.
    I’m kinda bored right now, bring it on !!

  26. Dr. Santer DRE hears this in his mind as he rolls through the hood in his pimped-out Prius.
    LET ME RIDE
    by Dr. DRE
    Caution: NSFL – Not suitable for listening (unless you’re a 13 year old or a climate scientist).

  27. at about 14:00; “instead,his [Watts] focus has been to cast doubt on the motives and reputations of individual scientists,rather than to truly shed light on complex scientific issues, a shame” First, that’s so far from the truth, that I’m not sure how he can gets away with saying it. This is the reason that WUWT is so interesting and informative- most the posts are rebuttals to claims based on science, not name calling. But even if it were true, why doesn’t he point out the “shame” in what the CAGW folks have done to many skeptical scientists (such as Willie Soon)- how is it shedding light on complex-scientific issues to simply claim “He’s being funded by energy companies”…. Jeez the hypocrisy is amazing.

  28. Hilarious: volcanic activity is NOT natural climate variability…, that’s an external factor. @12:25

  29. If they want to get some real legs/views on this video they should market it as a cure for insomnia. What snooze fest!

  30. Grant funding is the life blood of research.
    “No bucks, no Buck Rogers.”
    Most scientists would do anything for grant money, be it lie through their teeth, wade through a pool of sh*t, or pimp their sisters, mother, and grandmothers.
    “Climate change” is one of the few areas of research that continues to be well-funded and there is no way that the beneficiaries are going to put that at risk no matter what.

  31. ferdberple on May 3, 2015 at 8:42 am said
    [@ John Whitman on May 3, 2015 at 8:18 am ]
    “ . . .for 20 years climate science has been turning gold into lead”

    ferdberple,
    Appreciate your response.
    Is publically funded climate science, like Santer’s work product (which is evidenced by his video), turning “gold into lead”? That question makes me think of this,

    Final paragraph of the conclusion section of Terence Kealey’s book ‘The Economic Laws of Scientific Research’ (Macmillan Press / St. Martin’s Press 1996); Kealey wrote,
    “I believe that Francis Bacon [1561-1626], who categrorised some intellectual errors as Idols of the Tribe or Idols of the Market Place, would agree with me [Kealy] were he to return to judge today. His linear model [of technological advance through government funding of science] and his dirigisme [state control of economic and social matters] have failed and he could recognise that. The Market Place does not worship false Idols, it makes empirically correct judgements. It is the government funding of science that is an Idol of the Tribe.”

    I recommend Kealey’s book as source of perspective on the State’s influence on science.
    John

  32. Just listened to it, and came to (@ ~13 minutes) where Ben Santer is claiming that:
    “folks like Mr Watts [] have maintained that all that is going on in the real world is natural climate variability”
    As far as I can see, that must be a blatant lie (or at best complete ignorance).
    Anotther noteworthy quote (@ ~23 min):

    “the fundamental difference between the folks here, at AGU, who are trying to advance understanding, and the destroyers. People who are not capable of building new understanding, not capable of creating .. all they want to they want to do is obstruct, delay, and destroy, They have no real interest in better understanding what is going on in our world. And that’s the fundamental distinction to me. On the one hand people who really do love understanding and on the other hand people who really couldn’t care less about understanding, they only want to win”

    This was in response to a question about the IPCC and his sentence 1995 “the balance of evidence suggests a discernibale human influence” which he admitted was the very last sentence they agreed upon.
    @ ~27 min (paraphrasing)
    FOIA requests were not sincere, not to gain understanding, but to threaten and to inimidate

  33. Australian….. English for thief,robber, murderer,rapist,etc.Let’s put the blame back on the ones who created it, Britain. And this guy has an obviously mental disease. Or is just a welfare dick.

  34. Sanger is such a scumbag…
    He says that “some” CAGW climate model runs show up to 15-year pauses, but fails to mention that “some” is actually only 2%. He also fails to mention that 0.00% of CAGW climate model runs show 20 years or more of flat/falling global trends..
    Santer knows the following, but lied in this interview:
    -Even IPCC’s AR5 report states no increasing trends of severe weather frequency/intensity for 50~100 years.
    -There is absolutely no empirical evidence showing a runaway feedback loop involving water vapor concentrations.
    -Arctic Ice has been recovering since 2007
    -Antarctic Ice extents are setting 35-yr record sizes.
    -ocean pH has been stuck at 8.1 for 100+ years.
    -Sea level rise has been stuck at just 6 inches per CENTURY for 200 years.
    -there are many valid reasons other than CO2 that can explain the tiny 0.05C/decade trend of global warming since 1850 (sunspot activity and LIA recovery to name 2)
    Etc.
    Santer and all the CAGW alarmists realize the gig is up. They’re now simply trying to keep it going for as long as possible before it’s tossed on the trash heap of failed ideas.

  35. just a glorified bureaucrat trying to justify his own position and the continued growth of his bureaucracy.
    There were so many untruths here that I almost gave up listening, but I continued until the bitter end. All I really learned was that Santer would be an ideal apologist for the machinations of Michael Mann and his ilk.

  36. A Santeroid is what you get when a problem that doesn’t exist is none the less injected into the global conversation then to become part of the government agenda, and for which there is no solution. Along comes a Santeroid filled with concern and the ability to attract government agenda cash for a non-problem with no solution and for which there is no end in sight. The Santeroids, professionally concerned, become drones in the non-problem ecosystem and are the big winners. Very reminiscent of the Commie Red Scare propaganda followed by Kennedy’s SE Asia “Domino Effect” of my youth.

  37. John Cook who has posted an image of himself online dressed in an SS uniform has the gall to refer to “Denialists”

  38. What jumped out at me was the seamless transition from “detectable” human influence to “strong” human influence.
    Although I share others’ skepticism of the “fingerprint” (proof), I consider it likely that (given the radiative properties of the CO2 molecule) our CO2 emissions have some effect on the climate. But so far it has been slight. So how does he get to “strong”?
    The trick is going from “detectable” to “disturbing”. If you accept that it is disturbing, then it does not seem to be a leap to go to “strong”. But the assertion that it is disturbing has nothing to do with the magnitude of the influence. Rather, it is simply taken for granted that any influence by humans is disturbing. So even a small influence is “disturbing”, and therefore it is “strong”.
    So far the evidence is that increasing CO2 is beneficial — better crop yields and a bit warmer climate. Calling it “disturbing” is a about valuing a “pristine” world not influenced by humans. It has nothing to do with evidence of harm.

    • Bryan,
      If Santer is referring to either a “detectable” human influence, or a “strong” human influence, I challenge him to post testable measurements quantifying whatever it is he ‘detects’, and explain exactly how he detected it.
      It is very frustrating seeing these guys constantly asserting that they have verifiable evidence that quantifies ‘detectable’ man-made global warming (MMGW), out of total global warming from all sources. What is the fraction of MMGW? Santer doesn’t say.
      The entire debate is over the alarmists’ measurement-free claim that dangerous MMGW is occurring. But as you point out, there is no evidence that anything of the sort is happening. Despite the steady rise in (harmless, beneficial) CO2, global temperatures have been in stasis for close to twenty years. How does that compute with their predictions? Every alarming prediction they made has been wrong. Every one of them.
      If, as Santer claims, there is “detectable” MMGW, then how did he detect it? And if he detected it, what percentage of total warming from all sources does MMGW comprise? The answer to both questions seems to be a secret.
      No wonder Santer disabled comments. It’s for the same reason that he and his alarmist cohorts refuse to debate the skeptics of dangerous MMGW: all Santer has are his assertions. He has no verifiable, testable measurements that would withstand even the mildest scrutiny.

      • average joe,
        Thanks for the link. I’ve read a lot of it now, but there’s more to go before I can say I’ve got everything down. Best to start at the very beginning though. Prof. Lindzen, Dr. Christy and others have worthwhile comments prior to p. 173.
        But what comes across loud and clear is Santer’s central statement:
        “These are all model calculations.”
        That was my point above. There is no empirical, testable evidence quantifying MMGW. Everything is based on models. And we know that models reflect the desires of thier inventors.
        I’ll finish the meeting report. But I don’t really expect Santer to produce any evidence quantifying a ‘fingerprint of man made global warming’. Despite many years of debate, that is one thing no one has ever quantified. No one has produced testable evidence allowing them to accurately predict that X rise in CO2 will cause Y rise in global T.
        Rather, it’s all rank speculation, fueled by mountains of grant money.
        Always ask: Cui bono?

      • I agree.
        The debate is about the claim that dangerous MMGW is occurring.
        However, sometimes they like to move the goalposts.
        In analytical chemistry, we talk about detection vs. measurement. Sometimes the concentration of an analyte cannot be quantified, but the presence of the analyte can be detected.
        I think this is the way that Santer is using “detectable”. His claim is that this “fingerprint” establishes that AGW exists (is detected). He does not claim (in this video at least) that it is quantified.
        My point is that he and his target audience agree that ANY human influence on the climate is “disturbing”, which means that it is “strong”, which means that fossil fuel use must be curtailed in favor of more expensive sources of energy, in spite of the hardships that entails. He thinks he does not need to quantify it. If humans are affecting the climate AT ALL, then “solutions” must be found.
        Personally, I think the concept that we can change the climate is sobering, and we should study it. And if we find that CO2 is harmful then we should treat it as a pollutant (commensurate with the determined harm). But it seems silly to me to promote expensive “solutions” just on the basis that a CO2 influence is “detectable”. I think this silly reaction is an emotional one based on placing a very high value on some ideal (not-existent) “pristine” earth untouched by human beings.

  39. I don’t think you are misrepresenting the science.
    I just don’t think you understand it.

    • Well, that’s that then. Siberian Husky says we cannot grasp the science, Woe is me.

      • If you understood it, you would:
        a) have a PhD
        b) have published in proper journals
        Sadly you meet neither of these criteria.

      • That is beyond ridiculous. There are plenty of readers here who understand just as much as climate ‘scientists’ like Michael Mann, and probably more.
        There are even more who know more than S. Husky, who is pretty good at parroting talking points, but really bad at admitting that exactly none of the alarming predictions by his co-religionists have come true.
        Now, about Husky’s Beliefs:
        a) Lots of commenters here have a PhD, and there are more than 9,000 PhD’s who co-signed the OISM Petition, which debunks the alarmist cause. The Siberian cannot produce anywhere near that number of alarmist PhD’s. He can try to prove me wrong at any time.
        And:
        b) Anyone who has read the Climategate email dump knows that the climate peer review system is so thoroughly corrupt that it is completely worthless.
        Even mainstream peer review is riddled with fakes and hoaxes. Do a search, and see how many bogus papers are routinely approved.
        The dog’s usual Appeal to Authority logical fallacy is all he’s got. He certainly doesn’t have any good facts or evidence to support what he believes. If he did, he would post his evidence, instead of his a & b nonsense.

  40. Only feminists and deeply rotten people disable comments in their videos. That alone is a thermometer of intent.

  41. What was that bit about stratospheric temperature can’t be affected by volcanoes?
    https://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/uah_tls_365d.png
    The drop in TLS is not a long slide, it is two step changes that are clearly marked with a volcanic “fingerprint”.
    Only by ignoring that clear signal and attempting to draw a straight line trend through it can you turn it into a human “fingerprint”.

    • “…two step changes…”
      Like the 1998 El Nino [looks as if it] produced a step-change upwards in LTT of 0.3C.
      “…attempting to draw a straight line trend through it…”
      See my comment a little lower down.

  42. We also see a “pause” in TLS since around 1996, so where’s the human “fingerprint” in that one Ben ?

  43. You have a monotonic rise in CO2 . So you draw a striaght line through any other data you can find that has large variability, call it a “trend” dismiss the difference a “noise” and pretend it matches the monotonic rise in CO2 .
    Voila ! FINGERPRINTS everywhere.

    • It works for Roundup use and autism. Glyphosate fingerprint! GMO fingerprint! “Monsatan” fingerprint!
      (It works for organic food too…)

    • “…call it a “trend”…”
      Time is never an explanatory variable. If you can put a straight line through a time series and the regression program says it is “significant”, all it means is that something happened during that period. It could be ANYTHING – including a step-change or a random walk which happened to diverge. The proper term for a series which is neither obviously periodic nor obviously completely random is SYMPTOMATIC, not “trending”.

  44. “13000 is the ‘official’ Cook/UQ estimate touted in SMH. Maybe most are not doing their homework.”
    Latest figures reported by Bob T shows about 60 views for each video. According to Cook’s counting methods that comes in at around 97.2% of those who signed up.
    Pretty solid consensus building going there.

    • Of course they disable comments, they don’t have editorial control on youtube.
      The can’t delete comments by people they disagree with, they can’t edit what they wrote and pretend they never said it.
      They’d be crazy to allow comments.

  45. Where I live was a km deep in ice just a few thousand years ago, Vancouver BC. Does he think Yosemite was contoured by wind?
    The problem is these modlers have no frame of reference. There is no persice record of sea or atmosphere temps, or CO2 for that matter that extend back in time. Proxies are only proxies. He, Schmidt, Jones, Mann or other alarmists have no real paleo data, only weak proxies.

  46. I’m currently enrolled and sitting through this “course”. In week one i learned:
    1. There’s absolutely no doubt about the science. There are magical ‘fingerprints’ that prove dangerous global warming beyond all question. In week three we’ll learn all about these mysterious dabs.
    2. Doubting dangerous climate change is really a kind of personality disorder. Anyone with a conservative bent is particularly at risk.
    3. It’s a coincidence that climate sceptics are called ‘deniers’ and it has nothing to do with holocaust denial.
    4. Climate deniers are heavily funded by big business line Exxon and the poor climate scientists are David to that wicked deniers Goliath.
    I’m not sure I can stand the full seven weeks, but I’ll at least get through week three.
    Pat

    • Thank you Sceptical Pat,
      I would appreciate it very much if you could indicate which claims were made by whom.
      (I only watched Santer, but couldn’t bring myself to listen to Oreskes, wich was the next youtube-clip … can’t imagine that she has anything novel to contribute, never had)

  47. Sorry, I missed one: Mr. Cook explained the consensus is really, really important because many Americans don’t believe in dangerous AGW, but are likely to be influenced by consensus. Consensus, therefore, is a marketing ploy, with nothing to do with science.

  48. A superintendent at an oilfield where I worked once said to me, “Crozier, if you don’t shut up I’m gonna wipe a booger on you.”
    I was 18 at the time. After watching this corny video, I finally understand how he felt.

  49. I just wanted to give Ben a pacifier while watching this video. My goodness. What a thin skinned baby he comes across as. Oh and BTW, when you write that there is a discernible human fingerprint on global warming and there isn’t, then it is likely that many will be critical of your “science”. head/desk, repeat.

  50. It appears that Cook’s Q&A on reddit was nothing more than a shameless plug for his online propaganda YouTube course.
    Re: Santer’s video, he would be destroyed by any competent trail attorney if he were crossed on any of his wild, unsubstantiated, speculations.

Comments are closed.