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:
I 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.
In my neck of the woods it is a felony to threaten someone.
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.
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
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 !!
Dr.
SanterDRE 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).
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.
Hilarious: volcanic activity is NOT natural climate variability…, that’s an external factor. @12:25
See, the science is settled. That is why he disabled comments I am sure.
er… exactly what “fingerprint” was that in the “fingerprint studies”?
If they want to get some real legs/views on this video they should market it as a cure for insomnia. What snooze fest!
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.
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,
I recommend Kealey’s book as source of perspective on the State’s influence on science.
John
Ben Santer demonstrates that the best bullshit artists are the ones that believe their own bullshit.
Just listened to it, and came to (@ur momisugly ~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 (@ur momisugly ~23 min):
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.
@ur momisugly ~27 min (paraphrasing)
FOIA requests were not sincere, not to gain understanding, but to threaten and to inimidate
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.
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.
The D-word (Denier) is rife all over the discussion forum. When I started a thread about it, it was quickly shut down.
Sorry, typo – when not whet …
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.
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.
John Cook who has posted an image of himself online dressed in an SS uniform has the gall to refer to “Denialists”
TedM,
Here is Cook’s self-image:
I am still astonished that anyone whould do a selfie as a neo-Nazi. The guy is either mentally unbalanced or…
…he’s a neo-Nazi.
Maybe both.
The charitable explanation is that he thought it would be a goofy complement to his organization’s initials.
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.
dbstealey – Santer lays out his case for detecting the human fingerprint in this pdf:
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf
Start on page 173. Lots of detail and charts, about 100 pages.
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.
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.
Sadly, you provided your qualifications your first three words.
He should call you “Dr. Watts” not “Mr. Watts.”
Only feminists and deeply rotten people disable comments in their videos. That alone is a thermometer of intent.
What was that bit about stratospheric temperature can’t be affected by volcanoes?
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.