Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Ben Santer, who infamously once threatened to beat up climate skeptic Pat Michaels (see Climategate email 1255100876.txt), has offered his services to President-elect Trump as a member of America’s “unarmed forces”.
Dear President-elect Trump—Don’t listen to the ‘ignorant voices’ on climate change
Ben Santer, member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
Dear Mr. President-elect,
On Day 1 of your presidency, you will be faced with many significant challenges. Climate change is one of them. It will be there on every day of your presidency. It is indifferent to politics and to poll numbers. It does not care about national boundaries, or race or religion. It already impacts our lives and our livelihoods, and will have greater impact each year. It will be the backdrop against which all key events of the 21st century play out.
If you do not treat this problem seriously, it will grow. You won’t be able to ignore it. You won’t be able to isolate yourself or the United States from climate change. There is no sanctuary from its effects.
But if you choose to tackle climate change, you will have tremendous resources to draw on. You now preside not only over our armed forces, but also over powerful unarmed forces. You have access to the expertise of government-funded scientists who have spent their careers observing climate change, probing its causes, and trying to find creative solutions to the problems it poses. These women and men did not choose this work to get rich quick, or to alter world systems of government. The work chose them. They wanted to do something that mattered. They wanted to understand the climate system, and learn how it ticks.
I am one member of those unarmed forces. Thirty-five years ago, I signed up for a life in science. The attraction was the joy of discovering interesting stuff about this strange and beautiful world in which we live. In the last thirty-five years, I learned two things. First, human actions are changing Earth’s climate. Second, if we do nothing to address this problem, likely outcomes are bad. I want our country and our planet to avoid bad outcomes – which is why I’ve chosen to speak out publicly. I am not alone – thousands of my scientific colleagues are voicing their concerns.
…
Read more: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/22/trump-climate-change-take-action.html
Ben Santer is an old WUWT favourite, one of the more colourful characters in the Climategate drama.
Aside from the bizarre physical threat against Pat Michaels, he wrote emails describing being audited by Steve McIntyre as the 21st century equivalent of public hanging (Climategate email 3356.txt), and complained about “scientific competitors” using FOIA requests to access datasets before he was finished with them (Climategate email 1231257056.txt). He expressed concern about intentional or unintentional “misuse” of datasets by scientists who disagreed with his position (Climategate email 1229468467.txt). He wrote an apology to colleagues when McIntyre forced him to publish some of his data (Climategate email 1229468467.txt).
Santer also put his foot in it when he said in 2011, that periods of 17 years or more are required to identify the human footprint in the climate record. When 17 years came and went without any rise in temperature. Santer in 2015 tried to explain the pause as being due to lots of small volcanoes suppressing the anthropogenic signal.
I kindof hope President-elect Trump accepts Santer’s offer, keeps him around as the voice of climate science. The entertainment value of Ben Santer’s clown act would in my opinion justify the public expense.
Team Trump to Ben Santer: Thank you for your interest in helping with this matter. We’ve decided to go another way, but will keep your name on file for future reference. You know, just in case pigs really do fly.
Or something like this:
Dear Mr. Santer:
Thank you for your kind offer. From your CV I see you were employed as a researcher at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and currently you are a climate researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
If you would be so kind to tell me if your research at the LLNL is financed by federal budget?
If affirmative you are indeed correct to look for a new employment. Regretfully my administration’s main aim is to save and not fritter away taxpayers money.
Yours etc.
One nit: delete regretfully. There is nothing regretful about wanting to save taxpayer money.
“. . . human actions are changing Earth’s climate. Second, if we do nothing to address this problem, likely outcomes are bad. I want our country and our planet to avoid bad outcomes – which is why I’ve chosen to speak out publicly. I am not alone – thousands of my scientific colleagues are voicing their concerns. . .”
Surely he jests?
________________
Dear Mr. Santer:
Thank you for your application. Strange, but we seem to have a backlog of these type applications. At present, the staff is following up on a tip that moles are applying for positions similar to the one you seek.
We’ll be in touch.
TT
How about, Dear Mr Santer, I have just the job for you. There is a place and position at the North Pole which is presently filled by a Mr Claus. His duties are to receive requests from many of the younger world citizens and act upon them. Mr Claus is due for retirement and this may be a great position for a man of your calibre. We are also aware of your concern for polar bears and other polar animals and we would be pleased if you could keep an eye on them as well as your duties.
Cheers
Roger
Perhaps Donald could also ask him, where is the data that East Anglia infamously lost. You know, the data that “proves” their take on Climate Change? Perhaps it will be found with that of the Kiwigate Scandal, as you will recall, the same thing happened to the raw data in support of New Zealand’s climate scientists claims. Was it the same dog that ate their homework?
My reply would be: Mr Santer, Christmas is over, you’re fired !
I think what he actually said ( to one of his climategate co-conspirators ) is that he would be “tempted to hit him”.
So this article falsely claims that he “threatened” Michaels. To threaten someone you need to say it to them , not say it in private to someone else.
“Beat-up” is also a gross exaggeration of wanting to hit some one.
Since this site has been campaigning rigorously against the exaggerated claims of climate pseudo-scientists, it would be good to avoid doing the same thing too.
Greg, I’m not familiar with the incident and unable to comment one way or the other
Either way, it is totally unprofessional conduct.
From the tenor of the ClimateGate emails, it is clear that the Alarmists’ Cabal got their own way by ‘muscling’ people around in a manner worthy of the Mafia: if not by direct physical violence, by threat of, by indicative innuendo (as in this case), by elbowing non-consenting parties out of “the Club”, out of being published, out of their tenure, being discredited, and the litany of other devious means to which we have most unfortunately become accustomed.
Case closed.
Greg misremembers:
We see Radical Islamic sleeper cells as a threat, despite them not announcing that they are a threat. Please cite your reference to a threat must announce itself to be a threat.
Here is the Email, addresses changed, quoted text discarded, pertinent text bolded:
sl:mail$ cat 1255100876.txt
From: Ben Santer
To: Phill Jones
Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:07:56 -0700
Reply-to: ….@llnl.gov
Dear Phil,
I’ve known Rick Piltz for many years. He’s a good guy. I believe he used
to work with Mike MacCracken at the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
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.
I’ll help you to deal with Michaels and the CEI in any way that I can.
The only reason these guys are going after you is because your work is
of crucial importance – it changed the way the world thinks about human
effects on climate. Your work mattered in the 1980s, and it matters now.
With best wishes,
Ben
s" /\\ thumbs " 80 _take/\ thumbs /\ thumbs /\ thumbs /\ thumbs /\ thumbs /\ thumbs /\ thumbs /\
Bob,
Is that supposed to be the arrow notation that I read about recently, but do not understand? if so, thumbs↑↑↑7 (hopefully, big enough, but have no idea what I’m talking about).
I really liked the “corporate” style of Bruce Cobb’s comment . It bugs me that WUWT doesn’t have a “like” bit . So instead of just doing a “+1” , I wrote a simple basically APLish line in CoSy to make a line of “thumbs up” .
in 39 years he’s learned 2 things and both of them are wrong…highly recommended!
yeah he learnt two things in 35 years
I think he should be rather ashamed to admit that paucity of learning
and him a “scientist”
really?
what a waste of time n funding!
“Team Trump to Ben Santer: Thank you for your interest in helping with this matter. We’ve decided to go another way, but will keep your name on file for future reference. You know, just in case pigs really do fly”.., Oh, yeah, the UFC is looking for a few good fighters!!
Perhaps Ben Santer can fill out his resume with this fine work http://www.climatechangeeducation.org/videos/youtube/hippoworks-santer.html
Dear Mr Santer,
Thank you for your work enquiry. I understand you may indeed need to move on from your current position. There are two vacancies available at Trump Tower which you are welcome to consider, short order cook and lift technician. For both you will be supplied with a pink and gold uniform and a MAGA cap. The lifts, as you will know, are like global temperatures, they go up and they go down so this should fit your experience admirably. Salary will be by adjustment [mine]. Start time is 4.30 am Tuesday. So good to find someone actually keen to do real work.
DJT
Trump will be doing good if he can keep the Chinese or the Iranians from changing the climate.
Please put some real meat on those bones.
Sorry. Both the Iranians and the Chinese are engaging in military bluster. If either launches a nuke the reply will be terrible indeed. That’s what I meant.
I think a nice reply from President-elect Trump would be something along these lines:
Dear Mr. Santer:
Thank you for your advice. If I accept it, will the climate stop changing?
Donald Trump
Trebla wins!
Based on what I’ve seen recently, Trump’s reply might simply be “FAT CHANCE”.
Then Santer can use the next 35 years to figure out what that means!
Isn’t that the guy, who doctored the IPCC -report in the nineties, writing, that there was an anthropogenic signal by CO2 when the scientist, who were reponible for the report, wrote there was none?
Yes. He is a truly evil man.
Is Santer the one who “proved” the major climate models weren’t statistically significantly off, by trimming the data to only go up to several years in the past?
“It already impacts our lives and our livelihoods, and will have greater impact each year.” really? How – provide me evidence that Climate Change TM has had any impact on my life since it was invented.
A lot of your tax dollars have been wasted on “studying” it.
It has already impacted my life in catastrophic man made anthropological government tax increases, that I am barely able to keep up with, to feed the climate swamp pigs like Dr Ben Santer.
Earth to soon to be POTUS Donald Trump.
Please be wary of Santer’s Claws. He’s just hoping to retire while still on the taxpayer’s dole, and hopefully before the 30 year climate cycle runs out, and he hasn’t produced any proof of anything.
G
Just for the record; membership in the National Academies of Science is by invitation only by members who are already swilling at the public trough, and want to pack the halls with like minded yes men, who will sign on to your gig so long as you also support theirs. They never issue any “minority reports” so any dissenting scientific opinions are kept from the President or Congress, who only get one side of any issue.
There is no special academic measure to qualify for membership in the NAS; it’s the ultimate old boys (and girls) club.
G
“Dear President-elect Trump—Don’t listen to the‘ignorant voices’ on climate change”
Takes one to know one, Ben. And I’ll bet you know every last festering one of them.
With former Texas Gov. Perry set to become Secretary of DOE, climate modeling funding at LLNL will be on the chopping block.
Santer is in bargaining mode right now with his denial that his entire minor fiefdom there is about to be re-purposed. Maybe back to even using the DOE supercomputers for their original intent, which was to studying aging effects on the nuclear weapons stockpile and fusion implosion physics.
Oh the horror for a Lefty Climate prophet!!
Nice, I like!
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” – Upton Sinclair
It is even worse if he has but a career around it.
Then there is the track record of ‘adjusting’ the results to offset the facts and science presented by the ‘ignorant voices.’
http://drtimball.com/2011/early-signs-of-cruipcc-corruption-and-cover-up/
Can we also assume that the ‘ignorant voices’ are members of the “basket of deplorables”?
I agree entirely on your opinion. Many of these ‘scientists’ ou ‘professors’ have no other way to go at this point.
They won’t need to worry about that because apparently . .
So, presumably, some other field of endeavour will once again “choose them”.
…and hopefully they will be chosen by the fast food industry where they’ll be more productive flippin’ burger.
I do hope Tim Ball’s notes are made available to the Trump brigade.
Ben Santer needs to be brought to task on this deceit.
As A certain President Elect would say.. “YOU’RE FIRED”
Here’s what Trump needs to do through executive orders: (1) require that any published work product in the field of climate science that was produced using public money of any kind must publicly archive all data and furnish all source code under a Open Source license (sufficient to allow anyone to freely attempt to replicate the results) within one year of publication, (2) require any scientific findings that are cited by executive agencies as the basis for new regulations to adhere to the Data Quality Act and (3) establish a National Surface Temperature Anomaly Index that is developed using governance procedures modeled after the consumer price index.
mpaul
Why shouldn’t data be published with the report work product? Like maybe it’d be useful for peer review.
Javert, the argument has been that publication of results is often a competitive thing and time is of the essence. Organizing data, cleaning up source code, etc, etc, takes a backseat during the run-up to publication. Time, therefore, is needed after publication to to get everything in order for archiving. I find this argument unconvincing. If you require that archiving happen at publication, then everyone would be in the same boat and people would adapt. So I could easily be convinced that archiving should be done at the point of publication.
I find that climate scientists often hide behind false arguments. The real issue at play is that these publicly funded climate scientists want to treat their work as their own private property that they can monetize in numerous ways after publication. Archiving would destroy their ability to profit from their publicly funded work. So they find all sorts of creative arguments to avoid archiving. After all, the real argument doesn’t sound very good: “Our work shows that mankind in facing certain extinction in 10 to 15 years due to fossil fuel use, but we don’t want to show our work because we want to make a lot of money from residuals so that we can retire early and spend 40 years at our luxurious beach-front second home”.
If their careers depend on not being exposed as frauds, I can see how disclosure would be a big financial threat.
Novelists can make a lot of money by publishing their intellectual property in millions of copies. It would seem that copyright laws could be applied to data in a way that would protect the authors’ financial interests without preventing auditing or replication-testing of their research.
In regard to legitimate research findings, could you explain how secrecy enables them to profit in ways they couldn’t if those materials were readily available? Please provide specific examples.
Ralph David Westfall wrote:
Take the specific example of Jagadish Shukla. It has been reported that Shukla formed a taxpayer-funded research center, obtained grants and consulting projects for that center and then used those funds to pay himself and other family members $5.6 million in addition to his GMU salary. Data was transferred freely between his GMU research and his Research Center.
While this is an extreme example, its quite common for University climate scientists to have companies on the side that they use to do consulting. Its also quite common for them to treat the data collected and developed by them in their University research as their own personal property — transferring it to their consulting entities whenever needed. If this data was freely available then they would enable competitors to their consulting businesses.
Thank you, mpaul, but that’s not specific enough. What type of data or methodologies could Shukla have that would be so valuable to his consulting business, and what type of person or organization (other than climate researchers) would spend significant money to get it?
I could see someone needing to keep investment choice algorithms confidential, but climate data or methodologies?
Ralph Dave Westfall, I can’t answer your question specifically as that is a part of what the on-going litigation is trying to determine. But the specifics of how they might monetize IPR is not important to my central argument.
First, lets stipulate that climate data and computer code is a form of intellectual property. Everywhere you look (from employment agreements, publication guidelines, grant applications, etc) the data and code is defined as IPR.
At its heart, Climategate was about Intellectual Property. Phil Jones was refusing to release the list of specific stations that CRU used to derive HadCRUT. Phil claimed that the station selection was intellectual property. Further, some of the station data provided by National Meteorological Agencies was provided to CRU under an Intellectual Property Agreement that prevented CRU from making it public. If people knew the station list, then the development of HadCRUT would be trivial. So trivial that it could be produced by a 5th-grader with Excel. So trivial, in fact, that it call into question the vast expenditures that are directed toward UAE and the Hadley Center.
But again, the issue of how its being monetized in not the central issue. The issue is who owns this IPR.
Regarding algorithms and computer code, the Nobel Prize recipient Micheal Mann has weighed in on this subject stating:
Note Mann’s use of the term “you” and “your”. Mann is arguing that the code he writes is *his* property, regardless of who paid for it. I have found this to be a common sentiment among climate scientists.
Returning to Phil Jones, in the Climategate emails Jones wrote:
Note that Jones behavior is that of someone who believes that the data is his personal property. Without checking with anyone, he, Phil Jones, feels complete ownership over the data and believes that he has the right to send it to whoever he deems worthy, to withhold it from whomever he deems unworthy or to permanently delete it.
My proposal is aimed at destroying this notion that climate data and code is the personal property of a publicly funded climate scientist.
It’s common practice in academia to leave ownership of intellectual property with its authors, regardless how much support they received from the institution in creating it. In contrast, people doing research for industry get patents in their own names, but have to immediately sign them over to their corporation for a nominal fee.
As for monetization, I fail to see how the climate scientists are generating any value that can be directly monetized. I think the intellectual property issue is a smokescreen to protect their methods from being exposed as seriously flawed. As Phil Jones put it, “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
I’d prefer to see the government require that researchers who are publicly funded publish preliminary reports, with supporting data, in a Federal register of some sort before they ever submit it to a journal that requires readers to pay for the privilege of reading what they tax dollars supported.
If the homework isn’t shown, it makes no sense to pay attention to it as more than an interesting curiosity. It certainly should not be allowed to be used to make policy or regulations.
I know I’m ignorant but must you throw it in my face ?
Long memories.
Maybe Mann could submit the same.Keeping the relevance keeping on, you know.
“Dear President-elect Trump—Don’t listen to the ‘ignorant voices’ on climate change”
“Sorry, what did you say?”
It will be there on every day of your presidency. It is indifferent to politics and to poll numbers. It does not care about national boundaries, or race or religion. It already impacts our lives and our livelihoods, and will have greater impact each year. It will be the backdrop against which all key events of the 21st century play out.
If you do not treat this problem seriously, it will grow. You won’t be able to ignore it. You won’t be able to isolate yourself or the United States…………..ISIS
Lol, The Ignoramus speaks. Too funny.
***********************************************************
copy of letter in reply:
Don’t let him near “executive summaries”!
‘Your Fired’
From grammar class.
….Santer may not know the difference.
Can’t be nice knowing you are part of a swamp, which is about to be drained.
Ben Santer is worse than I thought.
This could be his tipping point.
The weeping and gnashing of teeth begins. Hope that it reaches a crescendo like in Australia when Flannery et al. were sacked.
Whistling in the dark.
We need a few more idiots like this to dictate to Trump. I can see the likely response now. ‘PFO’, but less politely.
That poor old guy certainly has a high mortgage on his estate, large instalments to pay for his car and probably a divorced wife asking for money and more money. He has to make a living, somehow and I am wondering when he will have turned into a wholehearted skeptic under DT. Money makes the world Gore round.
In just one word: leech.
Thanks, Ben. This will make all the difference.BTW, I would hope that you’ve learned more than two things, but I’m sure you did your best.
I read that and figured he must have started out as one really smart dude.
Dear Mr. President-Elect,
You received my vote for President for many reasons. Chief among them was the stand you took on Man-Made Global Warming/Climate Change. At one point you called it a hoax. This signaled a highly skeptical position on the issue. I am also complete skeptic. As a noted Meteorologist, honored by the American Meteorological Society as Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year, I have studied the global warming issue with care. My position is that the prevailing theory behind the climate change science has totally failed to verify in a long series of computer models. The concept that by using fossil fuel to power our civilization we are producing a carbon footprint and that this is a significant greenhouse gas that is disrupting our climate is completely invalid.
Despite the failure of the science, climate change has become a massive, federal government funded, multi-billion dollar industry benefiting Al Gore and a host of his cronies, several related industries and the United Nations. Our Congress has been totally bought by political and business interests and has increased funding to this industry year after year with increased taxes and living expenses passed on the average citizens of the United States. This is the greatest misuse of science in modern history. I was certain you were going to bring an end to this scandal.
And then the news reports announced that Al Gore was at Trump Tower and that your daughter Ivanka was going to become the Czar of Climate Change in your Administration. This so upset me, I did not sleep for two nights. And since then you have waffled on the topic in interviews. I am in panic.
Mr. President-elect, please, allow those of us who are scientifically educated and are absolutely convinced that our civilization’s use of fossil fuels is not creating a climate crisis state our case for you and your team. Thirty-one thousand scientists signed a petition to this conclusion. Experts with Ph.D.’s are on the faculties of our major universities from Harvard to MIT to UCLA are standing by to present our case.
You have often discussed the horrid failures of major media in the nation. We know all a about this because for two decades the media has ignored and demeaned we skeptical scientists while spreading the outrageous scare stories about the supposed consequences of climate change from flooding of coastal cities to killer heatwaves and huge super storms. None of this valid, but the media continues to send it our day after day.
Our schools have also been on the Al Gore’s bandwagon, showing his sci-fi movie over and over again and lecturing about greenhouse gases.
There is a reason Al Gore refuses to debate us. We have all the facts and he spreads only scare fiction.
It is very exciting to have a strong person who is a total outsider elected our President and headed to Washington. We urge you to strongly oppose the Climate Change movement as you work to make America great again.
Best Regards,
John Coleman
His line : “… the expertise of government-funded scientists …” says it all .
This one; “Don’t listen to such ignorant voices” says a lot too . . Ignore the ignorant is not the sort of advice that instills confidence in the advisor, it seems to me. It’s like an advertisement telling people not to compare their company’s product to the competitor’s . . Buy in ignorance! ; )
Spot on Bob, good catch
“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain…”
Dear Mr. Coleman,
Fear not. The media (Drudge, though a good guy (except for the many links to p0rn and trash news on his site) included) uses such rumors to get people to watch their “news” shows. “Get ’em worried and they will watch.”
Below is an article from a not-Trump-friendly publication which will help to put your mind at ease about Ms. Trump:
(Source: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/ivanka-trump-used-her-fathers-60-minute-interview-to-market-10800-diamond-bracelet )
The Ivanka Trump brand is faltering a bit and she is simply shoring it up by publicly advocating causes her buyers believe in (and which I am convinced that she genuinely cares about, too). Her brand need not address “climate change” to keep a positive image. She will, being a saavy businessperson, not dilute her focus on more than one or two causes. And certainly not one on the, “Huh?….. Oh. Yeah. Well, whatever.” list.
Further, as you will read in this Cosmopolitan article (not that I agree with the choices of the women quoted in it — this simply shows what Ms. Trump needs to do to keep her brand successful), http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a7030742/ivanka-trump-boycott/
Ms. Trump would be wise to silently distance herself from her dad. She probably will (also, to prevent potential conflict of interest concerns, too).
Finally, we’ve seen two things about Donald Trump in the past year or so which are quite reassuring:
1. He is careful not to take a definite public stand on a controversial issue before he has all his troops, artillery, and supply lines in place.
2. He is his own man.
All is well!
SO good to see you writing, here, Mr. Coleman. You add depth and class to the pages of WUWT. I hope you will write more often.
Your admiring WUWT ally for science truth,
Janice
John Coleman, Thank you for that.
Trump’s background is business in the private sector and experience with Government roadblocks and how needlessly costly they can be.
You with others produced something of value and (was) worth something to the public in the private sector.
Santer has only produced something that is costly to the public and of little value.
His letter was nothing more than a “commercial” to keep his paycheck coming.
(Will the next commercial…er…letter be from Gavin Schmidt?)
John was shy to link his site, so I will. GK
https://johncolemanblog.com/2014/12/10/an-essay-about-the-global-warmingclimate-change-frenzy/#comments
John:
Rob Bradley here. what is your email address? robbradley58@gmail.com
Rob, Not wise to put up your email address. Not everyone who reads here is your friend.
Best to give a Mod permission to send your email address to the desired party.
Maybe he a and Gore can start what we call a “Bromance” to distract themselves on an emotional level to cope with their grief at being “outed” ?