Ben Santer to Trump: “Don’t listen to the ‘ignorant voices’ on climate change”

Dr. Ben Santer at CSUC

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.

Advertisements

185 thoughts on “Ben Santer to Trump: “Don’t listen to the ‘ignorant voices’ on climate change”

  1. 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.

      • “. . . 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?

      • Ben Santer, who infamously once threatened to beat up climate skeptic Pat Michaels

        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.

      • 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:

        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.

        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

      • 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” .

      • 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!!

    • 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

  2. 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

  3. 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?

  4. “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.

      • 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

  5. “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.

  6. 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!!

  7. “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 . .

        The work chose them.

        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”

  8. 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”.

      • 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

        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:

        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.

        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:

        Scientists for a long time have argued that a code that you write to implement algorithms is your intellectual property, and the National Science Foundation has stood firmly behind that.

        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:

        Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

        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.

  9. “Dear President-elect Trump—Don’t listen to the ‘ignorant voices’ on climate change”
    “Sorry, what did you say?”

  10. 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

  11. Lol, The Ignoramus speaks. Too funny.

    ***********************************************************

    copy of letter in reply:

    Dear Madam or Sir,

    Thank you for your letter. Mr. Trump is grateful to you for taking the time. Due to the high volume of correspondence, he is sorry that he cannot respond to you personally.

    Please know that your concerns have been duly noted.

    Sincerely,

    Joe Schmoe
    Make America Great Again Transition Team

  12. The weeping and gnashing of teeth begins. Hope that it reaches a crescendo like in Australia when Flannery et al. were sacked.

  13. We need a few more idiots like this to dictate to Trump. I can see the likely response now. ‘PFO’, but less politely.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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

      • 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! ; )

      • 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! ; )

        “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:

      During the 60 Minutes interview Sunday, Ivanka Trump sought to maintain her connection to the licensing and merchandising deals she had forged as a businesswoman.

      When asked whether she would assume a role in Trump’s White House, Ivanka Trump said she would not, adding: “I’m going to be a daughter. But I’ve said throughout the campaign that I am very passionate about certain issues and I want to fight for them. {video}

      “Wage equality, child care, these are things that are really important to me,” added Ivanka, a Trump company executive vice president who also runs her own lines for clothing, shoes and handbags.

      (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?)

      • 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.

  17. Dr. Santer confuses being “unarmed” with being “amoral”.
    I hope that the institutional corruption that permeates big climate science can be thoroughly rooted out.

  18. Here’s the sentence that jumped out at me, “If you do not treat this problem seriously, it will grow.

    Editing Santer’s letter a bit puts the sentence in its proper context: “On Day 1 of your presidency, you will be faced with many significant challenges. Consensus climate science is one of them. … If you do not treat this problem seriously, it will grow.

    Consensus climate scientists cause the problem that will grow if left untreated. Arrogance, incompetence, and dishonesty is the fetid stew they have proudly concocted. Its stench has spread across all of science; its stain is everywhere. The head-post letter, this, and the IPCC SAR events of 1995, respectively, show that Dr. Santer is completely representative.

    The big revelation for me in all of this, over the last 20 years, has been how thinly apportioned among scientists is moral courage. Given the last election, moral courage seems more prevalent within the population than among the learned. Yet one more conundrum.

  19. ‘Discernible fingerprint’ Santer, who said models would be falsified after 17 years. Oops, falsified. Except for a now rapidly cooling El Nino blip in 2015-16, no warming this century. No modeled tropical troposphere hotspot. Even his new model/sat temp paper (attempting to refute the Christy chart showing 3.5x between CMIP5 and balloon/sat measurement of tropical troposphere) after erroneously using a stratosphere correction that doesn’t apply to the tropics, found models were running 1.7x hot. What part of models wrong does he not get yet? I suspect he suspects that he will be on DOTUS new version of Celebrity Apprentice starting Jan 21, with a scene fimed at LLNL: “Your fired.”

  20. Dear Mr. Santer:

    We have received your resume and have looked it over with great interest. The ideal candidate for this job would posses the qualities of “not” and “you”. Unfortunately you do not have those qualities so we have decided to go in another direction. Thank you again for your interests.

  21. I’m of the Patrick Moore school and since he states that 150ppm of CO2is death to our current world, our freeing carbon from the ancient sinks has extended the life of the planet as we know it.

    • Completely and absolutely.

      A sort of “kick-start” to the world’s biosphere. and isn’t it enjoying that extra CO2..

      Darn it…….. the lawn needs mowing again !!!

  22. Classic attempt.
    Ignore the evidence ,trust my wisdom.
    Or “Do not listen to those ignorant seekers of evidence,bow before my arrogance.”

    Given the quality of people , President Trump has nominated so far, I doubt Mr Santer will get more than a form letter..”Thank you for your services, much joy with your future career…

  23. “Dear Mr. President-Elect”:
    [Quote from above]…. Ben Santer, who infamously once threatened to beat up climate skeptic Pat Michaels (see Climategate email 1255100876.txt), has offered his services to you. Might I suggest that he is a threat to your personal safety and security, and you should go nowhere near such a loose-cannon.

  24. Don’t listen to the ‘ignorant voices’ on climate change…

    Is everyone else sick and tired of being called ignorant, racist, deplorable, bigot, backward, white trash, and on and on…

    ..and now it’s by a group of people that have yet to prove anything… almost all of their predictions have been wrong
    …but somehow they are still at it….instead of being the laughing stock

  25. Ben, you’re a high priest in the church of CAGW. You’re the modern equivalent of William Miller, predicting a new kind of Armageddon. As such, you are a man of status in your chosen field. I voted for Trump because I specifically want the involuntary tithing by US taxpayers to your church to become a thing of the past. I want no more funding for IPCC or anything UNFCCC related. I want no more NSF grants to study climate alarm. I want no more DoE grants for alarmist exploiters like Solyndra. I know you’re working at UEA in the UK. But if you personally lost some or all of your funding because of the changes I want, that’s a big bonus to me. I want you to be unemployed. If the changes I want meant there were no more funds for any future COP meetings, that’s a HUUUUUUGE bonus. If we lead by example, I hope those crazy bastages in the EU will learn from US leadership. Hopefully, we will have far fewer government funded parasites like you in the future.

    • Sorry, Ben Santer does not work at UEA, but at Lawrence Livermore Nat’l Labs in Berkeley, CA. So he is paid directly with US taxpayer money. I would like that lab to return to it’s primary mission of nuclear safety and have it’s role as a “climate alarm credibility engine” eliminated.

  26. I hope there are a lot of good scientists/technicians/engineers working at LLNL, NOAA, etc. that have just been waiting to have someone who will listen to them. When new leaders are put in place at these organizations, I fully expect these folks to come forward with lots of evidence of the forced acceptance of AGW and the lack of true scientific rigor by people such as Santer. It should get interesting.

    These folks who thought they were untouchable may soon find out they have been simple pawns and will now be discarded like yesterday’s trash.

  27. As it happens every Christmas I’m watching science lectures from the Royal Institution ( Faraday and all that). This years subject is: energy
    Hundreds of children present were just shown the UK’s largest power station (Drax). They were told that it is being converted from burning coal to burning compressed wood pellets (btw imported from the USA). Reason for this is that burning fossil fuels, kids were told, causes global warming.
    Who is going to tell these children that it makes no sense on either account?
    I suspect the same thing goes in the USA, the Trump’s education secretary appointee Ben Carson has a huge task in front of him..

    • The BBC and RS wouldn’t have it any other way.

      When I was a schoolkid i remember there being a small frisson of unpredictability to these lectures – there was a real sense of finding out something …

      The ones I’ve seen in the last 10 years seem dull+scripted and aligned to BBC production standards.

      As to burning wood pellets – I think some North American readers might be surprised by the UK’s accidentally over generous (what the heck it’s other folks money) “Renewable Heating Incentive” scheme which is going to cost £1 billion unless they can fit the golden subsidy goose with a gastric band.

      $1,60 in subsidy to burn $1 of wood – what could possibly go wrong?

      • Or whoever might be.
        About a month ago Mr. Carson’s name was all over UK media as a first black (am I allowed to say that ?) member of the Trump’s Cabinet as the education secretary. I assume media was wrong again, so I duly offer my unreserved apology.

      • Well, Phil DOT. So eager to criticize. So reluctant to inform. It would have been kind of you to say just who IS the nominee for Secretary of Education.

        *************************

        Here, dear Vukcevic, is a link to a fairly up-to-date list of the current Trump nominees:

        http://www.bing.com/search?q=trump+cabinet+picks+so+far&qs=RQ&pq=trump+cabinet&sk=LS5&sc=8-13&cvid=003CE8711D014CAFB2B342A33345DC24&FORM=QBLH&sp=6&ghc=1

        You will see there that Ben Carson was nominated to be Secretary of HUD (Housing and Urban Development). And, just FYI, in the U.S., we would say, “secretary of ‘huhd,'” not “secretary of ‘H’ ‘U’ ‘D’.” And I think you can guess why The Department of Housing and Urban Development has a truncated acronym (heh). Betsy De Vos is the Dept. of Education nominee.

        And, yes, lol, of course you can mention that, so far, Dr. Carson is the only black American nominee. To help put that into perspective, in the U.S.A., the three races are roughly: Caucasian, 80%, Black, 13%, and Asian, 7%. And I will not complain that there are only 7 women nominees out of 29. NO MORE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. Equal opportunity and merit should be the only considerations. After the blatantly racist Obama administration, soooooo done with racism.

        ALL LIVES MATTER.

        Deal with it.

      • Hi, Vukcevic,

        You’re welcome. And, a belated Merry Christmas, a Happy 3rd Night of Chanukah and a hearty “HAPPY NEW YEAR” to you!

        Janice

    • “vukcevic on December 26, 2016 at 12:54 pm
      As it happens every Christmas I’m watching science lectures from the Royal Institution ( Faraday and all that). This years subject is: energy..”

      I watched this too – as I do every year – and felt that the Royal Institution has been shamed by this lecturer. He even spoke of ‘carbon’ emissions, and these used to be science lectures.

      • “…… putting things on other things.”

        Speak up! O Member from Staffordshire! Before it is too late….

      • When anyone, particularly someone who is supposed to be a scientist, says “carbon emissions”, then I know it’s propaganda, not science. The RI has been as corrupted as the RS and the BBC by the climate change sc@m.

    • The tragedy is that leaving those trees standing and burning coal would result in a smaller net CO2 addition to the atmosphere, as the mature trees no longer exist, and any replacement (hence ‘renewable’) saplings will fix CO2 at a much lower rate until they are grown big enough. I tried to explain this to some ‘intelligent’ friends, and you could see them blinking in their confusion. Peddling guff like this at the RI Christmas lecture is a disgrace.

  28. “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”

    Time to drain the swamp and give these people something useful to do in life besides dreaming up ways to keep the government gravy train rolling on fake issues.

  29. Santer was the author of an open letter dated September 20, 2016, signed by 375 members of the National Academy of Sciences (why are there so many of them), which tried to influence the election obviously.

    ” …. Thus it is of great concern that the Republican nominee for President has advocated U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Accord…”

    http://responsiblescientists.org/

    Now he wants back in again. We have to cut-off the money and the awards and the nominations to the grant funding councils which these guys fully control now.

    Look at all the awards and invited lectures he gives (every month he gets a paid vacation somewhere – 16 pages of invited lectures in font 5).

    http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/about/staff/Santer/webres_19sep16.pdf

  30. I hope President-elect Trump does not accept Santer’s offer, keeping him around as the voice of ‘climate science’ would be rather like keeping a skunk as a pet…..entertaining but risky. Ben Santer has less real value than even that.

    • I know that skunks are often kept as pets, but only after they have been “de-skunked”. I’m not sure how you would do that to Santer, but it would be fun to try.

      • Actually (in response to the response to your post, since the “reply” option often is non-existent), a “Full Frontal Lobotomy” is I believe the process one must go through to BECOME one of the “climate faithful” to begin with. ;-D

  31. “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.”

    Therein lies the problem: “government-funded scientists”. My hope is that president elect Trump identifies this correctly as the lightest of chaff that can be blown away. These parasites are contributing to the national debt.

    • From what I’ve seen in the UK – directly employed public servant scientists inside public institutions are usually and rather depressingly – the worst of the lot. There are a few exceptions….

      It doesn’t matter what the observed problem is – the first cause is climate change. I would be a joke if it didn’t betray the claimants as poseurs, chancers and worse who feel secure in spouting twaddle because of the self regard status hootch they’ve been swilling.

      You’d think some of them had done nothing more than regularly recite the numberwatch lists

      “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.”

      Doubtless Count Dracula can give compelling reasons to be appointed superintendent of blood transfusion services.

      • Tomo, “creative solutions” just about sums it up .
        One of the definitions of ‘creative’ is :- characterized by sophisticated bending of the rules or conventions aka creative accounting or in Benny’s case climate “science”.

    • Nay, nay!

      “. . . government-funded scientists who have spent their careers observing climate change, probing its causes, and trying to find creative solutions to problems . . . that . . . don’t . . . exist . . .”

      There now, corrected the typo. Please continue . . .

      • No, no I think you’ve still some correcting to do, it’s

        “You have access to the fear-mongering expertise of government-funded scientists who have spent their careers observing climate change, probing ways to deny any natural causes unrelated to human fossil fuel use, and trying to find creative solutions to the non-existent problems it poses.”

        Now I think we’ve got all the errors rectified…

  32. NONE of the predictions made have come to pass. So this is religion no science. Verily I say unto you it’s ALL crap.

  33. Benny the bully threatens;

    “Millions of your fellow Americans are deeply concerned about climate change, and are looking to you for leadership. Your choice on Day 1 is clear. Leadership or denial. If it’s the former, you’ll have plenty of Americans willing to help you. If it’s the latter, you’ll have millions of powerful voices allied against you. Please choose wisely.”

    In other words; Hack Lives Matter !

    • Choosing “wisely” from the left’s narratives and the opinions of political consultants, media pundits and their polls just isn’t part of Trump’s winning strategy. It is an act of desperation and fear when the alligators petition to have their part of the swamp left undrained. The climateers very existence is the perfect example of what the swamp is all about. By the roster of Secretaries chosen to head up the relevant departments, the letter is figuratively a dying man’s last request.

    • Geez, I knew Steve Schneider and the guy in the video sure doesn’t look like him, unless Steve aged about 150 years in 10.

      In the early days of the multimedia industry we had a saying – in a strong wind even turkeys can fly. If you listen carefully – splot, plop, splortch…

    • Geez, I knew Steve Schneider, and the guy in the video sure doesn’t look like him unless he aged about 150 years in 10.

      In the early days of the multimedia industry when foolishness abounded, we used to say, “In a strong wind even turkeys can fly.” Listen closely – splot, plop, splortch…

  34. That Ben-“17-years”-Santer claims to have actually learned two things in thirty five years, makes me doubly surprised.

  35. I quote Ben Santer: :

    “. First, human actions are changing Earth’s climate. Second, if we do nothing to address this problem, likely outcomes are bad. ”

    The first sentence is dead wrong. The second sentence proves his ignorance of what causes warming . You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see that warming has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. Just put up the global temperature curve, and parallel to it put up the Keeling curve. Even a child can see that global warming curve goes up and down while the Keeling curve is completely smooth and has no such peaks. This applies to the entire length of these curves, starting in 1850 (the start of the industrial age). What the global temperature curve does tell us is that temperature did not follow the increase of carbon dioxide in air but took vacations from it. One such vacation was a period of cooling that lasted 35 years, from 1875 to 1910. I get this from HadCRUT3, before it was transmogrified into HadCRUT4 by undocumented changes. There was another period of cooling also from 1940 to 1950 or ten years. Such cooling takes up more than one quarter of the time that has lapsed since 1850. This makes a mockery of the claim that global temperature increases in step with increase of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the air. Consider also that there is absolutely no counterpart in carbon dioxide of the Keeling curve to any of the warm peaks in the global temperature curve. The only conclusion you can draw from all these facts is that global warming has nothing whatsoever to do with atmospheric carbon dioxide and should be regarded as an aspect of the natural world. Take my advice and withdraw your foolish statements I quoted in the beginning. That is the only way you can begin to understand real climate science.

  36. On second reading I think Santer is paraphrasing an ancient folk tale, though why he hopes to improve on the original is beyond me..

    “In the great city where he lived, life was always gay. Every day many strangers came to town, and among them one day came two swindlers. They let it be known they were weavers, and they said they could weave the most magnificent fabrics imaginable. Not only were their colors and patterns uncommonly fine, but clothes made of this cloth had a wonderful way of ………….becoming invisible to anyone who was unfit for his office, or who was unusually stupid.”
    I guess if your paycheck depends on it,you have to try.
    But acting as if you are certain your new President is a gullible moron may not end well.
    But after 3 decades of selling invisible evidence, I too might have a different opinion of public wisdom.

    • “…acting as if you are certain your new President is a gullible moron…”
      Maybe Santer thinks this is another “W” coming along.

  37. “If you do not treat this problem seriously, it will grow.”

    Regardless of what Trump does emissions will continue to grow. Nothing Trump can or will do will change that. Eventually we’ll figure out whether that’s truly a problem or not.

    • Right. The persons he should be badgering are in Asia.

      Trump is probably (IMO) going to push nuclear power & natural gas, not “renewables,” as his no-regrets CO2-reduction strategy, so the US will continue to outpace the rest of the developed world in reducing emissions. Banter’s policy would have more effect initially, because it will take at least four years for a turn toward nuclear to begin to have an effect, but after ten years Santer’s course of action would be way behind, emissions-wise.

  38. Ben Santer was also silly in using glacial loss on Kilimanjaro as a symbol and symptom of global warming. It was already known among specialists (who actually do their work on Kilimanjaro, unlike Ben Santer who only ventures out for his numerous conferences and speeches) that “global warming” and temperature increase was not the cause of glacial mass loss (which in any case had been proceeding since the 1880s at least), http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/page2/the-shrinking-glaciers-of-kilimanjaro-can-global-warming-be-blamed

    “The observations described above point to a combination of factors other than warming air—chiefly a drying of the surrounding air that reduced accumulation and increased ablation—as responsible for the decline of the ice on Kilimanjaro since the first observations in the 1880s. The mass balance is dominated by sublimation, which requires much more energy per unit mass than melting; this energy is supplied by solar radiation. These processes are fairly insensitive to temperature and hence to global warming”.

    And how does Mt. Kilimanjaro look today? See http://kiboice.blogspot.sg/2016/12/late-short-rains.html?m=1

  39. Let me fix this letter for him:

    ________________________________________

    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 just as it has been since earth acquired its atmosphere. It is indifferent to politics, to poll numbers, and to idiots. It does not care about national boundaries, or race or religion. It has always impacted the lives of men, and will have no greater impact than before or after your presidency. It will be the backdrop against which all key events of the 21st century play out, just as it has been the backdrop for all events in any century.

    If you treat this as a problem, it will only be a problem for us, not for the climate. You can ignore it and the only thing of any consequence will be the lamentations from those who lose funding for research. You won’t be able to isolate yourself or the United States from climate change-indeed no one has ever been able to do that. There is no sanctuary from its effects.

    But if you choose to tackle climate change alarmists, 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 government-funded scientists who have spent their careers figuring out how to adjust data to conform to an administration’s agenda. They have spent years trying to find creative solutions to the problems observations pose when they don’t conform to said agenda. These women and men did not choose this work to get rich quick (possibly just slowly), but to also alter world systems of government. They wanted to do something that mattered. They wanted to understand the climate system agenda of social justice, and learn how it ticks.

    I am one member of those unarmed forces. Forty 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 and the people who make it so rich and varied. In these years, I learned two things. First, human actions are not really changing Earth’s climate. Second, if we do nothing to address this problem, likely outcomes are we will be better off without spending billions and leaving third world countries in abject poverty. I want our country and our planet to avoid bad outcomes and unintended consequences – which is why I’ve chosen to speak out publicly. I am not alone – thousands of my scientific colleagues are voicing their concerns. You will find them here on Anthony’s site at Joanne Nova’s, Steven Goddard’s, Dr Roy Spencer’s, and Dr. Susan Crockford, Richard Lindzen, Stephen McIntyre, John Cristy, and so many more.

    Dear President-elect Trump—Don’t listen to the ‘ignorant voices’ on climate change, like that of Ben Santer.

  40. 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.

    Thanks to Ben, we will no longer hear the 97% figure being used as an argument for action.

  41. I hope knowledgeable skeptics are counterbalanceing the fake news put out by these very worried climategate stars. I would like to see an FOI request for Santer’s email blurbs on the election campaign. Someone should at least send Trump the climategate emails to and from this performer.

    • If their “science” was anywhere close to being accurate, they wouldn’t have to petition PE Trump.

      • Rocky,
        If the the denier sites had any “”science”” behind their’ claims that might pass peer review they wouldn’t have to bore me with their amateurism.

        [Yet here you are, commenting away with an absolute absence of content just an opinion. You could of course use your obviously valuable time to add to what we know. Instead you use the “denier” epithet, put science in scare quotes and tell us that the amateurs bore you as though their job is to be entertaining and so hold your ennui at bay.

        Your faith in the peer review process is touching but it does seem to be going through its own existential crisis thanks to professional abuse across all disciplines.

        Please, if you can stir yourself out of your boredom, give the locals the benefit of your wisdom so that we all may learn or, who knows, teach you some things you dont know. . . . mod]

      • Mod….instead of showing everyone your blatant bias, why don’t you use a real name to comment, instead of using the anonymous handle “mod” ???? (notice I did use the word “coward” with the word “anonymous”)

      • ‘galloping camel’ (notice I did use the word “coward” with the word “anonymous”)’

        I use MY name. I notice YOU don’t. Coward. AND a hypocrite.

        I love courageous internet trolls like yourself. My guess is face-to-face you’re very polite and VERY quiet.

        Punk.

      • Hey Joel, how do you know your name is “real” and not just made up? I can tell by your name calling that you can’t me more than 12 years old.

  42. Since there isn’t any polite way to say this: Ben Santer is a fraud barking Quack-0-Dynamics specialist, who teaches it’s possible to suspend refractory material in a bath and make more light come out of objects, one made less light go into.

  43. Mr. Trump is well aware of Climate Gate and the Santer E mail threat to beat up another climate scientist . Climate Gate showed how insular and afraid a little clique of climate modellers became when their modeling projections and methodology were being questioned . How unscientific .
    The climate fear industry is about to get it’s due and withdrawal is going to be tough when tax payers interests come first again . $Trillions wasted on incomplete failed climate models and participants of the earth has a fever scam . Never has so much money been ripped off on such a transparent hoax .
    The UN globalization agenda aligned with grant seeking scientists , green wash corporations , some politicians and most of the now discredited MSM . . The perfect scam had all the pieces lined up ,
    The people really screwed were tax payers powerless to stop the racket … till now .
    The UN agenda was transfer of power and money .

  44. I believe that Trump should listen to the voices of both sided on climate change. At things stand the only voices listened to are those of climate scientists. Unfortunately this is like only listening to the prosecution case in a trial after the prosecution is first tested for complete belief in the client’s guilt.
    The real experts in temperature measurements are not scientists as they are highly trained theorist with little or no practical skill or even interest. As a result the data acquisition when subjected to normal engineering QA procedures would miserably fail those for products sold to the Poundland chain in the UK.
    Not that this standard is to be disparaged but it is nevertheless not the standard required for life critical applications which should be the norm for something as important as we are constantly told climate change is.
    The other question where climate scientist’s are inadequately trained in in determining what is normal progression of climate so they have no appreciation of the cyclic elements of the pattern.

  45. It is Xmas.
    Santa(er) lives at the North Pole.
    He is making a wish for Xmas.
    Should cut him some slack.
    He might even give Trump some coal as a present.

  46. It will be there on every day of your presidency.

    So there’s an admission of failure: if Santer thinks this number one problem for mankind (or, as he would no doubt put: womankind and mankind) will not be fixed.

    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.

    Ah…there’s the pitch, right there: we don’t think we can solve it but it will help if you keep paying us to look at this non-problem.

  47. Trump should put the question to Santer:

    Do you still stand by the claim: Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global‐mean tropospheric temperature.C
    Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale
    http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-010-476.pdf

    He should also ask if Santer denies the near 19 year hiatus

  48. 1. Santer re-wrote the IPCC executive summary, falsely claiming a discernible human influence. Wrong.
    2. Santer said after a 17 year long pause the theory would be falsified. Theory falsified.

    So why the heck should Trump pay this guy any more attention than the man on the moon?

  49. Dear Mr Santer, thank you for your letter. We have decided to take your advice and not listen to you.

    Sincerely

    Team T

  50. I see the warmistas are in the “bargaining” stage of grief. I’m not sure they will ever achieve the “acceptance” stage though.

  51. Dear Mr Santer,
    We’d love to have you on the team. We only ask that you attend meetings with a red clown nose, extra large clown shoes and beep-beep a bycycle horn upon request. Regards, Team Trump

  52. “Dear President-elect Trump—Don’t listen to the ‘ignorant voices’ on climate change”

    If President-elect Trump is smart, that is advice he will follow, and Ben Santer’s is one of the ignorant voices on climate change that he won’t be listening to.

  53. Could Trump ask Santer to provide the Minutes of the meeting when it was decided CO2 caused Global Warming, including all the other possible causes, and the evidence used to eliminate them?

    By providing these Minutes, Santer could demonstrate how open and honest Climate Scientists can be, if their livelihoods depend on it. If he can’t produce the Minutes of the meeting, it could be that Trump will conclude he was correct about Climate Scientists all along.

  54. “Dear President-elect Trump—Don’t listen to the ‘ignorant voices’ on climate change” – Yes, absolutely. So listen to NOT ONE WORD from Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, James Hanson, Phil Jones, Al Gore, Kieth Briffa, Jonathan Overpeck, Ben Santer (of course), Naomi Oreskes, Bill McKibben, etc. ad nauseam.

  55. Whoa there Ben! You’re telling Trump to ignore you!!

    Best advice you have ever given wrt your hatred of CO2.

  56. Ben Santer is entitled to his opinion but when real scientists are called upon
    those that practice the scientific method will be of interest .

    Let’s hope it keeps warming .

  57. The Donald would be advised to ask several questions regarding the claims of Climate Change.

    First, what ever happened to Global Warming? How come the change to Climate Change?

    Second, is it real? Seems that the work of Smith and de Aleo call into question that most basic premise, as weather stations that contradict the “consensus” appear to have been systematically excluded, while other, obviously tainted stations have been kept. In several cases, buildings have gone up and concrete (a heat sink, a store of energy) have been built around originally isolated weather stations still in the mix. And in one case, a temp. of 600 degreees F, OBVIOUSLY an outlier, was kept.

    Some consideration from de Aleo: In the report, D’Aleo and Watts claim that “Just as the Medieval Warm Period was an obstacle to those trying to suggest that today’s temperature is exceptional, and the UN and its supporters tried to abolish it with the ‘hockey-stick’ graph, the warmer temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s were another inconvenient fact that needed to be ‘fixed’. In each of the databases, the land temperatures from that period were simply adjusted downward, making it look as though the rate of warming in the 20th century was higher than it was, and making it look as though today’s temperatures were unprecedented in at least 150 years.”[13] from wikipedia.

    Third, is global warming really a bad thing? Remember, where I live now was at the edge of a one mile thick sheet of ice approximately 10,000 years ago. Was that better?

    Fourth, why is it necessary to “adjust” data to “prove” that (pick your year) is/was the warmest on record? Does “adjusted” mean FAKED? Why or why not?

    Fifth, in light of “adjustment,” how can we trust ANYTHING that comes from NOAA or IPCC?

    BTW, I too studied the environment in college, and it took me less than 15 minutes to debunk Michael Mann’s “hockey stick,” which according to his own data is an arbitrarily drawn line.

  58. BEN SANTER: “In the last 35 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.”

    FATHER CAVANAUGH’: “Son, in 35 years of religious study, I have only come up with two hard, incontrovertible facts: there is a God, and…I am not Him.”

    The fictional character of Father Cavanaugh is not only more entertaining, honest & believable, he is also much much much more likely to turn an original phrase.

  59. Eric Worrall said:

    “Ben Santer, who infamously once threatened to beat up climate skeptic Pat Michaels (see Climategate email 1255100876.txt)”

    If by threaten, you me tell someone else that he would be tempted to do so…. You are being deceptive in your description of events.

  60. . . . many significant challenges. Climate change is one of them.

    Climate is, has been, and always will be changing, and any current change is not unprecedented; hence no more extraordinary challenges than usual are presenting themselves. The tone of urgency in regard to climate change, then, is exaggerated to an extent that makes this a false claim.

    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.

    Thirty-five years of deferring to computer model forecasts of long-term climate shifts, when those same models fail to forecast the last eighteen or so years does not seem to qualify as learning about anything other than those computer models. What those models forecast , then, are not real effects of human actions. Your claim, then, is bogus. Your call to action based on this bogus claim, consequently, is also bogus.

    Scientific currency is not about money or power.

    Seriously ?

    If you’re a scientist, you are ultimately judged on whether you got the science right.

    No argument there, but it’s very ironic that you offer this wisdom, in light of how wrong climate science appears to be progressing.

    The few scientific voices claiming that our planet is not warming did not get the science right. The same applies to the small number of voices claiming that human actions cannot and do not affect climate. Don’t listen to such ignorant voices.

    So, your credentials are supposed to validate this claim, and deter us from examining exactly what those other scientific voices are saying ? Seems like a power play to me.

    We know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that burning fossil fuels increases levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. We’ve measured these increases. We know that increasing greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere causes warming. We’ve measured warming of Earth’s land surface, oceans, and atmosphere. Like it or not, our fingerprints are now on the climate system. We see these human fingerprints everywhere we look – in temperature, rain, snow and ice, sea level, and dozens of other climate records. If we ignore this reality, the climate forecast is not good for us, and is particularly bad for future generations.

    But what you do NOT know … beyond any reasonable doubt</b is that human-produced CO2 causes unusual or catastrophic warming. Calling the impacts of human actions fingerprints is just being dramatic for the purpose of making humans seem like criminals for producing CO2 as part of their industrial evolutionary process., ignoring the fact that humans are parts of nature and that human development is part of natural development.

    Millions of your fellow Americans are deeply concerned about climate change, and are looking to you for leadership. Your choice on Day 1 is clear. Leadership or denial. If it’s the former, you’ll have plenty of Americans willing to help you. If it’s the latter, you’ll have millions of powerful voices allied against you. Please choose wisely.

    Leadership or denial ? … Dramatic, but a false dichotomy. Other choices could be leadership or following false consensus or leadership or complacency or leadership or caving to climeastrology and mathemagic

  61. Op-Ed I published in the San Mateo Daily Journal on 1/4/2012

    Dear Editor:
    Ben Santer, of Climate Gate infamy and contributor to all four assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization that shared the bogus 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore, has as the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) climate team’s lead researcher generated a new publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. This pro-anthropogenic global warming climate research effort at LLNL attempts with this new publishment a deftly crafted scientific research effort conjoined with a hazily veiled ideological statistical component to slowly validate a central planning hegemony over U.S. and world-wide production processes. If you control CO2, then you control most energy output and thus the means of production in the world economies by exploiting fraudulent logic to tax all carbon emitting industries from the local to the international level via the UN’s IPCC.
    The central madness is that man-made global warming activists at the UN’s IPCC are in extreme dismay over how to cope with the earth’s lack of warming since 1998, especially so after NASA and the U.S. Solar Observatory publically revealed several months ago to expect moderate global cooling for the next thirty years owing to a quiet period on the sun with concurrent cooling of the mammoth Pacific Ocean heat mass. Enter IPCC’s and LLNL’s Ben Santer announcing that the climate computers had always correctly predicted non-warming lulls like the current one, stating that “tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human caused changes.” What sorcerer’s magic dwells in 17 years instead of 15 other than providing two additional years of “grace” prior to admissions that computer models are less than adequate? Will further self-justifying statistical minutia be offered then?
    But the IPCC conjured up another rabbit in the hat; on November 18th came the proclamation that the real danger to humanity was not “warming” per se, but “extreme weather.” Thus the IPCC endeavors to marginalize NASA’s report and instead rely on the tired old politically correct media to irrationally propagandize every weather “disaster” in the world permitting CO2 emissions to be inexorably condemned to justify unconscionable green taxes at a time of extreme world-wide financial trepidations.
    In concert with the IPCC, media alarmists are hysterically forecasting ice-free Arctic horror stories complete with starving polar bears, conveniently ignoring the fact that the earth possesses two poles while contemptuously indifferent to the reality that the Antarctic has been accumulating ice for the last 40 years. Concerning the Arctic, the first global warming during our current Holocene Epoch, the time between 8500 and 10,000 years ago was the warmest earth has been since the end of the last Ice Age about 19,000 years ago, as confirmed by the Norwegian research team of Dr. Lysa and Eiliv Larsen of the Geological Survey of Norway. This Norwegian team confirmed evidence of an ice-free Arctic during the aforementioned Holocene Epoch time interval. So much for hype on polar bear extinctions; if the Arctic was ice-free why did the polar bears fail to vanish given that they are not migratory?
    If you are going to vanquish the global economy to the stone age through cap and trade regulation, with employment of inefficient and expensive renewables over abundant, relatively economical and efficient energy sources like shale oil and gas, you at least owe it to the taxpayers to establish your policies on rational, transparent and rigorous non-ideological science opposed to the sustained and specious scientific facilitations of snake-oil politicized rubbish perpetrated by Ben Santer and the charlatans at the UN’s IPCC.
    Tony Favero
    Freelance Writer
    Former Science and Mathematics Instructor and Engineer
    Half Moon Bay, Ca 94019

  62. Ben Santer says that in the last 35 years he has learnt two things: First, that human actions are changing Earth’s climate. And second, that if we do nothing to address this problem, likely outcomes are bad.

    The first one is completely wrong as you we shall see. The second one exposes his ignorance of what causes warming. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see that warming has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. Just put up the global temperature curve and then put up the Keeling curve, in parallel to it. You can do it in your home, office, or laboratory. Looking at these two curves even a child can see that the global warming curve goes up and down and has peaks while the Keeling curve is completely free of any peaks and smooth. This applies to the entire length of these curves, starting in 1850 (the start of the industrial age). Keep in mind that the Keeling curve includes all of the atmospheric carbon dioxide, including the human-caused part that gives it an over-all upward trend. What the global temperature curve tells us is the fact that global temperature has not followed the steady increase of anthropogenic carbon dioxide as promised by IPCC, but significantly deviates from it. It strays so far from following the growth of anthropogenic carbon dioxide that significant cooling takes place to it. Thus, instead of warming, the temperature curve shows 35 years of cooling in the years 1875 to 1910. I get this from HadCRUT3 that was made before it was transmogrified into HadCRUT4 by undocumented changes. Plus, also another cooling from 1940 to 1950 or ten years. Such cooling covers more than one quarter of the time that has lapsed since 1850. And cooling makes a mockery of a “warming” curve. Consider also that there is absolutely no counterpart to any of the warm peaks in the Keeling curve where the carbon dioxide alleged to cause greenhouse warming resides. The only conclusion you can draw from all these facts is that global warming has nothing whatsoever to do with atmospheric carbon dioxide and should be regarded as an aspect of the natural world. Take my advice, Ben, and withdraw those two foolish statements I quoted. Act before it is too late to dissociate yourself from fake science.

Comments are closed.