Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Dr. Willie Soon – University of East Anglia alumni Ben “Beat the cr*p out of him” Santer offering President Trump lessons on fostering international cooperation, shared humanity, mutual understanding and the need to focus on climate action rather than building physical walls.
Ultima Thule, the Cold War and Trump’s Wall
As I learned during my youth in Germany, exploring frontiers beats hiding behind barriers
By Ben Santer on January 11, 2019
…
[snip – a minute of my life I will never get back]
…
Today, we are told, Americans need a wall on our southern border. We are told that we need the wall to keep us safe from rapists and terrorists; from those who are not like us, who speak differently, or do not look like we do.
Back in Cornwall School in 1966, I was “the other.” I was different in my nationality, in my speech and in my religion. For that younger me, safety and security did not come from building metaphorical walls between myself and my peers. Security came from listening, from learning, from seeking understanding of a world that was new to me.
Those lessons seem relevant today.
True security for our country does not come from building a wall on our southern border, or from asking Canada to pay for a wall on our northern border, or from withdrawing into our own little national cocoon. National security in a complex and rapidly changing world is best guaranteed by strong alliances, shared humanity and an accurate understanding of how and why political, economic and environmental changes are occurring. Keeping our country safe from harm requires awareness of the reality and seriousness of human effects on global climate. It requires a willingness to work with the rest of the world in finding innovative clean-energy solutions to the existential threat of human-caused climate change. No physical wall can fully protect us from that threat.
Read more: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/ultima-thule-the-cold-war-and-trumps-wall/
Ben Santer has an interesting background for a climate peacemaker.
Aside from his bizarre physical threat against Pat Michaels, Ben Santer 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).
Santer 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).
Ben Santer 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.
But I guess anyone can grow and learn.
When Ben takes the locks off of his doors and allows migrants to move in as they please I might listen to him. Meanwhile back at the Ranchero… https://www.macleans.ca/politics/worldpolitics/how-mexico-is-locking-down-its-other-border-wall/
‘Security came from listening, from learning, from seeking understanding of a world that was new to me.
Those lessons seem relevant today.’
He embraced assimilation. He recognized the need to become acculturated to his new environment. Which absolutely is not happening in today’s invasion. The Left has zero interest in the assimilation of today’s immigrants, which is why they back illegal immigration rather than legal immigration, with its path to assimilation and citizenship.
The Wall is to protect and to preserve the nation. Goals the Left are against.
“Back in Cornwall School in 1966, I was “the other.” I was different in my nationality, in my speech and in my religion.” I could not find anything about Mr. Santer’s nationality, speech, or religion in the excerpt, or in the Wikipedia. He sure seems to be the other.
Santer is American and lived and worked in GB, CRU and 1987 to 1992 in Germany at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology
And I bet he never entered either GB or Germany illegally.
And I bet, you are right 😀
“exploring frontiers beats hiding behind barriers”
The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
The bigotry or sanctimonious hypocrisy, full of faith, ethics, diversity, political congruence, and wicked solutions, has been progressive or monotonic for nearly a century.
Santer seems to think it is about diversity or color judgment (e.g. racism). However, the wall is not Pro-Choice or selective and opportunistic. It does not excludes Americans of various diversity (e.g. color) classes, nor does it deny legal immigration to various diversity classes from around the world. The goal is emigration reform to mitigate collateral damage forced by catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform (e.g. refugee crises) at both ends of the bridge and throughout. Allow the Mediterranean to finish boarding the remains of children separated from their parents in the last social justice adventure. Lift the veil of privacy and expose the millions of human lives planned annually for social progress and clinical cannibalism rationalized in liberally oriented cultures with foreign and domestic-induced faith and ethics. Also, don’t conflate logical domains or poison reality with politically congruent emotional appeals. #HateLovesAbortion
After the wall is built, let’s dig a deep hole and throw Santer in it, followed by Mann et Al.
Why is “a willingness to work with the rest of the world” on climate change synonymous with letting thousands of illegal immigrants flood your southern border? This is a wild conflation. The man is utterly deluded.
Immigration reform can be forced by organic climate change. However, millions of refugees annually are the result of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change forced by social justice adventures (e.g. elective regime changes, wars without security) and social dysfunction (e.g. minority regimes, redistributive and retributive change, diversity or color judgments).
[??? .mod]
“Why is “a willingness to work with the rest of the world” on climate change synonymous with letting thousands of illegal immigrants flood your southern border? ”
Because ‘climate change’ is just another way to push Globalism. And always has been.
Canada to pay for a wall on our northern border,
=============
Canada already has a wall. It forces 90% of the Canadian population to live within 150 miles of the US border. The rest of the country is pretty much empty.
And Canadians already pay billion$ every year for their wall. Every time the they heat their homes. Canadians call the wall winter.
National security in a complex and rapidly changing world is best guaranteed
=======
History says otherwise. Both western and eastern teachings are the same on this subject:
If you want peace, prepare for war.
Would an adjustable sea wall across the Bering Strait allow us to adjust Earth’s thermostat?
Eric
You said, “But I guess anyone can grow and learn.”
It has been my experience that most people actually do not grow up. They simply grow old and wrinkled, retaining the personality and immaturity they had in their youth. Santer is an example of that.
Santer’s article is a political opinion essay written by a political activist that has a socialist global government perspective. It’s instructive to see that it is in Scientific America–an ostensibly “science” magazine happy to publish a political commentary.
The essay demonstrates the overt politicization of science, and specifically climate science. And it demonstrates that any “science” published by a political activist such as Santer is likely contaminated with the overt political biases presented clearly in the essay. Anyone that can publish an essay that is so full of poor logic and faulty reasoning isn’t so much a scientist as he is a political activist.
One can not be both a scientist and a activist. The former requires you to be impartial and neutral following where the data leads, the later involves choosing a position and advocating for it by ignoring or disparaging any data that is contrary to that position. The two activities are mutually exclusive any scientist that becomes an activist ceases to be a scientist.
Agreed. The problem is we now have far too many “activists” and far too few “scientists.”
Oh, and the other problem is that the “activists” wear the costume of, and disguise themselves as, “scientists,” and too many can’t see the Trojan Horse they represent.
Well I guess he comes by it naturally.
Mr Santer shows his competence as a statesman to be on par with his abilities as a Climate Scientist.
The man should have shut up and sat down after the CRU emails made him infamous.
However keep up the good work Mr Santer,alienating and offending one citizen at a time..works real well to “persuade” the public of your authority.
Authority being the only evidence I recall Mr Santer ever voluntarily offering.
OMG! This is Ben Santer’s attempt at intellectual intercourse! I’m embarrassed for him. What a disconnected strewing of mental litter. He even got in the victimhood of being a middleclass шнутеьоу in a Cornwall school with an accent! His weaving immigration issues in with climate disaster is могоиic.
Steve McIntyre, who had dealings with many of the main climate actors remarked:
“…In my opinion, most climate scientists on the Team would have been high school teachers in an earlier generation – if they were lucky. Many/most of them have degrees from minor universities. It’s much easier to picture people like Briffa or Jones as high school teachers than as Oxford dons of a generation ago. Or as minor officials in a municipal government……(regarding critics like himself Steve added)
…Allusions to famous past amateurs over-inflates the rather small accomplishments of present critics, including myself. A better perspective is the complete mediocrity of the Team makes their work vulnerable to examination by the merely competent.”
Santer’s sophomoric offering reinforces Steve’s observation.
A great quote, thanks.
https://climateaudit.org/2013/07/26/guy-callendar-vs-the-gcms/#comment-429654
His lack of common sense is remarkable. The Hockey Team recipe for energy transition will cause social disruption of energy production, and increase the costs of energy to consumers. That is unavoidable if we follow their recommendations.
Many jobs that employ low-skilled, and unskilled labor, have energy requirements to produce the product or service that will eventually make that position profitable. It is obvious that they don’t provide value through R&D, Management, Marketing, Legal, Medical services, or any of the other skilled positions that are available.
He is advocating importing labor, that will not find work here, because those jobs are going to countries where the energy supplies are not being sabotaged by Gang-Green policies.
Many of the positions that could be filled by unskilled labor are now being done in Mexico! That is why the current crop of illegal immigrants are not coming to America looking for work. We already have 20 – 30 million illegal immigrants who do not have legal status to work here. They have found ways to survive, but there is not an unlimited number of positions for people that are undocumented. And much of what we buy that is produced by unskilled labor and low cost energy is produced in other countries.
The economic transitions that are being driven by the policies Ben and his “fellow travelers” advocate, are making it more difficult for unskilled labor to find work in First World countries. And if they can’t find work, they will not find a better life for themselves or their families. They will be another pawn that can be scarified as needed for political gain by unscrupulous politicians.
Another recipe for social and economic chaos by Gang-Green. Why am I not surprised?
Based on popular discontent over Trump’s proposed wall, all American property owners should immediately tear down all fences enclosing their back yards, all fences surrounding their business yards, all fences around home vegetable gardens, and all sound-barrier walls along highways, … in the spirit of openness and receptivity, … in the spirit of anti-racist, anti-xenophobe, anti-everything that might categorize, differentiate, mark, or otherwise distinguish one thing from another.
Categorization, at its very core, is racist and excluding. Let us deny walls of every living cell in the human body too. Let us aspire to build our lived-in structures without walls too — just imagine that they are there, and trust in the good will of all humankind to understand that each person is equal to every other person, BUT we are still individuals, which is totally contradictory, but, hey, to say otherwise would impose a boundary of expectation on the use of language, which would be ANOTHER wall, and we cannot have that.
What have the billions upon billions of dollars spent on climate change bought us? ANSWER: Nothing that I have been able to locate any quantifying information on.
So, it’s okay to spend countless billions to get nothing in return, but it’s not okay to spend billions to get something real.
Spending should have no boundaries, right? … nothing physical to show for it, right? … just lots of good feelings for doing something to entertain fantasy narratives?
Did it occur to you, Trebla, that Trump would be more than happy to see the back of US LibTards?
Ben Santer’s alterations to the text of the IPCC second report in 1995 assures that his name will be more than a footnote when the definitive history of the Great Catastrophic Global Warming racket is finally written.
Ben Santer said: “Today, we are told, Americans need a wall on our southern border. We are told that we need the wall to keep us safe from rapists and terrorists; from those who are not like us, who speak differently, or do not look like we do.”
Ben is conflating two different things, just like he conflates climate change with human-caused climate change. In this case he is correct, sensible Americans want to be kept safe from rapists and terrorists, but he is incorrect about the reason being that illegal aliens are not like us and speak differently and don’t look like us. It’s not a dislike of “others” it’s a dislike of rapists and terrrorists and gangs, and criminal enterprises, and child/women molesters and murderers of any race, color or creed. Ben wants to make out like protecting our border is based on racism. Ben is a faithful lefty spouting (and possibly believing) the party line, but he is not close to the truth.
Ben Santer said: “True security for our country does not come from building a wall on our southern border, or from asking Canada to pay for a wall on our northern border, or from withdrawing into our own little national cocoon.”
Ben thinks protecting our borders from criminals crossing means we want to run and hide our heads in the sand. I bet Ben has a lock on the door of his house. Does that mean Ben is withdrawing from the world and rejecting everything outside the door? It’s a silly proposition.
The US has a right to determine who comes and goes across our borders and our leaders have the obligation to regulate that traffic for the maximum safety of American citizens.
I hear the polls are starting to go against the Democrats on the border wall issue.
Nancy should do a deal or be prepared to get nothing for herself and her party for the next two years, and President Trump will make the border issue and the Democrats inability/unwillingness to protect the nation, the number one issue in the 2020 election. Democrats may not hold the House after that.
The Democrats are not going to prevent the wall from being built. The Democrats might as well get on board and save themselves a lot of wasted effort. But they are “reality challenged” so there’s no telling what they will do.
Anyone can grow and learn except Ben Santer and his ilk who are true believers.
Borders and national identities are hindrances to the sort of world governance that is the goal of the likes of Santer, Edenhofer, and Figueres.
Of course, this pipe-dream ‘Government of World Unity to Save The Planet’ would be led by such luminaries as themselves.
It is not that they are megalomaniacs or anything like that, they just fervently believe that the world ought to be run by a consensus of scientists (such as themselves) and enlightened technocrats.
“We are told that we need the wall to keep us safe from rapists and terrorists; from those who are not like us, who speak differently, or do not look like we do”
No sir. You are told that the usa has immigration laws and that these laws must be enforced. That the USA welcomes legal immigration is seen in the large number of asians who “don’t look like you do” leaving us here in asia and moving to america legally to pursue their dream. Entering america legally isn’t really that hard if you go to the embassy first instead of just walking to the border and trying to force your way in.
The definition of a “Polotician” is One who lies. One who deceives. One who scams. One who twist facts. I could go on.
As soon as I read the words. “Today we are told”, I’m like, Oh god, here we go. The rest of what is going to come out of this guys mouth will be lies, deception and twisted logic.
When President Trump addressed the nation to explain why he wants a wall, he said there was a “growing humanitarian and security crisis” at the border. In his rebuttal, Schumer countered with: “This president just used the backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis…”
But Trump is not the first President to refer to the situation on the border as a “crisis.” In 2014, President Obama also addressed the nation and warned about an “actual humanitarian crisis on the border.” I can find no evidence that Schumer called Obama a liar or disputed his description of the crisis on the border. Either Pres. Obama was lying then, or Pres. Trump is telling the truth now. What is clear is that Schumer, Pelosi, and Santer judge “truth” not by the facts, but by what political party the information comes from.
Louis, both Trump”s and Obama’s address was mere talk. Pay attention to the actions. Obama didn’t separate children from their parents. Trump did. Actions speak louder than words.
“Are you really that naive or are you just practicing to be a liberal politician ? …D’OH !
Neither President separated children from their parents. The Border Patrol did this under both presidents and has been doing it since the “William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008”. But it became common practice under the Obama Administration, when it became obvious that many of the adults seeking asylum where not the child’s legal guardian.
https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/human-trafficking
The document from the Obama Justice Dept. that “speaks louder than words”.
https://www.ovc.gov/pubs/FederalHumanTraffickingStrategicPlan.pdf
“Neither President separated children from their parents.”
…
FALSE
…
Obama’s policy was catch and release, insuring children and parents remained together.
…
Trump’s policy was zero tolerance, incarcerating whole families. Problem was that a consent decree did not allow them to hold children in detention for long periods. They separated them then deported the parents. In fact there are hundreds of children still separated and are currently wards of the US government.
The photo that circulated on social media that showed children in cages at the border was taken during the Obama Administration. It occurred when we were were flooded with unaccompanied minors from Central America. There were no parents to release them to, so they had to find make-shift shelters for them to stay in, thus the “cages.” Relatives or volunteers could claim the children if they were willing to provide for them. But many children ended up being released to sex traffickers claiming to work for non-profit organizations. No one cared about these abuses when it was Obama doing it, and the news media were silent about it. It only became an issue after Trump became President. We all know why.
As usual, David substitutes ideology for reality.
In truth, Obama separated more children from their parents than Trump did. The difference is the media didn’t put it on the front page.
Multiple commenters have pointed out in detail why the wall needs to be built and you have not been reading their posts, or at least understanding the basic logic behind it. I’m therefore unsure why you are still commenting on the topic.
You appear to be stuck on the narrative. Maybe try letting the facts sink in before commenting further.