A history of Dr. Ben Santer and his IPCC “trick”

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

I will not apologize for my outrage at being lectured to about my moral obligations concerning climate change from the likes of Benjamin Santer, from his position at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Ironically, and sadly, he is right that we need to address climate change, but for the wrong reason. We need to address the questionable science about climate change and global warming he was part of from the start. We need to address and stop the use of science for a political agenda, as his latest pontificating illustrates.

The arrogance of his remarks in light of his history makes them especially egregious. It is worse when he makes them from his federal taxpayer-funded position. He is entitled to his opinions on climate, and I can take issue with them, but he does what I believe he has done throughout his professional career and allowed his political views to color and distort his science. He was not alone, as the Groupthink of the entire crowd at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) demonstrated in the leaked emails. Worse, he was a major player in what I call the greatest deception in history.

Here is a comment from his latest arrogant sermon produced in an essay by Eric Worrall titled, Ben Santer: We Need Understanding, Not Physical walls, to Address Climate Change.

“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.”

No, that is not what we are told. It is true that they say the wall is to protect American citizens from rapists and terrorists; of course, they are criminals trying to enter illegally, and you either lock them up or lock them out. It is not true that the walls are designed to block “those who are not like us, who speak differently, or do not look like we do.” Even Trump says all are welcome if they enter legally.

Disclaimer: Most of the rest of the material appeared in an earlier article posted on my website in 2011. I have added and modified the original to strengthen and clarify the argument.

Early Signs of CRU/IPCC Corruption and Cover-up

Recently, over 5000 more leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), labeled Climategate 2, provided clarity of what was going on. They add flesh to the skeleton of corrupted climate science identified in 1000 leaked emails of Climategate 1. They show why and how it was achieved, and intelligent people became so blinded by what Michael Mann called “the cause.” Early signs of what was going on were quickly covered up with a masterful PR strategy.

Many can’t believe a small group of scientists achieved such a massive effect. Edward Wegman in his report to the Chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Committee identified, through social network analysis,

“43 individuals all of whom have close ties to Dr. Mann.”

He also anticipates the problems with peer-review.

“One of the interesting questions associated with the ‘hockey stick controversy’ are the relationships among the authors and consequently how confident one can be in the peer review process.”

Wegman’s primary recommendation identified another way they achieved it.

It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.

Maurice Strong chose the UN specifically the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to control bureaucracies within every national government and away from legislative oversight. Those bureaucracies directed research funding to one side of the debate and appointed people to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The research was limited by defining climate change as only human-caused changes, which predetermined the outcome. The political objective became enshrined through the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), particularly Agenda 21, introduced at the 1992 Rio Conference organized and chaired by Strong.

Basing Agenda 21 on climate and the environment gave them the moral high ground, which they used to control and centralize power. Vaclav Klaus identified this in his book Blue Planet in Green Shackleswhen he wrote,

“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”

It is likely that Agenda 21 is “the cause” discussed in the leaked emails.

“I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.”

Peter Thorne sensed what was happening and issued a warning.

“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

Overall attitude given by the comments and actions suggests the end justifies the means. Apparently, the demonstrated ability to protect scientists who acted rashly for the cause emboldened them.

The first action that exposed the modus operandi occurred with the 1995 second IPCC Report. Benjamin Santer is a CRU graduate. Tom Wigley supervised his Ph.D. Wigley replaced Hubert Lamb as Director of the CRU, but Lamb realized his mistake as he explained in his 1997 (out of print) autobiography “Through all the Changing Scenes of Life: A Meteorologists Tale” how a major grant from the Rockefeller Foundation came to grief because of,

“…an understandable difference of scientific judgment between me and the scientist, Dr. Tom Wigley, whom we have appointed to take charge of the research.”

When you read the leaked Climategate emails, you learn that Wigley became the “go-to” person in disputes, the godfather.

Santer’s thesis titled, Regional Validation of General Circulation Models” used three top computer models in an attempt to recreate North Atlantic conditions – a form of validation. Apparently, the region was chosen because, although the data was still inadequate, it provided the best available. The models failed to recreate known general pressure patterns. Instead, they created massive pressure systems that don’t exist in reality. In short, Santer knew better than most the severe limitations and inabilities of the models to recreate reality.

He completed the thesis in 1987 and a few years later was appointed the convening Lead-author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Report titled “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.” In that position, Santer created the first clear example of the IPCC manipulation of science for a political agenda. He used his position to establish the headline that humans were a factor in global warming by altering the meaning of what was agreed by the committee as a whole at the draft meeting in Madrid.

Agreed comments

1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

2. “While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”

3. “Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

4. “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”

Santer’s replacements

1. “There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols … from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change … These results point toward a human influence on global climate.”

2. “The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”

As Avery and Singer noted in 2006,

“Santer single-handedly reversed the ‘climate science’ of the whole IPCC report and with it the global warming political process! The ‘discernible human influence’ supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world and has been the ‘stopper’ in millions of debates among nonscientists.”

At the time, the exposure showed a quick cover-up was necessary. On July 4, 1996, the apparently compliant journal Nature published, “A Search for Human Influences on the Thermal Structure of the Atmosphere” with a familiar list of authors – Santer, Wigley, Jones, Mitchell, Oort and Stouffer. It provided observational evidence that proved the models were accurate. A graph is worth a thousand words as Mann’s “hockey stick’ showed and so it was with Santer’s “discernible human influence.” John Daly recreated Santer et al.’s graph (Figure 1) of the upward temperature trend in the Upper Atmosphere.

clip_image002

Figure 1

Then Daly produced a graph of the wider data set in Figure 2 and explained,

“we see that the warming indicated in Santer’s version is just a product of the dates chosen” (Daly’s bold).

clip_image004

Figure 2

Here they are juxtaposed for easier comparison (Figure 3).

clip_image006

Figure 3

Errors were spotted quickly, but Nature didn’t publish the rebuttals until 5 months later (12 Dec 1996), one identified the cherry-picking, the other a natural explanation for the pattern. However, by that time the PR cover-up was underway.

On July 25, 1996, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) sent a letter of defense to Santer. The letter appears to be evidence of CRU influence and a PR masterpiece. It said there were two questions, the science, and what society must do about scientific findings and the debate they engendered. Science should only be debated in “peer-reviewed scientific publications – not the media.” This was the strategy confirmed in a leaked email from Michael Mann.

“This was the danger of always criticizing (sic) the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature.”

Then AMS wrote,

“What is important scientific information and how it is interpreted in the policy debates is an important part of our jobs.” “That is, after all, the very reasons for the mix of science and policy in the IPCC.”

No, it isn’t. The mix is the very heart of the problem as Santer shows. Daly correctly called this “Scientism.”

Santer reportedly later admitted,

“…he deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change.”

He did not admit the changes at the time and achieved the objective of getting the discernible human influence message on the world stage. He was protected by the group that demonstrated its control over peer review, journals, professional societies, and the media, until the emails leaked in November 2009 and reinforced in 2011.

Here is Mosher and Fuller’s summary in their book about the emails

· Actively worked to evade (Steve) Mcintyre’s Freedom of Information requests, deleting emails, documents, and even climate data

· Tried to corrupt the peer-review principles that are the mainstay of modern science, reviewing each other’s’ work, sabotaging efforts of opponents trying to publish their own work, and threatening editors of journals who didn’t bow to their demands

· Changed the shape of their own data in materials shown to politicians charged with changing the shape of our world, ‘hiding the decline’ that showed their data could not be trusted.

Even if only half these charges are true, they are activities that would and should have resulted in academic, scientific, and legal censure, and even criminal charges. Imagine having your name identified with such findings. You wouldn’t moralize with other scientists about their inaction. Bishop Hill provided a comprehensive summary of the emails identifying people and comments. Here is the gang before the lid blew off their nefarious perversion of science (Figure 4).

clip_image008

Figure 4

This entire debacle illustrates my concern from the start. Scientists like Santer are entitled to their scientific positions and the responsibilities they require. In my opinion, they do not meet those responsibilities. Also, in my opinion, it is an indefensible position, but that is a matter for others to judge. I say that because it is precisely the reason the courts will not participate in scientific disputes. They argue with justification that it is a matter of your ‘paper’ against my ‘paper’ and they are not qualified to judge. However, the entire situation changes when you argue and arrange for your ‘paper’ to be the support for public policy. Now, a completely new set of responsibilities are enjoined, not least of which is the credibility of your ‘paper’ and your actions. Now, it becomes my ‘paper’ against your corrupted ‘paper.’

Santer’s sanctimonious comments clearly demonstrate he is incapable of separating his politics from his science. It is that confusion and misuse of climate for a political agenda that is the real threat of climate change on both sides of the wall.

74 thoughts on “A history of Dr. Ben Santer and his IPCC “trick”

  1. What is extraordinary is how deep the buy in to this scam in society has been. I had a discussion recently with someone in the pub who claimed to ‘have looked into it’ and was convinced CAGW was a reality. The simplest discussion of CO2 warming, feedbacks, and previous earths temperatures/ CO2 levels showed he had about as much knowledge as a 2 year old.

    • No Kym. He discerned that from their discussion. He said nothing about the fellow preferring a beer with someone else. You are inventing an alternate scenario because you have a position based on your ego, not on accuracy.

  2. We are in dangerous waters. Santer is a card carrying member of the swamp. Our government is using the social justice warriors to divide and finish the conquest of our country. Not only are we deniers, but now we can be punished for “facecrime” as well.

    “To wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called.” —George Orwell, 1984

    • A name not mentioned here that was providing top level political cover to those scientists in cluding Hansen at GISS) in the US federal employ promoting The Cause…Vice President Al Gore.

      In 1993, newly elected President Clinton put his VP Gore in charge of executing the administration’s overall environmental agenda:
      https://www.c-span.org/video/?51628-1/global-warming-announcement

      To be fair, Clinton/Gore undermined a lot of what the hard-core environmentalists wanted at Kyoto. Clintons NAFTA was seen by hard-core enviros as simply shifting US pollutions/ghg emissions to Mexico, while at Kyoto resisting calls for out-right bans on GHG emissions, choosing instead crony-captalist schemes of carbon trading to enrich their politcal supporters. Many of Clinton/Gore’s watering down of climate/AGW demands were politically motivated to prevent alienating coal mining unions and unions in general that then were the heart of Clinton’s base support, support Gore would need in his 2000 presidential bid. But VP Gore’s invisible hand from the WH protected Hansen’s and Santer’s climate activism as government scientists, and those bosses in their respective food chains knew it.

    • Santer and Mann are among the very worst at their practice of real science, and then unfortunately, also among the most sanctimonious and defensive when challenged by criticism, and then also nastiest on the attack of their critics. They’re triple threats. It is high time they both lose their federal funding, and high time for the USA to bring about an end to this 3 decade long global charade, by quitting our participation in, and funding for, the UNFCCC (parent UN organization of the IPCC).

      Get us out, president Trump! Please. If you make a deal on the border wall, and Nancy insists on some DACA payback, I’d be okay with trading permanent residency (no citizenship) for every child in the US before the 2018 mid-terms, in exchange for a Congressional bill to end UNFCCC participation. Now it would become the Senate’s problem, and the Republicans have been damn squishy when cutting funding for climate research. But this needs to happen. But I think they would go along at this point. The US is NOT subordinate to the UN, and we have to stop funding and playing with those who pretend it is.

    • Facecrimes: like smiling agreeably while an aging veteran “warrior” comes up to you and bangs his war drum in your face.

      • The act of throwing a sweet-looking 16yo boy into the dungeons of leftist depravity, for the “crime” of patiently listening to a drum being thumped in HIS own personal space … is the only “crime” worthy of prosecution. I sincerely hope he and his parents gain legal traction against every HATE spewing FAKE “news” Co. and every worm crawling through the internet who doxxed both he and his classmates.

        Living just East of the Extremely well-Funded Lawrence Berkeley Labs, where most of its well-heeled leftist employees reside in the largest, most expensive homes in my upper, upper, middle class community … I can assure you this man (and his cohorts) have ZERO moral superiority over any of the “little” people they imagine themselves “protecting” from the “evils” of capitalism. Perhaps they will earn some credibility when they move-into one of the thousands of homeless encampments in the East Bay. Until then, they carry NO moral superiority by driving a taxpayer-subsidized $65k Tesla over the Berkeley hills from Orinda to Berkeley each day.

        • ” I sincerely hope he and his parents gain legal traction against every HATE spewing FAKE “news” Co. and every worm crawling through the internet who doxxed both he and his classmates.”

          Did Twitter ban all the accounts that threatened violence on the Catholic school boys? I don’t have Twitter, so I don’t know. My guess is: No. 🙂

          It sounds like lawyers could make quite a case against those who threatened and slandered these guys. I think that is the only way to stop this kind of behavior by going after them in court. The big media outfits like Twitter aren’t going to shut down leftwing hate, so lawsuits are the next step..

          • I wonder what the courts would do to the former SNL actress (I won’t say star, because there aren’t any on that show any more) who offered to give a blow job to anyone who punched that kid in the face.
            Even if he were guilty as charged, the courts don’t take kindly to inciting violence.

          • Somebody pointed out that the videos that made her so mad were fake, however she refused to take back what she said declaring that since the boy supported Trump, he still deserved a punch in the face.

            Who was it who said that leftists were the kind, compassionate ones?

          • @nachosarah (Sarah Beattie) still has a live Twitter account, but SNL says she lied about working for the show. She is not shadowbanned:
            https://shadowban.eu/NachoSarah

            @kathygriffin still has a live Twitter account. She is not shadowbanned:
            https://shadowban.eu/KathyGriffin

            @AbrissErik has protected his tweets.
            https://shadowban.eu/AbrissErik

            However, mine Twitter account was shadowbanned for several days (until sometime within the last few hours), and I didn’t threaten anyone:
            https://shadowban.eu/ncdave4life

    • United Nations
      UN Library

      Topic: Sustainable Development

      Introduction

      Left sidebar menu: Click on any item/items for UN documents.

      This is a timeline 1946-Present. One section includes the IPCC.

      https://research.un.org/en/docs/dev

      The UN Library also has a section on Environment.

    • … and I hear he may be distantly related to a tribal elder of some Northwestern tribe. He also has a drum with which he advances into our faces and beats on ad nauseam until we stop smiling.

      /sarc

      • Don’t talk bad about Chief Drumass he is 1/1064th patriot and is a member in good standing of the Warren Tribe.

        • Whoever Chief Drumass actually is … his face is a CAUTIONARY TALE for everyone to see. His approx. 63yo face looks like that of a 90yo crack addict (yeah, I know, that’s an oxymoron). Being the same age, I can confidently claim I don’t look a day over 42yo. Listen up kiddies!! Just banging da drum all day is NOT good for your health! Taking mass quantities of your native peoples “natural” medicinal marijuana is NOT good for your health! Being a Socialist FOOL is NOT good for your health!

        • “the Warren Tribe.”

          That’s funny, Mike!

          I think everyone can qualify for the Warren Tribe. It does’t take much indian blood at all. Very little, in fact. 🙂

    • Yes, added thanks. It is useful to have a clear reminder of Santer’s scamming and corruption of the IPCC report. This kind of crime against humanity should not be allowed to fade with time.

  3. Ben Santer is not a scientist he’s a modern day witch doctor. Scientists follow the scientific method and strive to be objective. Santer shuns the scientific method and is overtly biased. He openly manipulates data, people, and organizations to support a political agenda. He refuses to debate, and doesn’t tolerate dissent. He’s the poster boy for the oxymoron of ‘climate scientist’.

    And Maurice Strong is a perfect example of why the UN should be disbanded:

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?
    Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
    Maurice Strong, 1992, Under Secretary General of the UN

    • Louis Hooffstetter

      Our friends on the left will claim that Maurice Strong never said that, here’s an Example, but he did say it and here’s the source. It’s a Wayback Machine pdf and an interesting read (-:

      • That is a crazy story. Rich people get stupid bored. Some years ago I was having a smoke in the parking lot while waiting for a table at a breakfast place in Sedona, Arizona. A man walked up to me and ask if I was waiting for the “stellar vortex” I said No just an omelet. The desert makes people a little nuts.

      • Steve Case: your link to the source of Maurice Strong’s quote has been nixed.
        Big Brother is watching…

  4. The most effective and satisfying response is to rock on as you are Dr. Ball.

    ” However, the entire situation changes when you argue and arrange for your ‘paper’ to be the support for public policy. ” TB

    Public policy is politics. When Santer et al chose to climb into that ring they should have been prepared to have their work scrutinized closely. Playing the poor helpless scientist card is pathetic but it isn’t an inoculation.

    You have provided light in the darkness. A fitting tribute to any life.

    Suggested motto for skeptics “We are not here to take part. We are here to take over” Said by somebody who fights for a living.

  5. Some years ago I enrolled in the on-line course “Denial 101x” run by edX (See here https://courses.edx.org/courses/UQx/Denial101x/1T2015/course/) in an attempt to get a balanced view of climate issues.

    One of the introductory videos was by Be4n Santer. I was curious as to how he would respond personally regarding his changes to the IPCC report. But asking this question in the student’s forum got me quickly labelled as a “Denier”. Another issue I raised was blocked from becoming a thread and needles to say I soon gave up engaging further and left the echo chamber.

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

    Translated, don’t listen to Ben Santer and his pals.

  7. 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.

    That’s a typical leftist technique. Paint conservatives as racists and worse. In that light, being a CAGW skeptic is painted as being the same as a holocaust denier.

    I do not understand what is wrong with a wall. What is the excuse for not building the wall? There’s a demonstrated problem with people entering America illegally. It’s got to the point where ranchers are afraid to go out on their own land. link If the Democrats think that’s OK, they should campaign on letting everyone through the regular border crossings.

    • “That’s a typical leftist technique. Paint conservatives as racists and worse. “

      It’s maddening, and it’s disgraceful that they continuously get away with it, but they will get away with it until there are some honest people in the non-Fox media.

    • commieBob January 24, 2019 at 5:49 am

      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.

      That’s a typical leftist technique.

      Properly called a “Straw Man”

    • I just heard a piece on the radio in which a couple of experts claimed that walls are ineffective.

      The Great Wall of China was effective for hundreds of years. link You could argue that raiders could easily overwhelm the garrisons on the wall. They could get in. The raiders’ problem was that they could not easily get out again. 🙂

      I would say that assessing the effectiveness of a wall is not straightforward.

    • And for those that say walls do not work….

      North Korea and South Korea have a wall. It seems to be very effective.

      Prisons have walls; again very effective

      Berlin had a wall; again very effective.

      My residential structure has walls; again very effective even when I am not home.

      A little common sense and personal observational, empirical data and skills is all that is needed.

      • Actually, the list of effective walls today is long and getting longer: Saudi, Israel, India (Bangladesh), Mexico (Honduras), Turkey (Syria)…

    • “I do not understand what is wrong with a wall.”

      The common response I hear is that, paraphrasing: “Its a 4th century solution to a 21st century problem.”

      Well, apparently it was a 4th century problem as well. People coming over a border on foot is an age old problem. A wall isn’t a panacea, but coupled with border patrol and technology, it is certainly necessary.

      • The ‘walls don’t work’ idea sounds silly and it is silly. So why is it being repeated ad nauseum?

        Well it gets people softened up to what the loony left are really trying to sell. Technology. Impractical people (lefties) will buy into the idea that drones and the like can REPLACE a physical barrier.

        That way the criminals masquerading as lefty politicians can ensure there are always some parts of the border where people can simply walk across it. Once they’re in they’re in. Difficult and expensive to get ’em out again due to ineffective laws.

  8. The bigger story is that this sort of thing is only possible because the mainstream media is hopelessly corrupt.

    • Yes some in the mainstream media are corrupt in that they allow their agenda to subvert their reporting of the news. The other problem is that few reporters or editors have any understanding of science. Those reporters who might dig into a story like Santer’s corruption of science are victims of the Toms, Phils and Bens, because they can’t do the math themselves to see the scientific corruption. It appears to me that few reporters could convert fractions to percentages in their heads, thus the statistical arguments which we deal with at WUWT, are not within the realm of understanding of most reporters. They fall for the Appeal to Authority fallacy because of the positions of the Toms, Phils and Bens.

  9. It seems difficult to separate in peoples minds the difference between personal weird agendas and political groupings such as Left and Right. My observations of many years indicate that it is unwise to be lumping and jumping into convenient categories and pigeonholes.

    Agenda 21 has many sensible ideas incorporated in it and they respond to the well-known, globally impacting failure of the “development aid” patterns seen largely since 1960. Treating the world as a single mass of people and a single planetary home is wise on many levels, and that view is incorporated into hundreds of international cooperative agreements such as simple things as the Law of the Sea and telecommunication protocols and the coordination on the elimination of diseases.

    I am not happy to read that anything to do with Agenda 21 means it is a commie plot to “take over the world”. Adding silly things to Agenda 21 did not help, but in any politically-influence process, junk creeps in. It can be removed without tossing out the baby. It is not “law” it is a set of goals largely beneficial to those presently kept in exploitative arrangements and poverty. Do not be surprised when a plan, any plan that promises improvement, is adopted by a large number of nations. What do you expect? It is better than violent revolution. Believe me, we the nations have tried both. Consultation and coordinated effort is better.

    Similarly, any call to divorce a whole country from the world is pie-in-the-sky isolationism that has zero chance of success. Remember it was the communists who used to demand that each country should be independent in production of all things, looking forward to the final revolution. Now some capitalists call for the same preparation in expectation of what, exactly?

    If international development aid served the claimed purpose and produced useful results, Agenda 21 would not have appeared. It didn’t. The UK found that the way in which its ‘help’ was offered produced $3 of economic benefit for the UK for each $1 spend on “aid” so they continued their ‘efforts’. It is and was a sophisticated way of cleaning out the colonies on a long term basis. Was the USA any different? I think they scored better on many metrics, certainly in the past, anyway. The USA is generous as a nation and as individuals. You’d think they would be as good a global administration.

    To consider that the climate alarm industry is viewed by developing countries as anything other than a chance to eat at the same table is naive. Of course they signed onto the Paris Agreement! Who else is going to help them limit exploitation and build needed schools and roads and safe water systems? They are being farmed for their cheap labour and the “gain” accumulates in rich countries who manage the global economy. When roads are needed and “climate change” is is the mantra to get them, guess what? Bread is on offer and one side is buttered.

    If we want to have a global society in which there is anything like a fair share and fair shot, it will require a heroic act of diplomatic will backed by the needed resources. The UN fails to deliver, Agenda 21 fails, and climate change alarmism via the Paris agreement will fail. Something will succeed, but it doesn’t yet exist. Perhaps the US Republic will lead the creation of it. Perhaps not. Gunboat diplomacy is not going to achieve it. Neither will drone-ship diplomacy. The deprived people of the world are educated enough to know they are being screwed. Guess what – they don’t like the arrangement.

    As was once said at an island conference, if the USA doesn’t want to lead, then get out of the way. The United Nations needs a complete overhaul, not abandonment. Agenda 21 needs pruning and reorganisation, not abandonment and derision from the wealthy. The concept of global problems requiring global responses is absolutely correct – but that doesn’t mean impending climate catastrophe is one of them. Plunking advocates into “leftist” and “capitalist” buckets is a convenient rhetorical device but useless for informing development policy. Insisting upon it does not establish a moral standard. It distracts.

    We can do a heck of a lot better than that, and we must.

    • Crispin in Waterloo
      “We can do a heck of a lot better than that, and we must.”

      And then there’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

    • “……going to help them limit exploitation and build needed schools and roads and safe water systems? They are being farmed for their cheap labour and the “gain” accumulates in rich countries….”
      Crispin, your otherwise insightful commentary is marred by the above statement. I have seen millions of dollars of agency money diverted by local political elites, used for their own purposes rather than providing the intended program results except for photo-ops for more money requests. The money did NOT end up accumulating in rich countries, the rich countries were made poorer in those cases. “Teach a man to fish….” is still the best….

      • How are they going to gain experience without those cheap jobs?

        This is the same kind of logic that thinks that raising the minimum wage helps poor people.

    • Crispin, I normally enjoy and gain information by your postings and have some respect for your opinion.

      I wasn’t going to respond to your current posting because it is an incoherent mishmash and doesn’t advocate any specific actions. I mean you no personal offense by this simple observation.

      Your assertion that developing countries are being “… farmed for their cheap labour and the “gain” accumulates in rich countries …” does, however require some comment. The development of Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea (especially in contrast to North Korea), Vietnam, China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and many others started with cheap labor.

      • Dave, indeed the development only happened because the wage rates were cheap.
        Had those people demanded western style wages from the get go, the companies would have stayed in the west so they could get western style productivity for those western style wages.

        People voluntarily work in those factories for what we consider to be low wages because those jobs are, in the eyes of those involved, better than the alternatives.

    • 1) Please state your evidence that the US is “getting in the way”.
      2) The UN is hopelessly corrupt, always has been, always will be. There is nothing it does or ever has done that couldn’t have been done better without it’s involvement.
      3) If you want to help people, then get them better jobs. Better schools and clean water are nice, but of no use if you are sitting at home unemployed.
      If you want good jobs, then it’s those capitalists who are going to provide them, not international aid.
      Working at low wages is how everyone starts in the labor market. By condemning low wage jobs you are condemning those people a life without meaningful employment.
      A low wage job is not exploitation, unless there is someone who is preventing you from improving yourself and getting a better job.

      • “There is nothing it does or ever has done that couldn’t have been done better without it’s involvement.”

        The UN is extremely good at having soldiers stand around in blue helmets and blue vehicles doing nothing.

    • Crispin I have my doubts about agenda 21 as I don’t think it’s ever going to do what it says it’s going to do on its tin.
      However with regards helping undeveloped people, especially in Africa, who don’t have hot and cold running water, refrigerators to store food and electricity so they can read at night there is much that can be done. Build lots of coal power stations. This should be done by the UN. Not the way it’s being done at the moment by the Chinese.

  10. It has been a great disappointment that Trump and his advisors have not developed a politically astute and effective attack on AGW.

    He sounds (and probably is) largely uninformed on the topic.

    AGW is not a trivial side issue. The corruption of science (along with media and education) has the power to destroy freedom.

    Trump does hammer away at the press…but not intelligently or in a way that is very convincing to uninformed Americans (i.e. the vast majority).

    Trump’s statements on AGW are equally unconvincing. Swamp draining requires better tactics and ammunition…and leadership.

    • “AGW is not a trivial side issue. The corruption of science (along with media and education) has the power to destroy freedom.”

      At this point, there is enough evidence to ‘reverse engineer’ this crime. David Hawkins is doing a noble job of this, with the help of Jason Goodman on ‘Crowdsource the Truth’. He’s exposing the agencies and key players involved with taking advantage of the AGW deception in pursuit of their own financial gain. Viewers and supporters are participating in this process.
      This approach is long overdue.

  11. The phony moral high-ground is a greenie prerequisite. See, that gives them right to do whatever they want, and forgives any action they might take.

    Note that any leftist entity will immediately try to hijack moral piety – it’s how they deal with opponents who use common sense and logic.

  12. How ironic that Ben Santer’s place of employment is a highly secure, walled facility.

    “Because much of LLNL’s mission involves national security, entry is strictly regulated. Visitors must make prior arrangements and pick up a badge at the Westgate Badge Office in order to gain admittance to the Laboratory. Visitors and the news media should be aware of LLNL’s policies on photography and its rules for bringing restricted and controlled items onto the site.”

    https://www.llnl.gov/about/visiting

  13. Shouldn’t the caption for Fig. 4 [Livermore 1992] read “Phil, Ben and Tom” (as opposed to “Tom, Phil and Ben”)?

    One wonders whether Ben could have been the one overheard whispering to Mann that [one had to get rid of the MWP] during a break in an early climate science gathering…

  14. Dr. Ball,

    Thank you for another fine essay. It has been a little over 9 years since the release of the first set of “Climategate” emails and that was just part of the revelation of the truth of the manipulation of science and public policy. Unfortunately the scam persists but continues to weaken. Please keep reminding us and newer viewers just how perverse the whole saga is and how it got started so it may never happen again.

  15. When Benny boy steps up and offers his personal support for these “refugees” then I will listen. In my state K-12 education is right at $15k per year per kid. Now add housing (free since Ben has a house already), food, medical, clothing, etc. Now add family members who begin arriving steadily. Multiply by 10 years.
    So what do you say Ben, how about starting with ONE KID, at $1250 per month? Be an example for all the CAGW crowd and put your money where your mouth is!! Versus always asking someone else for THEIR money for YOUR cause…

Comments are closed.