Bishop Hill Santer's claws
Oct 25, 2010 Climate: Sceptics Media Ben Santer is interviewed at the Climate Sight blog, and he remains something of a catfighter, aiming his claws at, among others, sceptical bloggers:
These fringe voices now have megaphones,” he continues, “and have means of amplifying their voices and trumpeting shoddy, incorrect science. We’ve seen the rise of the blogs, we’ve seen the rise of these “independent public auditors” who believe that they have carte blanche to investigate anyone who produces results they don’t agree with, and if that individual doesn’t comply with their every request, they indulge in this persecution campaign on their blogs and make your life very uncomfortable. I’ve had direct personal experience with that.
Does he sound slightly hysterical to you?
Bishop Hill
Commenters note that the Santer article has been taken down. I've retrieved it from Google cache and posted it at the bottom of the header post as a PDF.
Reader Comments (74)
Is this the same Ben "I am going to punch Pat Michaels" Santer? Poor fellow!
They had their own way for years and now that people are not just accepting everything being fed he throws his dummy out of the pram.
This one I liked...
One strategy could be to build the dwindling pool of science journalists back up. Santer stresses the importance of having such specialized reporters, rather than sending out general reporters to cover complex scientific issues.
Like James Bond in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service"... sort of a brainwashed group of JournoAngels sent out with the right programming... like Political Kommisars spreading the fear of god into media organisations the world over.
If you do not like the heat of democracy then keep out of the political kitchen.
Is it my imagination but it seems like a concerted campaign at getting these thoughts out into the media the last month or so.
Dr John
Not only that - didn't they talk about trying to get Pat Michaels's PhD revoked in the emails?
The problem that Santer and Co have is not with the "trumpeting shoddy, incorrect science."
The problem is that dear old Gaia has started to turn her nose up at the career path that was planned for her, seems to have gone right off modeling work.
Santer claims to have identified a worsening of the journalistic standards but doesn't identify where precisely, he seems to think it is enough to rail against it in a rather hysterical emotive way. I guess this technique must have worked for him before in some quarters.
Apparently Santer is puzzled that:
"[journalistic] neutrality is prized above all else, even above objectivity and truth".
No doubt he means his objectivity and truth. It seems that here speaks another scientist who thinks himself a philosopher king in the mould of Martin Rees. These guys could frighthen me if I didn't trust that if this sort of outpouring ever did get the jounalistic coverage he craves, it would strike most intelligent people as pathetic special pleading.
Jounalism hasn't changed, the story has changed, he can't identify that and react to that fact rationally, what a silly man.
I didn't see anything about his gang attempting to persuade uncommitted people that they and their science is correct. Merely that he wanted those pesky journalists to stop pointing out that there may be another side to the argument. Is this the argument of a man who is confident in his conclusions..or of one who wishes to avoid too much rigorous scrutiny?
BTW - do we have any neutral journos like he describes in UK? I can think of Dellers and Booker who are both pretty sceptical, but everybody else who writes on this topic is firmly a Warmist AFAIK.
Just the details of the quote from Ben Santer "I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted." (And yes, the him in question was Pat Michaels). http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1045.
Ben's scientific argument is so weak that he resorts to physical violence fantasies, and complaining about unfunded individuals pointing out the faults in his arguments. It must be galling to go from Nature published golden boy, with a part share of a Nobel prize, to laughing stock. Oh well - expect the nastiness factor to rise in direct proportion to the inability to prove their scientific point.
It would be hard to imagine a scientist with a larger megaphone than Santer had when he personally made major changes in the IPCC assessment from the version agreed to by a committee of scientists to one that he preferred. And he used that large megaphone to trumpet his own shoddy science.
Message to Mr Santer.
When you in the right, you can afford to keep your temper.
When you are in the wrong, you cannot afford to lose it.
Absolutely loved this:-
"The problem that Santer and Co have is not with the "trumpeting shoddy, incorrect science."
The problem is that dear old Gaia has started to turn her nose up at the career path that was planned for her, seems to have gone right off modeling work.
Oct 25, 2010 at 6:49 PM | Green Sand
Really good!
Would Mr. Santer like some brie with his whine?
He does sound a bit insane, like a leftie who realises he is losing the argument but has nothing left in reserve except name calling and wailing like a spoiled brat.
I wish all these people would stop saying science when they mean statistics.
All this because someone asked Ben Santer data.
Santer argues in detail why he believes his value-added data are 'private intellectual property', but in the same breath seems oblivious to the fact that Stephen Schneider warns all scientists to expect more 'attacks' as the 'evidentiary value' of climate science papers on public policy increases?
The authoritarian blindspots of these people is mind-boggling, and as big as the persecution complexes they seem to labor under.
Santa Claus came early, time and again, for Ben Santer and others in the swing of the CO2 hypothesis and its dramatic politicisation over the past 30 years or so.
I hope there are anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, and even epistemiologists who are right now thinking that Christmas has come early for them as they scoop up data on the main players here in the twilight phase of this whole sorry business.
Santer is a nutter.
Would Santer prefer that no-one was allowed to challenge his opinion? I would find it hard to swallow if he did yet he seems taken aback that someone thought they should, let alone that they could. Of course anyone, absolutely anyone should be free to investigate the credibility of any science papers and opinions. The need to ensure a robust exchange of different opinions is essential to making progress in scientific investigations.
Santer displays naked, unadulterated hubris. Oh the temerity of suggesting that laws and rules should be followed.
By way of a comparison there was a 3 part BBC documentary repeated recently called Atom. Episode 1 is titled The Clash Of The Titans. At one point Professor Jim Al-Khalili is explaining how the theory of quantum mechanics faced a veritable trial by fire at the fifth Solvay Conference. The process and manner of progression he described whereby debate was had is vastly at odds with is how the most ardent members of the climate science community have behaved.
That's 'epistemologists' - and I believe I did already know that.
Gee, maybe if you routinely released data sets and methods, they wouldn't have to bug you so much?
Ben Santer, the true scientist, as revealed in Climategate:
I looked at some of the stuff on the Climate Audit web site. I’d really like to talk to a few of these “Auditors” in a dark alley.
Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.
I nominate Santer for the first Red Button award.
Just a quick compliment to My Lord Bishop for the last two blog headlines; pithy, compact, and very clever, with a large dollop of humour.
Comparing Santer's rant with the interviewer, ("Kate" - a Canadian with a BSc)'s rules, sent my irony meter off the chart. Her rules for commenters (which she seems to apply quite rigourously, if the snipped/edited comments are any indication):
Santer makes a lot of claims in this "interview" which are not substantiated in any way! But I digress ...
Santer says:
I wonder if Santer will next be "tempted to beat the crap out of" Mike Hulme who wrote* in a WSJ OpEd (circa Dec. 2/10):
[*see The Fog of Uncertainty and the Precautionary Principle]
I also wonder if Joseph Alcamo might be on Santer's "hit list". In his address to the BC [Before Climategate] Bali meeting of the IPCC (circa Oct. 26/09), Alcamo noted:
Helpful hint from Hilary to Santer: Blaming the skeptics and/or "big oil" is no longer working for you; it's unlikely that blaming the journalists is going to help, either.
"...we’ve seen the rise of these “independent public auditors” who believe that they have carte blanche to investigate anyone who produces results they don’t agree with..."
And all because they're going to have to pick up the tab. Who do these people think they are?
He sounds more bitter, twisted and scared than hysterical.
Reality is gonna whup him upside the head real gooe
For those of you wondering why these folks get into this type of twists and knots, trying to bring down someone who is academically and politically inconveniencing them....
This is a follow-up email of how the 'Team', or more specifically one member Tom Wigley had followed up on Pat Michaels' thesis, digging up flaws (shades of Mashey and 'Deepclimate')
he should keep his dummy in the pram
Ah, yes, Ben "The Power of Poop" Santer. Lest anyone forget....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7zMQII8qOo
Anyone lending his name to the notion that the diminishing snowcap at Kilimanjaro is attributable to "Global Warming" has no business complaining about "trumpeting shoddy, incorrect science".
the santer interview is INSANE.
btw the rees/giddens open letter was in the Times, according to these New Statesman and LSE mentions:
New Statesman: CommentPlus: pick of the papers
Posted on 13 October 2010
The ten must-read pieces from this morning's papers
7. Whoever said global warming was dead? (Times) (£)
The core scientific findings remain intact, say Martin Rees and Anthony Giddens. But there are opportunities in that inconvenient truth.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/10/commentplus-summary-papers
LSE in print
Whoever said global warming was dead?
The Times, 13/10/2010, p.24, Martin Rees ; Anthony Giddens
(Comment) Lord Rees, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Lord Giddens, former director of the LSE, argue that extreme weather events such as the Pakistan floods will grow increasingly frequent as a result of global warming.
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/intranet/news/informationForStaff/staffStudentsAndAlumni/dailyHeadlines/2010/October/13-10-10.aspx
it was also in Australia's Fairfax newspapers, with the usual ad hom attacks by commenters:
20 Sept: Age, Australia: Anthony Giddens & Martin Rees: Torpor on emissions must end
Anthony Giddens is former director of the London School of Economics and Political Science, a fellow of King's College, Cambridge and the author of The Politics of Climate Change. Martin Rees is president of the Royal Society, London. He was this year's BBC Reith lecturer
comment by hmm:
How unsurprising that two climate change deniers have jumped on quick smart to discredit the expertise of these authors. Not willing to educate themselves, they quickly discredit them with their own uneducated rants.
Even if you refuse to educate yourselves by engaging with expert research, stop trying to pollute others with your own commitment to ignorance. You are becoming predictable boors...
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/torpor-on-emissions-must-end-20100919-15hv5.html
the piece was also published in Swedish, Mexican and Colombian media and is on innumerable blogs.
as for the climatescientist blog, run by a Canadian teenager:
climatescientist: Credibility in a bewildered world
I’ve been hard at work at a presentation I’ll be making at PowerShift Canada, a youth climate change conference in Ottawa from October 23-26. A big thank you to Steve Easterbrook, a regular reader here, who has contacts at PowerShift and basically got me this gig...
My name is Kate, and I run the website ClimateSight.org, which deals with climate change in the context of sociology, credibility, and logic. I’ll finally be able to leave high school at the end of this year, and then I hope to go and study climatology...
This is the way I structure my credibility spectrum. At the very bottom is the individual – some guy named Joe, or you, or me. People who don’t have any scientific training.
Above that I have the professional, such as Al Gore. These are people that do have scientific training, but didn’t use it to become a scientist – they decided to be a high school teacher, or a politician, or a journalist instead. Depending on how long ago they got their training, and how specialized it was, they may or may not be a reliable source.
Above that I have the publishing scientist, such as Dr Andrew Weaver, who has scientific training in the specific area we’re considering – in this case, climate change. They used it to become a scientist, and they’re publishing their work.
Then I have peer-reviewed articles, in places like Science magazine...
At the very top are scientific organizations, such as NASA. These organizations base all of their statements off of multiple peer-reviewed articles, which have stood up to criticism after their publication. Places like NASA also have huge reputations, so they don’t want to say anything that’ll make them look stupid afterwards....
Climate change isn’t a personal opinion. It’s purely based on physics and math...
http://climatesight.org/tag/youth/page/2/
George Monbiot: Debate with Steve Easterbrook
Posted April 8, 2010
The computer scientist Steve Easterbrook wrote an interesting critique of my approach to the hacked climate emails...
Steve writes:
No, the real story is not the relationship between science and the media at all. It’s the story of how the media has been completely taken in by a third group, a third culture, consisting of ideologically-driven, pathological liars, who will say almost anything in order to score political points, and will smear anyone they regard as an opponent. Stern calls climate change the greatest ever failure of the free markets. I think that looking back, we may come to regard the last six months as the greatest ever failure of mass media. Or alternatively, the most successful disinformation campaign ever waged...
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/04/08/debate-with-steve-easterbrook/
I work as a management accountant and have to various data to Head Office and to external auditors. I also have to prepare data for audit. I have found that if the figures I submit are fully backed up and understood, then response to queries is quite easy. However, if I have taken short-cuts, or have got huge gaps in the backing detail, or done with the bare minimum then it is very difficult. In past jobs, it has been worst when I made business forecasts without fully understanding the business - and when I was not given full latitude for uncertainty. Actually trying to answer what may seem trivial questions takes greater effort than the original piece of work. Given the huge gaps in the arguments, particularly on the hockey stick, I can but understand how stressed out Drs Santer, Mann & Bradley have become over this issue.
On the other hand, if they had been more circumspect in their conclusions in the first place, admitting the initial results were extremely tentative, then maybe they would have not got in quite such a pickle. Or, to use another metaphor, when in a hole, they threw away the spade and got in a JCB.
I loved "The Who"
Well, who couldn't?
Waterloo Sunset.
My Generation.
Plastic Spoon.
My favourite, and I have no idea why, is still
"Boris, the Spider"
If you haven't heard of it then look it up.
Listen to it a couple of times and then join me by singing a new refrain.
"Santer, the Ranter"
"If you do not like the heat of democracy then keep out of the political kitchen" Great line!
I wouldn'advise Santer to try to "beat the crap" out of Steve McIntyre.If he tries it, he'd better bring his
lunch.
I'm surprised Dr. Santer is spending time on public relations on not working on his response to the new paper "in press" in Atmospheric Science Letters which shows the climate model he and his colleagues have created show tropospheric temperature trends over the interval 1979 to 2009 which are "are two to four times larger than observed trends in both the lower and mid-troposphere and the differences are statistically significant at the 99% level".
hro, yea there is a double standard there. Asking for citations for the most basic of points, if it comes from a skeptic viewpoint. For example, that the developing world makes up the majority of emissions, according to CDIAC. Nope, citations needed. It is really what she considers a clever way to avoid having skeptic arguments appear on her website.
Some of us have known of Ben Santer's ethical and scientific standards for a long time. A bit of history:
Before the Bishop, before Climate Audit, before Watts Up With That, there were a few lonely blogs fighting for honest science in the face of the onslaught of the IPCC "climate scientists". Notably among those were John Daly's 'Still Waiting For Greenhouse' and Fred Singer's 'Science and Environmental Policy Project'.
In 1996, Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz outed Ben Santer for his unethical post-peer review rewrite of Chapter 8 of the IPCC Second Assessment Report. It was a real wakeup as to what was going on in the IPCC, and Seitz's Op/Ed in the Wall Street Journal made somewhat interested observers like me sit up and pay attention. A summary of Santer's "editing" is at http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item03.htm. Seitz's Wall Street Journal article is at http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm.
Waterloo Sunset was the Kinks.
I was also rather intrigued by the blogsite on which Santer's piece appeared. Any comments that didn't include breathless adoration of Santer, condemnation of any and all who disagree and further gnashing of teeth about the great unwashed and their annoying knack of raising awkward questions via the blogosphere, were not only removed by "Kate" but suffered the added ignominy of having a curt, dismissive label placed alongside their name.
Presumably this is exactly the sort of 'debate' favoured by Santer et al. No wonder he's annoyed - all those plebs daring to have an informed opinion on HIS 'science'.
One has to chuckle really.
On reading the Santer contribution to the Climate Sight blog you will come across this statement:-
Quote “I think that the media have to decide, ultimately, whether their goal is making money and satisfying their shareholders, or whether it’s reporting in the public interest, on issues that are of overwhelming importance to our generation and to future generations.
“I would argue that climate change is one of those issues, and the media have a civic responsibility to get it right, to get the reporting right, to get the science right, to devote resources to these issues… and they’re failing. They’re not living up to that responsibility. End Quote
I hope he gets what he is whishing for!
@Andrew in San Diego thanks for the history links. Your links only works if you miss off the last full stop after ..."htm"
I find the articles focus on possible motive interesting "Policy makers and the press around the world will likely view the report as the basis for critical decisions on energy policy"
As I've said before, I think this whole thing has been about political cover for Peak Oil mitigation, no other motive makes as much sense to me. I realise this is still a minority view, but one I have heard expressed more frequently in recent months.
Is "Kate" and her profile real ?
I'm having a problem with this 'Climate Sight' blog. It looks to me as if she's spelt 'Sight' wrong. The h seems to be in the wrong place and I don't think there should be a g in there.
"Sanity clause? Sanity clause? Doesn't he know there ain't no sanity clause?"
(G.Marx)
And the sanity clause joke was Chico.
Dear Bish
The page at Climatesight has been changed. (why?). The link in the post does not work.
A full from grace is never pretty. Let's just hope they have a safety net or there going La-La Pop and you don't wnat to be standing near as violence maybe the out come.
Someone's mentel health should always be a concern of there friends and family and if i was a friend or relative of Ben Santer I'd be concenred of the cult brain washing being shown.
The AGW promoter argument about all denialist scum paid schills has died a terrible death.
Now the argument that it is only fringe unimportant scientists is dying the same death.
No wonder the faithful are a bit touchy.
@hunter... well not to some people
The Tea Party movement: deluded and inspired by billionaires
What you do not realise is that I am also Barry, Shub, Phillip, Atomic. Astroturfing is a difficult job being all these different personalities. I am actually Hunter as well.
The only genuine poster on this board is Phil Jones' Mum
Well Mr. Santer, I don't know about Pat Michaels but I implore you to pick an alley, any dark alley will do, and I will gladly meet you there to allow you to "beat the crap out of" me instead. Little warning though, you better bring some help.
I.ve just clicked on the http://climatesight.org/2010/10/24/what-ben-santer-has-to-say/ link & I get
"Not Found
Sorry, but the page you requested cannot be found"
http://climatesight.org/2010/10/11/what-ben-santer-has-to%c2%a0say/
Does, however, work.
You guys ought to be ashamed of picking on a cute warmist girl to carry out your attacks. Ashamed I tell you.
She's made her own global warming videos - about seven of them. (Videos here)
She was featured on CBC Canada. There is a video showing her blogging, on the same page.
She writes articles for different websites. She is an contributor on Skeptical Science. Here is one article where she criticizes Harold Lewis for entertaining conspiracy theories. (articele: Be critical of critics)
And most importantly, she deletes comments. ;)
Totally on track to becoming a climatologist. :)
All we have to do is lean back for the epiphany at hand - it is such folks and their anger that will eventually get rid of CAGW for us.