Honest Climate Debate Will Expose Rigged Science

Ben Santer

Some leading “warminista warriors” are very steamed up regarding any suggestions that their politicized science and alarmist messaging be subjected to cool-headed debates.

Climate modeler Benjamin Santer, MIT meteorology professor Kerry Emanuel and non-scientist climate catastrophe activist Harvard history professor Naomi Oreskes expressed their four-alarm fury in a June 21 Washington Post op-ed titled “Attention Scott Pruitt: Red Teams and Blue Teams are No Way to Conduct Climate Science.”

The trio of terror was responding to separate demands by former Obama administration Energy Department undersecretary Steven Koonin, a theoretical physicist at New York University (NYU), and Trump administration Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Director Scott Pruitt, calling for legitimate, peer-reviewed, objective discussion about climate science disputes.

Santer, Emanuel, and Oreskes angrily protested that any such debates represented “dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity, and transparency of existing climate science.”

Koonin had charged in a Wall Street Journal article that Obama administration bureaucrats had spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion. He wrote, “What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong.”

As an example, Koonin referred to a 2014 National Climate Assessment purporting to show that hurricane activity has increased from 1980. “What they forgot to tell you,” he said, “and you don’t know until you read the fine print, is that it actually decreased in the decades before that.”

Santer, Emanuel, and Oreskes expressed outrage regarding Koonin’s and Pruitt’s assertions “essentially claiming that peer-review systems are rigged and that climate scientists are not providing sound scientific information to policymakers.” Notably, the lead author, Ben Santer, has been repeatedly and roundly accused of doing exactly that.

Santer first gained notoriety for introducing a totally misleading conclusion into the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1995 summary report which infamously claimed to find, for the first time that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” In doing so, he obligingly revised and contradicted the study team’s actual research conclusions to comply with IPCC’s politically-directed messaging agenda.

Santer dutifully deleted an earlier chapter draft which asked, “When will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?” . . . which also answered, “we do not know.” The study team had concluded that “While some of the pattern-based discussion here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to manmade causes.”

The conclusion in Santer’s revised politically-compliant version was very different. It read, “the body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.” IPCC immediately leaked this unsupportable assertion to The New York Times where a banner headline breathlessly proclaimed “Scientists finally confirm human role in global warming.”

Santer was also accused of manipulating data in an influential research paper by ending his analysis of global warming patterns in 1987, just prior to a surge of southern hemisphere warming relative to the northern hemisphere went into reverse. Had he not done so, that “discernible human influence” would have been even less discernible.

Read more at Newsmax

Trackback from your site.

Comments (5)

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    Global warming wanks will say anything do anything to try and force america and Trump to abide by the Paris Accord their cities and states who still want to abide by the unconstitutional Paris Accord but as we all know by now their Demac-Rats totaly reject the U.S. Constition

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Sonnyhill

    |

    The Big Lie is long in the tooth. 1987, 1995….. Scientists back then would have seen the difference between their work and the UN IPCC “summary for policy makers”. The writing was on the wall for them back then, ” give us what we want so we don’t have to edit fact into fiction. Your job is on the line”

    Reply

  • Avatar

    G

    |

    “Science” that is threatened by debate… That should say it all.

    BTW, here in the northern tier states, we are having another NON-summer. At 11:00 AM today my thermometer read 54 degrees F. Rains sweep the states daily in an endless rinse cycle. Many inches of rain over the average for June and May. Meanwhile, the desert Southwest gets a few hot days in late June, and according to the leftstream media it is a sign of the global warming apocalypse. Where’s the media’s reporting of COLD, short summers elsewhere?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Sonnyhill

      |

      It’s ALL climate change, all the time. The inclement stuff is man’s fault.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        G

        |

        Thanks for the reminder Sonny… Heads, they win – Tails we lose…

        It’s funny how our local socialists (the usual suspects) are still taking turns tag-teaming the editorial page to warn the uneducated populace to the terrible threat of global warming… err, “climate change”… while we all shiver. Don’t trust your lyin’ eyes!

        Reply

Leave a comment