Ben Santer: Open letter to the climate science community
b oo n
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hgrrt0$b50$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
>> matt sykes <zze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 22 Dec, 19:25, "Roald B. Larsen" <berth...@online.no> wrote:
>>>> http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/ben_santer_o...
>>>>
>>>> Ben Santer: Open letter to the climate science community
>>>>
Is this the same Santer?
IPCC report "The Science of Climate Change 1995", where lead auther Benjamin
D. Santer removed the following conclusions made by genuine scientists, and
without the scientists being made aware of this change.
"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."
"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate
change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."
"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely
to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability
of the climate system are reduced."
Warmest Regards
B0n oz
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
b oo n
> James wrote:
>> Roald B. Larsen wrote:
>>> http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/ben_santer_open_letter/
>>>
>>> Ben Santer: Open letter to the climate science community
>>>
>>> demagogues in high office and the global warming disinformation
>>> campaign. Climate Science Watch is posting here an "Open letter to
>>> the climate science community" by Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore
>>> National Laboratory. Santer says: "We are now faced with powerful
>>> 'forces of unreason'-forces that (at least to date) have been
>>> unsuccessful in challenging scientific findings of a warming Earth,
>>> and a 'discernible human influence' on global climate. These forces
>>> of unreason are now shifting the focus of their attention to the
>>> scientists themselves. They seek to discredit, to skew the truth, to
>>> misrepresent. They seek to destroy scientific careers rather than to
>>> improve our understanding of the nature and causes of climate
>>> change."
>>>
>>>
>>> Open letter to the climate science community
>>>
>>>
>>> I am sure that by now, all of you are aware of the hacking incident
>>> which recently took place at the University of East Anglia's Climatic
>>> Research Unit (CRU). This was a criminal act. Over 3,000 emails and
>>> documents were stolen. The identity of the hacker or hackers is still
>>> unknown.
>>> The emails represented private correspondence between CRU scientists
>>> and scientists at climate research centers around the world. Dozens
>>> of the stolen emails are from over a decade of my own personal
>>> correspondence with Professor Phil Jones, the Director of CRU.
>>>
>>> I obtained my Ph.D. at the Climatic Research Unit. I went to CRU in
>>> 1983 because it was - and remains - one of the world's premier
>>> institutions for studying the nature and causes of climate change.
>>> During the course of my Ph.D., I was privileged to work together with
>>> exceptional scientists - with people like Tom Wigley, Phil Jones,
>>> Keith Briffa, and Sarah Raper.
>>> After completing my Ph.D. at CRU in 1987, I devoted much of my
>>> scientific career to what is now called "climate fingerprinting",
>>> which seeks to understand the causes of recent climate change. At its
>>> core, fingerprinting is a form of what people now call "data mining"
>>> - an attempt to extract information and meaning from very large,
>>> complex climate datasets. The emails stolen from the Climatic
>>> Research Unit are now being subjected to a very different form of
>>> "data mining". This mining is taking place in the blogosphere, in the
>>> editorial pages of various newspapers, and in radio and television
>>> programs. This form of mining has little to do with extracting
>>> meaning from personal email correspondence on complex scientific
>>> issues. This form of mining seeks to find dirt - to skew true
>>> meaning, to distort, to misrepresent, to take out of context. It
>>> seeks to destroy the reputations of exceptional scientists -
>>> scientists like Professor Phil Jones.
>>> I have known Phil for over 25 years. He is the antithesis of the
>>> secretive, "data destroying" character being portrayed to the outside
>>> world by the miners of dirt and disinformation. Phil Jones and Tom
>>> Wigley (the second Director of the Climatic Research Unit) devoted
>>> significant portions of their scientific careers to the construction
>>> of the land component of the so-called "HadCRUT" dataset of land and
>>> ocean surface temperatures. The U.K. Meteorological Office Hadley
>>> Centre (MOHC) took the lead in developing the ocean surface
>>> temperature component of HadCRUT.
>>> The CRU and Hadley Centre efforts to construct the HadCRUT dataset
>>> have been open and transparent, and are documented in dozens of
>>> peer-reviewed scientific papers. This work has been tremendously
>>> influential. In my personal opinion, it is some of the most important
>>> scientific research ever published. It has provided hard scientific
>>> evidence for the warming of our planet over the past 150 years.
>>>
>>> Phil, Tom, and their CRU and MOHC colleagues conducted this research
>>> in a very open and transparent manner. Like good scientists, they
>>> examined the sensitivity of their results to many different
>>> subjective choices made during the construction of the HadCRUT
>>> dataset. These choices relate to such issues as how to account for
>>> changes over time in the type of thermometer used to make temperature
>>> measurements, the thermometer location, and the immediate physical
>>> surroundings of the thermometer. They found that, no matter what
>>> choices they made in dataset construction, their bottom-line finding
>>> - that the surface of our planet is warming - was rock solid. This
>>> finding was supported by many other independent lines of evidence,
>>> such as the retreat of snow and sea-ice cover, the widespread melting
>>> and retreat of glaciers, the rise in sea-level, and the increase in
>>> the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. All of these independent
>>> observations are physically consistent with a warming planet.
>>> Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. The claim that our
>>> Earth had warmed markedly during the 20th century was extraordinary,
>>> and was subjected to extraordinary scrutiny. Groups at the National
>>> Climatic Data Center in North Carolina (NCDC) and at the Goddard
>>> Institute for Space Studies in New York (GISS) independently
>>> attempted to reproduce the results of the Climatic Research Unit and
>>> the U.K. Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. While the NCDC and GISS
>>> groups largely relied on the same primary temperature measurements
>>> that had been used in the development of the HadCRUT dataset, they
>>> made very different choices in the treatment of the raw measurements.
>>> Although there were differences in the details of the three groups'
>>> results, the NCDC and GISS analyses broadly confirmed the "warming
>>> Earth" findings of the CRU and MOHC scientists.
>>> Other extraordinary claims - such as a claim by scientists at the
>>> University of Alabama that Earth's lower atmosphere cooled since
>>> 1979, and that such cooling contradicts "warming Earth" findings -
>>> have not withstood rigorous scientific examination.
>>>
>>> In summary, Phil Jones and his colleagues have done a tremendous
>>> service to the scientific community - and to the planet - by making
>>> surface temperature datasets publicly available for scientific
>>> research. These datasets have facilitated climate research around the
>>> world, and have led to the publication of literally hundreds of
>>> important scientific papers.
>>> Phil Jones is one of the gentlemen of our field. He has given decades
>>> of his life not only to cutting-edge scientific research on the
>>> nature and causes of climate change, but also to a variety of
>>> difficult and time-consuming community service activities - such as
>>> his dedicated (and repeated) service as a Lead Author for the
>>> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
>>> Since the theft of the CRU emails and their public dissemination,
>>> Phil has been subjected to the vilest personal attacks. These attacks
>>> are without justification. They are deeply disturbing. They should be
>>> of concern to all of you. We are now faced with powerful "forces of
>>> unreason" - forces that (at least to date) have been unsuccessful in
>>> challenging scientific findings of a warming Earth, and a
>>> "discernible human influence" on global climate. These forces of
>>> unreason are now shifting the focus of their attention to the
>>> scientists themselves. They seek to discredit, to skew the truth, to
>>> misrepresent. They seek to destroy scientific careers rather than to
>>> improve our understanding of the nature and causes of climate change.
>>> Yesterday, Phil temporarily stepped down as Director of the Climatic
>>> Research Unit. Yesterday was a very sad day for climate science. When
>>> the forces of unreason win, and force exceptional scientists like
>>> Professor Phil Jones to leave their positions, we all lose. Climate
>>> science loses. Our community loses. The world loses.
>>>
>>> Now, more than at any other time in human history, we need sound
>>> scientific information on the nature and causes of climate change.
>>> Phil Jones and his colleagues at CRU have helped to provide such
>>> information. I hope that all of you will join me in thanking Phil for
>>> everything he has done - and will do in the future - for our
>>> scientific community. He and his CRU colleagues deserve great credit.
>>
>> Well, maybe the world loses because he was dishonest and maybe his
>> colleagues that knew he was being dishonest and said nothing are somewhat
>> dishonest themselves but didn't have the guts to go as far as he did and
>> maybe lamenting the loss of these for show is just another dishonest act
>> toward the scepticism that may have saved the world from more dishonesty.
>> And maybe, just maybe, the science community has learned something about
>> honest and dishonest behavior.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Those that lie with dogs can expect to get flees.
Absolutely!
Surfer
>
>Is this the same Santer?
>
>IPCC report "The Science of Climate Change 1995", where lead auther Benjamin
>D. Santer removed the following conclusions made by genuine scientists, and
>without the scientists being made aware of this change.
>
>"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."
>
>"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate
>change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."
>
>"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely
>to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability
>of the climate system are reduced."
>
Those allegations were made by Frederick Seitz, in a June 12, 1996
editorial-page piece in the Wall Street Journal.
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm
But were rebutted here:
Letters to the Editor: No Deception in Global Warming Report
Wall Street Journal; New York; Jun 25, 1996;
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/WSJ_June25.pdf
<Start extract>
Frederick Seitz's June 12 editorial-page piece "A Major Deception on
'Global Warming'" wrongly accuses both the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change and a member of the climate science community of
violation of procedure and deception. Not only does he thereby
demonstrate ignorance of both the topic and the IPCC process, but his
actions reflect an apparent attempt to divert attention away from the
scientific evidence of a human effect on global climate by attacking
the scientists concerned with investigating that issue.
Dr. Seitz discusses editorial changes made to Chapter 8 of the 1995
IPCC report on the science of climate change. The chapter evaluates
the scientific evidence from many studies that have attempted to
detect "unusual" change in the earth's climate, and determine whether
some portion of that change is due to human activities. Dr. Seitz
claims that the alterations made to Chapter 8, after a November 1995
IPCC meeting held in Madrid, were in violation of IPCC rules of
procedure, and that their effect is to "deceive policy makers and the
public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human
activities are causing global warming." Similar claims of procedural
improprieties have been made by the Global Climate Coalition, a
consortium of industry interests. These claims conjure visions of
sinister conspiracies that are entirely unfounded.
All IPCC procedural rules were followed in producing the final, now
published, version of Chapter 8.
The changes made after the Madrid meeting were in response to written
review comments received in October and November 1995 from
governments, individual scientists and nongovernmental organizations
during plenary sessions of the Madrid meeting. IPCC procedures
required changes in response to these comments in order to produce the
best possible and most clearly explained assessment of the science.
The pre- and post-Madrid versions of the chapter are equally cautious
in their statements. Uncertainties have not been suppressed. Roughly
20% of Chapter 8 is devoted to the discussion of uncertainties in
estimates of natural climate variability and the expected "signal" due
to human activities.
The deletions quoted by Mr. Seitz relate to the difficulties involved
in attributing climate change to the specific cause of human
activities, and to uncertainties in estimates of natural climate
variability. These issues are dealt with at great length in the
published chapter. The basic content of these particular sentences has
not been deleted.
Dr. Seitz is not a climate scientist. He was not involved in the
process of putting together the 1995 IPCC report on the science of
climate change. He did not attend the Madrid IPCC meeting on which he
reports. He was not privy to the hundreds of review comments received
by Chapter 8 lead authors. Most seriously, before writing his
editorial, he did not contact any of the lead authors of Chapter 8 in
order to obtain information as to how or why changes were made to
Chapter 8 after Madrid.
We urge readers of the Wall Street Journal to read the IPCC report
("Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change," Cambridge
University Press, 1996). They will see for themselves that, as
required by and stated in and IPCC procedural rules, the detection
chapter is a "comprehensive, objective and balanced" review of the
science.
Benjamin D. Santer
Convening Lead Author, Chapter 8
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, Calif.
(This letter was also signed by 40 scientists from eight countries.
All were lead authors or contributors to the 1995 IPCC Working Group.)
<End extract>
b oo n
"Surfer" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message
news:ps23j5d3r7ae3f4gm...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:36:15 +1100, "b oo n" <i...@hhh.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Is this the same Santer?
>>
>>IPCC report "The Science of Climate Change 1995", where lead auther
>>Benjamin
>>D. Santer removed the following conclusions made by genuine scientists,
>>and
>>without the scientists being made aware of this change.
>>
>>"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."
>>
>>"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate
>>change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."
>>
>>"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely
>>to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural
>>variability
>>of the climate system are reduced."
>>
>
> Those allegations were made by Frederick Seitz, in a June 12, 1996
> editorial-page piece in the Wall Street Journal.
> http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm
>
> But were rebutted here:
> Letters to the Editor: No Deception in Global Warming Report
> Wall Street Journal; New York; Jun 25, 1996;
> http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/WSJ_June25.pdf
>
Sorry, but there is no denial that these passages were deleted WITHOUT THE
CONSENT OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE SCIENTISTS WHO WROTE THEM.
b oo n
>
>
>>
>>Is this the same Santer?
>>
>>IPCC report "The Science of Climate Change 1995", where lead auther
>>Benjamin
>>D. Santer removed the following conclusions made by genuine scientists,
>>and
>>without the scientists being made aware of this change.
>>
>>"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."
>>
>>"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate
>>change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."
>>
>>"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely
>>to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural
>>variability
>>of the climate system are reduced."
>>
>
> Those allegations were made by Frederick Seitz, in a June 12, 1996
> editorial-page piece in the Wall Street Journal.
> http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm
>
> But were rebutted here:
> Letters to the Editor: No Deception in Global Warming Report
> Wall Street Journal; New York; Jun 25, 1996;
> http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/WSJ_June25.pdf
>
Sorry, but there is no denial that these passages were deleted WITHOUT THE
CONSENT OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE SCIENTISTS WHO WROTE THEM.
Surfer
Is there any evidence that they considered the deletions to be
inappropriate?
Eg. Have they complained?
b oo n
Aw, c'mon!
Ask yourself, why did the scientists make those statements in the first
place, and why did a NON-scientist remove them?
The answer is obvious!
Surfer
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/WSJ_June25.pdf
"....The basic content of these particular sentences has
not been deleted..... "
In other words, the sentences were redundant, because the same
information was contained in other sentences.
If that were not the case, the scientists who wrote the deleted
sentences, would have had reason to complain.
But I havn't seen any evidence of that.
Surfer
Possibly. But there is no evidence that they objected.
And according to this:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/WSJ_June25.pdf
"....The basic content of these particular sentences has
not been deleted..... "
b oo n
b oo n
So show us where the "basic content of these particular sentences" now
resides in the report then!