Santer, Ben LLNL

----early important target // mann hockey stick Madrid 12 words? ~ pat michaelsfrontline 4 22
....<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">JOHN PASSACANTANDO:<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Global Climate Coalition is seeding doubt everywhere, sort of fogging the air with these counterarguments that are contradictory and nonsensical. Running this propaganda across the country, putting millions of dollars into this media effort. And environmentalists really don't know what's hitting them.<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">...<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">MALE NEWSREADER:<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">—in Madrid, where 2,500 scientists from around the world have finally agreed with one another and are convinced that burning oil and coal is causing the world's temperature to rise, which may bring with it environmental disaster.<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT:<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">How do you think this is going to affect policy action on this?<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">MALE SPEAKER:<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">It's certainly ammunition for those that would like more government regulation of industry to move away from fossil fuels to other forms of energy.<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">BENJAMIN SANTER:<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto;">In retrospect those 12 words were the handwriting on the wall.<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto;">What happened next was that the Global Climate Coalition really came onto my radar screen. In the spring of 1996, they published this report, "The IPCC: Institutionalized 'Scientific Cleansing.'" They were arguing that I had purged all discussion of uncertainty from the document, which was patently untrue. Twenty percent of Chapter 8 was specifically devoted to the discussion of uncertainties.<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[Reading] "The changes quite clearly have the obvious political purpose of cleansing the underlying scientific report of important information and scientific analysis that would lead policymakers and the public to be very cautious, if not skeptical, about blaming human activities for climate change over the past century."<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I had grandparents who were "cleansed" because of their religion in the Second World War. People were being cleansed because of their religion in Bosnia. And the Global Climate Coalition, through this odious "scientific cleansing," was arguing that I was guilty of a crime.<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[Reading] "These revisions raise very serious questions about whether the IPCC has compromised or even lost its scientific integrity."<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">DON RHEEM:<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Um, I certainly had a, probably a role in the creation of this. There's a level of detail here I just, I don't remember. But what I do—I do remember the gist of this, where things were said at one point in the process and then they disappeared at the next, and that struck me as troubling. And so I noted that to the folks in the Coalition.<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">BENJAMIN SANTER:<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto;">This stuff caught on like wildfire. Patrick Michaels devoted substantial time to amplifying the Global Climate Coalition’s allegations. Others picked up that report and repeated bits of it verbatim. Things became worse when Prof. Frederick Seitz wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. I was accused of the worst abuse of the peer-reviewed system that Prof. Seitz had seen in his 60 years as a scientist. Folks were calling for my dismissal with dishonor from my position. A gentleman intimated that I was about to be indicted by the Hague International Court of Justice for quote, falsification of international scientific documents.<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">JANE McMULLEN:<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">That document set in motion a number of public attacks on the lead scientist, the lead author of that chapter.<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">DON RHEEM:<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Oh.<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">JANE McMULLEN:<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">He was particularly shaken by the accusation that he was guilty of scientific cleansing. He found that hard to take.<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">DON RHEEM:<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto;">Yeah, that wouldn't have been terminology, by the way, that I would have used. How this was used and what others did with it was outside of my control and purview. And it troubles me to hear that this had such an impact on an individual. That's not something I would want to do to anybody.<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">BENJAMIN SANTER:<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">This attack on individuals, on their integrity, decency, honesty, involved high personal cost, and the Global Climate Coalition knew what they were doing. Sow those seeds of doubt, and watch them grow and mature. And they did.<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">KERT DAVIES:<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Clearly, one of the GCC’s main missions was to blunt the scientific urgency driven by scientific reports.<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Simultaneously, there's an assessment done, written by a Mobil scientist within the GCC. So it says, "Can human activities affect the climate?" And the answer is, "The scientific basis for the greenhouse effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on the climate is well established and cannot be denied."<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">What's really interesting about this document is the back six pages—and this is just a draft; this was never published as far as we know. [Reading] "Several arguments have been put forward attempting to challenge the conventional view of greenhouse gas-induced climate change."<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.725em; hyphens: auto;">Patrick Michaels is named as one of the people putting forward these arguments and concludes, "They do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change." So don’t use don’t use their voice!...===mojo climategate:The fights over the hockey stick eventually faded from the headlines,

but the data war raged on. McIntyre turned his attention to pursuing

the data that climate scientists had drawn from to conclude that the

planet is drastically warming. He was particularly interested in East

Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, keepers of one of the most complete

sets of temperature records in the world. He asked the unit for raw

data, but was rebuffed. "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA) now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file

rather than send to anyone," <a target="_blank" href="http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=490&filename=1107454306.txt">CRU head Phil Jones wrote to Mann</a> [65] in February 2005. He believed that if McIntyre found an error, no matter how minor, the skeptics would have a field day.

Jones' fears were not off-base. In August 2007, <a target="_blank" href="http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/06/quantifying-the-hansen-y2k-error/">McIntyre discovered an error</a> [66]

in NASA's calculation of how the average temperature for a given year

varies from the historical average: US temperatures between 2000 and

2006 <a target="blank" href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/distro_LightUpstairs_70810.pdf">had been reported</a> [67] (PDF) as roughly a sixth of a degree higher than they actually were. Separately, <a target="blank" href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/">NASA found during its regular</a> [68] updating that 1934 had pulled slightly ahead of 1998 as the hottest year on record to that point (<a target="_blank" href="http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html">2005 and 2010</a> [69]

have since superseded them). The story was all over the right-wing

talk circuit. "The man-made global warming is inside NASA," <a target="_blank" href="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_080907/content/01125106.guest.html">Rush Limbaugh declared</a> [70]. "The man-made global warming is in the scientific community with false data."

McIntyre and others kept at it. In 2008, he sought raw data and email correspondence from <a target="blank" href="http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/about/staff/Santer/index.php">Benjamin Santer</a> [71], a scientist at the <a target="blank" href="https://www.llnl.gov/">Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory</a> [72]. Santer refused, arguing that the data were already publicly available. In a letter to a fellow scientist <a target="_blank" href="http://assassinationresearch.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1226451442.txt">he vented that</a> [73]

the time-consuming request was part of "a calculated strategy to

divert my attention and focus away from research." He called McIntyre

"the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science," continuing, "We

should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant

fear of an 'audit' by Steven [sic] McIntyre; without having to weigh

every word we write in every email we send to our scientific

colleagues."
---1988-1995 The 1988 testimony to Congress by James Hansen and the formation of the IPCC stirred the

creation of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC).

The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) published an early book [GMI1990] encouraging doubt, and

promoting ―more research needed.‖ At that point, the warming signal was only starting to emerge from the

noise, but the theory predicting further warming was quite sound, and the evidence kept arriving in support

of it. ―Do nothing now, more research needed‖ was continued indefinitely, long after much strong

evidence had appeared. Singer started generating petitions, conferences.

1996 The GCC, Michaels, Seitz (GMI) and Singer launched a continuing personal attack (A.Santer) on

Ben Santer, of LLNL, a story told in detail in [ORE2010]. The attack was mostly carried out via

Websites, OpEds and letters, as in Seitz‘s OpEd in the WSJ. Santer had done absolutely nothing wrong,

was strongly supported by the legitimate scientific community, but for PR goals, that did not matter. He

wrote: www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/close-encounters-of-the-absurd-kind

―In May 1996, a document entitled ―The IPCC: Institutio nalized ‗Sc ientific Cleansing‘?‖ was widely c irculated to

the press and politicians. In this document, the Global Climate Coalition claimed that after a key Plenary Meeting

of the IPCC in Madrid in November 1995, all scientific uncertainties had been purged from Chapter 8. The GCC‘s

―scientific cleansing‖ allegation was soon repeated in an article in Energy Daily (May 22, 1996) and in an editorial

in the Washington Times (May 24, 1996). It was also prominently featured in the World Climate Report, a

publication edited by Professor Patrick J. Michaels (June 10, 1996).‖

He is still subject to personal attack , but many more people can now be incited to help via the Internet:

Google: ben santer climate criminal yie lds many hits , for example, from the ―echo chamber‖

spectator.org/blog/2009/12/03/dear-ben-santer-resign

<a href="http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/12/03/dear-ben-santer-resign">www.globalwarming.org/2009/12/03/dear-ben-santer-resign</a>

The early days illustrate the use of tactics from the cigarette wars, and of course both Seitz and Singer had

experience in helping tobacco companies. Front groups were created, with a few ―experts‖ willing to

generate supportive material. Doubt, uncertainty, and delay were always emphasized. Much of this was

directly from the 1954 Hill and Knowlton PR recommendations.

The A.Santer campaign was an early example of using personal attacks to generate confusion, harass a

specific climate scientist, waste his time, and intimidate people watching the process. Goals included

damaging the credibility of climate science in general and the IPCC in particular, because they were

producing increasingly awkward and unwanted scientific results.

If I were a graduate student thinking of working in climate science, or a scientist asked to contribute to the

IPCC, and I kept seeing this, I might think twice about it. Attacks that seem like organized defamation are

very difficult to counter.

In recent years, this has been amplified by the rise of the Internet and especially blogs, which can encourage

large numbers of people to attack, writing letters, making threatening phone calls, sometimes even with

threats of personal violence. Defamation suits can be difficult. Few scientists want to spend their time

pursuing them and very few are wealthy enough to do so anyway. Attackees have not always treated such

attacks effectively, at first responding as though they were legitimate argument within science. The reader

might consider how much they would enjoy having the WSJ OpEd section hammering them, backed by a

large echo-chamber. Is there a simple recourse? Santer and a large group of scientists wrote a letter to

WSJ, but of course a letter is nowhere near as visible as an OpEd, and the WSJ trimmed it anyway. But a

week later, it published a Singer letter. Singer‘s website documents the flurry of articles and letters, of

Crescendo to ClimateGate Cacophony V1.0 03/15/10

which I included a few in the Chronology.

<a href="http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/ipcccont.html">www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/ipcccont.html</a>

mashey

-----

Dr. Benjamin D. Santer (born June 3, 1955 in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,DC" title="Washington, DC" class="mw-redirect">Washington, DC</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States" title="United States">United States</a>) is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate" title="Climate">climate</a> researcher at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Livermore_National_Laboratory" title="Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory">Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory</a> and former researcher at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_East_Anglia" title="University of East Anglia">University of East Anglia</a>'s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit" title="Climatic Research Unit">Climatic Research Unit</a>.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_D.Santer#cite_note-0">[1]</a> He specializes mainly in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_analysis" title="Statistical analysis" class="mw-redirect">statistical analysis</a> of climate data sets, and detection/attribution of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#External_forcings" title="Global warming">climate change forcings</a>.

<h2>Contents</h2>

[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_D._Santer#" class="internal" id="togglelink">hide</a>] </div>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_D._Santer#Honors">1 Honors</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_D._Santer#1995_AR2_Chapter_8">2 1995 AR2 Chapter 8</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_D._Santer#Notes">3 Notes</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-4"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_D._Santer#References">4 References</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-5"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_D._Santer#External_links">5 External links</a></li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benjamin_D._Santer&action=edit&section=1&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro" title="Edit section: Honors">edit</a>] Honors</h2>

In 1998 Santer was awarded a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacArthur_Fellowship" title="MacArthur Fellowship" class="mw-redirect">MacArthur Fellowship</a> for research supporting the finding that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_impact_on_the_environment" title="Human impact on the environment">human activity</a> contributes to global warming. He has also received the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Award and a Distinguished Scientist Fellowship from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.Department_of_Energy" title="U.S. Department of Energy" class="mw-redirect">U.S. Department of Energy</a> and the Norbert Gerbier/MUMM award from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Meteorological_Organization" title="World Meteorological Organization">World Meteorological Organization</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_D.Santer#cite_note-1">[2]</a>. He ranks #12 amongst climate scientists in a 2002 assessment of most influential scientists.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_D._Santer#cite_note-2">[3]</a>

<h2>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benjamin_D._Santer&action=edit&section=2&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro" title="Edit section: 1995 AR2 Chapter 8">edit</a>] 1995 AR2 Chapter 8</h2>

<div class="rellink relarticle mainarticle">Main article: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Chapter_8" title="Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change">Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Chapter_8</a></div>

Santer was the convening Lead Author of Chapter 8 of 1995 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change" title="Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change">IPCC</a> Working Group I Report (AR2 WGI), which addressed the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming" title="Global warming">global warming</a> issue.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Seitz" title="Frederick Seitz">Frederick Seitz</a>, in a June 12, 1996 editorial-page piece in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Journal" title="Wall Street Journal" class="mw-redirect">Wall Street Journal</a> complained that alterations made to Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC report were made to "deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming." Similar charges were made by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition" title="Global Climate Coalition">Global Climate Coalition</a> (GCC), a consortium of industry interests.

Santer and 40 other scientists responded to the Wall Street Journal that all IPCC procedural rules were followed, and that IPCC procedures required changes to the draft in response to comments from governments, individual scientists, and non-governmental organizations. They stated that the pre- and post-Madrid versions of Chapter 8 were equally cautious in their statements; that 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; and that both versions of the chapter reached the same conclusion: "Taken together, these results point towards a human influence on climate."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_D._Santer#cite_note-3">[4]</a>

<h2>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benjamin_D._Santer&action=edit&section=3&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro" title="Edit section: Notes">edit</a>] Notes</h2>

<li id="cite_note-0"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_D._Santer#cite_ref-0">^</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Pearce" title="Fred Pearce">Pearce, Fred</a>, The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming, (2010) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Books" title="Guardian Books">Guardian Books</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780852652299" class="internal mw-magiclink-isbn">ISBN 978-0-85265-229-9</a>, p. XI.</li>

<li id="cite_note-1"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_D._Santer#cite_ref-1">^</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://marketplace.publicradio.org/features/moving-by-degrees/bios/santer.html">Dr. Ben Santer</a></li>

<li id="cite_note-2"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_D._Santer#cite_ref-2">^</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://esi-topics.com/gwarm/authors/b1a.html">Global Warming</a></li>

<li id="cite_note-3"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_D._Santer#cite_ref-3">^</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/summer96/insert.html">Special insert--An open letter to Ben Santer</a>. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. Retrieved on 2010-09-14.</li>

</ol>

</div>

<h2>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benjamin_D._Santer&action=edit&section=4&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro" title="Edit section: References">edit</a>] References</h2>

<ul>

<li>Santer, BD, Wigley, TML, Barnett TP, and Anyamba, E (1995). Detection of climate change and attribution of causes, in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Houghton" title="John T. Houghton">Houghton, JT</a> et al.. Climate Change 1995, Cambridge Univ. Press.</li>

<li>"Benjamin David Santer." Marquis Who's Who TM. Marquis Who's Who, 2009. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmington_Hills,Michigan" title="Farmington Hills, Michigan">Farmington Hills, Michigan</a>: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gale%28Cengage%29" title="Gale (Cengage)" class="mw-redirect">Gale</a>, 2009. <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC">http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC</a> Document Number: K2017060303. Fee. Accessed 2009-10-22 via <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairfax_County_Public_Library" title="Fairfax County Public Library">Fairfax County Public Library</a>.</li>

</ul>

<h2>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benjamin_D._Santer&action=edit&section=5&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro" title="Edit section: External links">edit</a>] External links</h2>

<ul>

<li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2006/aug/policy/pt_santer.html">The Many Travails of Ben Santer</a>, Paul D. Thacker, Environmental Science & Technology</li>

<li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://esi-topics.com/gwarm/interviews/DrBenjaminDSanter.html">2002 Interview</a></li>

<li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/summer96/insert.html">Communication between Santer and others about Global Warming</a></li>

<li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.nersc.gov/news/annual_reports/annrep03/advances/5.1.fingerprints.html">National Energy Research Science Computer Center article on Santer</a></li>

<li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011JD016263.shtml">This is of his 2011 papers about the statistics of global temperature data</a></li>

</ul>

<h2>FEATURE</h2>

</div>

<h1 class="articleTitle">The Many Travails of Ben Santer</h1>

<li class="onPage"><a title="View the Abstract" href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es063000t">Abstract</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

<div id="authors">Paul D. Thacker</div>

<div id="citation"><cite>Environ. Sci. Technol.</cite>, 2006, 40 (19), pp 5834–5837</div>

<div id="pubDate">Publication Date (Web): October 1, 2006</div>

</div>

...Santer normally maintains a low profile as a climate
modeler at the U.S. Department of Energy’s
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL),
but he does have a knack for popping up in the media
and stirring up controversy. In the mid-1990s, he
made headlines as a lead author for the assessment
The Many Travails
of BEN SANTER
One of the world’s leading climate modelers
has long been a target for contrarians
and climate skeptics.
PAUL D. THACKER
reports by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC).
The international body
of scientists concluded in
1995 that humans were
changing the climate, and
industry sought to undermine
this consensus by
going after Santer. One
scientist tells ES&T that it was “one of the most vicious
attacks I have ever seen on the integrity of a
scientist.”
In an interview with ES&T, Santer recounts what
happened to him during that stressful period, explains
why people should stop knocking climate
models, and muses on the media’s long journey to
finally “get” the science. He also notes that his work
has caught the eye of U.S. senators who are working
to change American foreign policy on global
warming.
Despite the controversy and politics, he says, “in
the end, the science gets done...This is rather frustrating.
I can’t alter what people
wrote about me on some
op-ed page. It’s unfortunate
but beyond my control. Likewise,
I have no control over
the weird and wacky motives
that climate-change skeptics
ascribe to me.
In 1996, at the time of
publication of the IPCC Second Assessment, I was
a messenger bearing news that some very powerful
people did not want to hear. So they went after the
messenger. They were very good at it. I’m sure there
was no personal animus involved. I just happened
to get in the way and had to be discredited.
Any apologies from these people as the science became
clearer?
No. No apologies. The Global Climate Coalition
[GCC] was the major instigator of the unfounded
allegation that shenanigans had gone on during the
IPCC’s Second Assessment. The GCC accused me of
“scientific cleansing” at a time when “ethnic cleansing”
was being committed in Bosnia.
My paternal grandparents died in concentration
camps during the Second World War. They were subjects
of Hitler’s “ethnic cleansing”. So maybe you can
understand why the “scientific cleansing” charge
was so abhorrent.The GCC was one of the many now-defunct industry
groups?
Yes. The GCC was a consortium of energy interests.
It was heartening to see—even back in 1996—that a
number of GCC members were very unhappy with
the “scientific cleansing” charges. BP, Shell, and a
number of other companies eventually resigned.
They stated that the GCC was not conducting a responsible
debate on climate-change science and was
not representing their best interests. This felt like a
small but significant victory.
In 2002, you did a Q&A with Essential Science Indicators,
which rated you as one of the top 15 scientists in
global-warming research according to citation numbers.
They ranked a paper you coauthored as number three in
the field. Yet you don’t pop up much in the press.
I’ve always felt that the biggest contribution I could
make as a scientist was by doing good science. I’m
happiest when I have the luxury of time to do my
own research.
I’m not particularly enthusiastic about my interactions
with the press. But I also recognize that an
important component of my job is to tell people what
we know and what we don’t
know about climate change.
The real irony of my scientific
career is that I’m a very
private person but somehow
have the unfortunate knack
of getting into very public
situations.
Do you think the media has
been doing a good job? I’ve
spoken with a number of scientists
who say that journalists
like to highlight controversy and
ignore consensus.
That’s been my experience,
too. But I also think that
things have changed a bit
over the last year or two. Increasingly,
the debate on climate change is shifting.
We’re now discussing what to do about it, not “Is it
happening?” That’s very encouraging.
Over much of the last decade, it seems as if “journalistic
balance” has been much more important
than a search for the truth. Those who shout loudest
receive the most media attention—even if they have
little or no scientific expertise on climate change 2006