ClimateSight :- What Ben Santer has to say

I am having the following conversation with Ben Santer at

As you may realise, if you visit his site, he simply spammed my first comment citing that I should at least produce some evidence that there was no proof, empirical or otherwise.

Quite hard to produce proof for a negative it is true, but there are plenty of papers which chip away at all the IPCC’s assertions.

I hope he is not too dismayed by that because he obviously thinks the “science” is settled.

“How do we repair public understanding of a scientific issue that many perceive as a purely political one?”


There is no empirical evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming therefore it is fitting that the issue remains a political one.

I stand by this statement, even though you do not agree.

I think your action in trashing my previous comment was quite unjustified, and in fact if you believe there is empirical evidence, or even evidence that goes beyond some spurious correlations, then it is your duty to produce this evidence – because you are the one making the assertion.

I think there is no evidence because I have spent the last year searching for it. That does not mean there is no evidence, only that I have not found it, therefore if you know something that I do not know, it is fitting that you share it with me and our readers.

Obviously I cannot give you any citations on a negative.

However here are some scientific peer reviewed research papers that pull apart all of the things we are told by the IPCC. If there is a particular point that you wish to see examined, I can very likely show you a scientific peer reviewed, published paper refuting what the IPCC says. You may be shocked to find such scientific papers exist. This is because of poor reporting by many jounalists and their editors.

The science is not settled, perhaps now you will see how and why.

An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
– Richard S. Courtney
An Alternative Explanation for Differential Temperature Trends at the Surface and in the Lower Troposphere (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, November 2009)
– Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy, Richard T. McNider
Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
– David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

– Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Reply to Benestad (2004) (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 2, pp. 175–176, October 2004)
– Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

A null hypothesis for CO2 (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 171-200, August 2010)
– Roy Clark
A natural constraint to anthropogenic global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 225-236, August 2010)
– William Kininmonth


A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)
– David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer


A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming
(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 7, Issue 4, December 2000)
– Robert C. Balling Jr.
A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
– Craig Loehle
An empirical evaluation of earth’s surface air temperature response to radiative forcing, including feedback, as applied to the CO2-climate problem
(Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Numbers 1-2, pp. 1-19, March, 1984)
– Sherwood B. Idso

An upper limit to global surface air temperature
(Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Number 2, pp. 141-144, June 1985)
– Sherwood B. Idso

As well as the above, there are serious questions about the unproven “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis which do not need a scientific paper to see or understand. All that is needed is a reasonable mind.
Some of these are illustrated and explained in my blog.

As your reply to this comment is of some interest to my readers (as well as yours), I have posted this comment and will post your expected reply on my other site



The result of this polite comment is reproduced below.

rogerthesurf said

October 26, 2010 @ 2:48 am


There is no point addressing nasty comments to Ben Santer. He does not have anything to do with moderation. It’s all me. -Kate

2 Responses to “ClimateSight :- What Ben Santer has to say”

  1. Tony Favero Says:

    Ben Santer, of Climate Gate infamy and contributor to all four assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization that shared the bogus 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore, has as the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) climate team’s lead researcher generated a new publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. This pro-anthropogenic global warming climate research effort at LLNL attempts with this new publishment a deftly crafted scientific research effort conjoined with a hazily veiled ideological statistical component to slowly validate a central planning hegemony over U.S. and world-wide production processes. If you control CO2, then you control most energy output and thus the means of production in the world economies by exploiting fraudulent logic to tax all carbon emitting industries from the local to the international level via the UN’s IPCC.
    The central madness is that man-made global warming activists at the UN’s IPCC are in extreme dismay over how to cope with the earth’s lack of warming since 1998, especially so after NASA and the U.S. Solar Observatory publically revealed several months ago to expect moderate global cooling for the next thirty years owing to a quiet period on the sun with concurrent cooling of the mammoth Pacific Ocean heat mass. Enter IPCC’s and LLNL’s Ben Santer announcing that the climate computers had always correctly predicted non-warming lulls like the current one, stating that “tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human caused changes.” What sorcerer’s magic dwells in 17 years instead of 15 other than providing two additional years of “grace” prior to admissions that computer models are less than adequate? Will further self-justifying statistical minutia be offered then?
    But the IPCC conjured up another rabbit in the hat; on November 18th came the proclamation that the real danger to humanity was not “warming” per se, but “extreme weather.” Thus the IPCC endeavors to marginalize NASA’s report and instead rely on the tired old politically correct media to irrationally propagandize every weather “disaster” in the world permitting CO2 emissions to be inexorably condemned to justify unconscionable green taxes at a time of extreme world-wide financial trepidations.
    In concert with the IPCC, media alarmists are hysterically forecasting ice-free Arctic horror stories complete with starving polar bears, conveniently ignoring the fact that the earth possesses two poles while contemptuously indifferent to the reality that the Antarctic has been accumulating ice for the last 40 years. Concerning the Arctic, the first global warming during our current Holocene Epoch, the time between 8500 and 10,000 years ago was the warmest earth has been since the end of the last Ice Age about 19,000 years ago, as confirmed by the Norwegian research team of Dr. Lysa and Eiliv Larsen of the Geological Survey of Norway. This Norwegian team confirmed evidence of an ice-free Arctic during the aforementioned Holocene Epoch time interval. So much for hype on polar bear extinctions; if the Arctic was ice-free why did the polar bears fail to vanish given that they are not migratory?
    If you are going to vanquish the global economy to the stone age through cap and trade regulation, with employment of inefficient and expensive renewables over abundant, relatively economical and efficient energy sources like shale oil and gas, you at least owe it to the taxpayers to establish your policies on rational, transparent and rigorous non-ideological science opposed to the sustained and specious scientific facilitations of snake-oil politicized rubbish perpetrated by Ben Santer and the charlatans at the UN’s IPCC.
    Tony Favero
    Half Moon Bay, CA

    • rogerthesurf Says:


      My thoughts exactly!

      Did you read this recently published book which is, as you will read, somewhat critical of the IPCC and is well researched and documented.
      “The Delinquent Teenager who was mistaken for the world’s top climate expert”

      Here is an excerpt : “Having morphed into an obnoxious adolescent, the IPCC is now everyone’s problem. This is because it performs one of the most important jobs in the world. Its purpose is to survey the scientific literature regarding climate change, to decide what it all means, and to write an ongoing series of reports. These reports are informally known as the Climate Bible. The Climate Bible is cited by governments around the world. It is the reason carbon taxes are being introduced, heating bills are rising, and costly new regulations are being enacted. It is why everyone thinks carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous. Put simply: the entire planet is in a tizzy because of a UN report. What most of us don’t know is that, rather than being written by a meticulous, upstanding professional in business attire, this report was produced by a slapdash, slovenly teenager who has trouble distinguishing right from wrong.”

      I would like to give you a link for the entire pdf but the author does deserve her USD$4.99.
      I thoroughly recommend you download for yourself.

      Gives you an insight into how we have arrived to todays mess and how we and especially our governments have been duped.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: