Ben Santer may be one of the most important scientists that you’ve never heard of. Dr. Santer authored three papers that cleared up the discrepancies between different types of satellite data, which resolved one of the major remaining inconsistencies between climate models and measurement. Dr. Santer also co-authored last year’s definitive report, commissioned by the White House, that marked the unambiguous arrival of a broad scientific consensus on human-induced climate change. The journal Environmental Science & Technology recently sat Dr. Santer down for an interview that should be required reading for those keeping up with the field. Even more so if you have not heard of Dr. Santer’s work and want to catch up.
The [2006] CCSP report contained this statement: “The evidence continues to support a substantial human impact on global temperature increases. This should constitute a valuable source of information to policymakers.” Why was there a need to make this statement when scientists had consensus back in 1995?
I think it’s fair to say that here in the U.S., a number of our elected leaders continue to express skepticism about our understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. Our charge in the report was to advise members of Congress with “science-based knowledge to manage the risks and opportunities of change in the climate.” We fulfilled this charge to the best of our ability.
Clearly, there was a need to reiterate the finding of many previous national and international scientific assessments—human activities have affected historical climate, are now influencing current climate, and will shape the future climate.
Do you think this report will change policy?Yes, I do. A recent press release by Sen. Lugar actually mentions our report, and recognizes “the April 2006 findings of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program that there is no longer a discrepancy between the rates of global average temperature increase at the Earth’s surface and in the atmosphere, thereby strengthening the scientific evidence that human activity contributes significantly to global temperature increases.”
So people are listening.
Give it a read, think about our president looking to Michael Crichton for climate advice, and have a silent cry for humanity.
Zifnab
“Listen, I’m not a ‘book’ person. But ah red Timeline and Jerasic Park and have come to the conclusion that stem cell research has had a serious impact on global weather changes… ehm… have done stuff to da weather. That’s why I am calling on Congress to give me their permission to bomb Iran, the biggest exporter of WMDs and stem cells in the civilized world, even though ah was gonna do it anyway.
The climate will great us as liberators.”
Jim Allen
“Silent cry”? Bullshit. Shout it from the rooftops and vote these slimy bastards out and back to their swamps.
Perry Como
Yeah, but there was a consensus on global cooling back in the ’70s…:drool:
Andrew
Geez guys, for the 43rd time, Jesus is coming soon and He likes it hot.
prospols
There are no WMDs.
Al Gore invented Global Warming
chopper
but…but…the petition!!
ThymeZone
And so BJ trolls Darrell.
So, where is the guest of honor?
Bob In Pacifica
Sure been hot out here this summer.
BIRDZILLA
back in the 1930s there was a 21 streight days of triple didget tempetures and that years before there would be crack-pots like AL GORE and his eco-babble book EARTH IN THE BALANCE and long before we would ever hear of wacky wads like GREENPEACE the whole idea of global warming is based on junk science and unreliable data and the HOT AIR from AL GORE and the nut cases at GREENPEACE
Paul L.
Of course, the retort will be that Peter Schweizer is a rightwing oil company shill.
An inconvenent hypocrite
“Al Gore, while telling everyone else to change their lifestyle to save the environment, doesn’t seem to want to change his own lifestyle. He:
* Flies in private jets
* Owns three large, energy-intensive houses
* Doesn’t elect to take wind-powered electricity which is offered to him by his local utility
* Gets paid to allow a zinc mine that pollutes local rivers to be operated on his property
* Owns (or has owned) large amounts of oil company stock
Bonus point not mentioned in the article: he’s not a vegetarian. Meat production is a huge contributer to greenhouse gases, both because of methane emitted by livestock and because of trees being cleared for grazing land.
I’m sure Gore will make some changes after being publicly exposed as a hypocrite. Switching to wind power is an obvious and easy one. And I’ve heard he may have already cut back on private jets after being exposed. But the point is, why didn’t he look at the log in his own eye before criticizing the splinter in everyone else’s? It’s elitist arrogance. It’s a trait shared by many limousine liberals, who criticize families for owning SUVs but burn much more fuel in their private jets than an SUV could ever burn.”
Scott M
I am not sure what I find more ironic in Paul L’s comment:
A. In the story preceeding The Global Climate Consensus, entitled Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay, the point was made that Rather than acknowledge your opponent’s right to have an opinion, which obliges you to answer, Newt correctly observed that it is a thousand times easier to smear him as sick, demented, pacifist(or a hypocrite) and therefore unfit to have any opinion at all. Newt would be so proud of you Paul.
or B. The article you were commenting on had a link to an interview with Dr. Santer where he noted that he was personally attacked by GW skeptics for papers he had written.
Continuing in that spirit Paul, you did not address the scientific consensus of GW, but attacked Al Gore as a hypocrite. If you can get people to argue whether or not Al Gore is guilty of hypocrisy, then you don’t have to address the scientific evidence for GW.
Is Al Gore a hypocrite? It simply doesn’t matter Paul. What matters is the scientific evidence for GW. Address the evidence.