Judith Curry Doesn't Wants to Know

UPDATE:  Well, some, not Eli to be sure, perhaps Roger Pielke Jr., would point out that Judith already has done the Sgt. Schultz with respect to what happened at the 1995 meeting.  In the comments one of Eli's friendly anonymice points to Curry Quotes, where Judy prepeats:  (Schultz is the guy in red on the right)

 I do not have any knowledge of this situation beyond what is reported in the standard sources. This issue has been widely discussed and disputed. There is no particular reason to rehash it here, i brought it up as a key issue in the history of the IPCC and the debate surrounding it.

 Gavin Schmidt was moved to call her out

The facts remain that when you make broad and unspecific statements alleging ‘corruption’ or a ‘lack of integrity’ you simply feed the blog-chorus, while the people involved, or those who know the people you appear to referring to, are just left puzzled about what you are talking about. Because of course, no-one with integrity would make such serious allegations without some evidence.

However, when you have brought up specifics, they are generally warmed over talking points without any actual substance. Your latest comment about Ben Santer’s role in SAR is a case in point. There is a very readable account of what happened available on RC, and indeed in Steve Schneider’s last book (chapter 5). Neither account supports your, frankly, defamatory, claim, which instead appears to be based on the letter from the late Fred Seitz, someone who wasn’t there, and who invented a whole conspiracy out of the whole cloth on the op-ed pages of the WSJ. There is no question in mind who, between Fred Seitz, Ben Santer and Steve Schneider had a problem with integrity. Hint, his name doesn’t start with Ben or Steve.

Judith?

(Yes, the update has been artificially enhanced.  Wanna make something of it?)
-------------------------------------------------
Judith Curry is not one waste another libel against her colleagues without using it to passive aggressively kick some climate scientist,  and, sure enough, having spotted the n+1st reprise of Fred Seitz's lies about Ben Santer, she goes, oh gee, "This article paints a disturbing picture.   I would like to hear a defense/critique from IPCC principals."  Fortunately for Google challenged Judy, Eli knew about Ben Santer's  recent Close Encounter of the Absurd Kind, which dealt with this nonsense, but thanks to the Google he came across a contemporaneous report on the affair written by Stephen Schneider and Paul Edwards in 1997, which, the Rabett invites you to go read, but there is an important and inspiring section which the bunny will quote in full

At Madrid, Santer presented Chapter 8’s conclusions to the national delegates of 96 IPCC member nations. The conclusions were not presented alone, but followed a presentation to the plenary session of the scientific evidence contained in Chapter 8. Nevertheless, several countries objected to the Chapter 8 conclusions. Most of the objections came from OPEC or less-developed nations. One delegate, from Kenya, moved to have the chapter entirely dropped from the final report.

In response, the meeting’s chair — following procedures often used at IPCC Plenary meetings to resolve disputes — called for a drafting group to revise the chapter as well as and the detection and attribution section of the Summary for  Policymakers. Nations complaining about the Chapter 8 draft were invited, indeed expected, to meet with Lead Authors, first to discuss the scientists’ point of view and then to fashion new, mutually acceptable language.

This breakout group worked for the better part of a day. Delegates from over half a dozen countries — including the Kenyan who had publicly advocated dropping the chapter — met with about half a dozen Chapter 8 authors, including Santer, co-Lead Author Tom Wigley, and scientists Kevin Trenberth, Michael MacCracken, John Mitchell, and me (SHS). The Kenyan sat next to me.

Initially, he was confused by the discussion and somewhat hostile. We had many side conversations about what was being discussed: models, data, statistical tests and various climate forcing scenarios. Although he was not a front-rank climate researcher, this delegate was a trained scientist. He began to grasp the nature of the Lead Authors’ arguments, listening carefully to about half of the breakout meeting.

Ironically, the Saudi Arabian delegation sent no representative to this most controversial drafting group, even though Saudi Arabia had led the opposition in the plenary meeting. During the Chapter 8 debate, Saudi delegates often issued objections soon after receiving notes from the Global Climate Coalition representative. (Non-governmental organizations were also represented at Madrid. For example, S. Fred Singer — President of the Science & Environmental Policy Project and a self-proclaimed contrarian — raised a number of issues from the floor.)

Later in the plenary meeting, when Santer presented the drafting group’s revised text, the Saudi delegates once again objected. Santer forcefully challenged them. Why, he asked, had no Saudi attended the breakout group — if their objections had some basis in science? The head Saudi delegate haughtily announced that he didn’t have to account for his decisions about which drafting group to attend.

Besides, he said, his was “only a small delegation” of a few people. At this point the Kenyan delegate rose to speak. (I held my breath.) “I’m a member of a small delegation too,” he said. (He was the only Kenyan representative.) “But somehow I managed to attend this most important drafting session. As a result, I am convinced that Chapter 8 is now well written and I have no objections to its inclusion in the report.” (I paraphrase his words from memory.) The impact of his intervention was stunning, stopping with a few words what appeared to be a mounting movement of OPEC and LDC opposition to Chapter 8 before it could garner any further support.

Later on I privately congratulated the Kenyan for having the courage to object publicly, observe privately, and then re-evaluate his position before the entire plenary. He said he wasn’t sure his country would approve of his stance, but having witnessed the debate process for several hours, he had become convinced it was honest and open. That was all he needed to change his opinion from preconceived skepticism to support of the Lead Authors’ conclusions.

What this courageous delegate did was the essence of good science. He allowed his initial hypothesis to be subjected to new evidence, tested it, and found it wanting. He then listened to arguments for a different point of view, subjected them to the tests of evidence and debate, and reached a new conclusion.

 This scene has been described by several who were at the meeting, but Eli could not find the name of the Kenyan scientist who was his country's delegate.  Perhaps others might have more success.

In a less friendly way, the Rabett would like to point out that our friend, S. Fred Singer, was at the meeting, he witnessed all this and he has been unembellishing the truth ever since.  S. Fred, of course, is responsible for at least a ten year delay in taking action against environmental tobacco smoke, lead the charge against the Montreal protocols and is the Heartland Institute's main guy, having sucked more than 100K$ from them for various tasks like writing their NIPCC report.

Way to go Fred.