Talk:Benjamin D. Santer
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
added link edit
Added the link to the Frederick Seitz wiki page.Masmit (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Far too much of this article, proportionanly, is given over to the "controversy" though. It was only SEPP trouble making and attention seeking William M. Connolley (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Is too much spent on the controversy, or too little spent on his research? I think that the article in its present form does a very sketchy job of informing the reader about Santers work. If this section were filled in, the article would read much more easily.71.243.119.32 (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Santer McIntyre Controversy edit
I'm not sure how McIntyre is NOT considered a reliable source as to his own email correspondence and FOIA requests. Perhaps I misunderstood the comment.71.243.119.32 (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Santer vs. Douglass edit
In this article it is described how Santer and his team at the IPCC manipulated scientific review and publication processes in order to noticeable discredit a third party research. The science that Santer was doing does not look like it is based on arguments for discussing a thesis but rather by ordering publications and "friend-of-a-friend" dutys for impacting on others scientific well - needless to say there were put a few nasty fingers on some very doubtful statements in the text. Would you expect that from a scientist when someone else pops up and says "you computer model might be complex and whatever, but it does not meet with the measurement data thats available out there in the world.", would you extect this from Santer? In contrast you would expect him to do more research, check his data, models and so on, and the others methods and reasoning. Thats science. Was Santer still a normal behaving scientist at that time? I doubt this. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that article is not a reliable source for biographical information, and your comments are a serious breach of our WP:BLP policy. Please do not make accusations about living persons that is not supported by some very serious reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
request edit edit
Can you please make these edits for me?
Please replace Ben Santer's photo with this more current one. it is in the public domain
http://pcmdi.github.io/about/staff/santer/stil_32425_GAK_Ben%20Santer_Q5I0377_006.jpeg
from this site http://pcmdi.github.io/about/staff/santer/index.html
Photo was taken in 2014 by George Kitrinos/LLNL
Also, please list this article under "References and Notes"
Real Climate, "Close Encounters of the Absurd Kind," by Benjamin Santer http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/close-encounters-of-the-absurd-kind/
128.115.190.46 (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)