In deciding to gauge the strength of character in a politician, say...if you find yourself at a stalemate between two parties on every other issue, you should look at what they've said and whether they followed up on their convictions. Or if indeed if they were proven wrong, whether they fessed up and showed some humility.
In this case, I will be using the above technique, but to hold those who seem to have evaded these remedial and basic standards for too long. Those who, via people being unsure at the ballots and wanting to tick the do-gooder box, managed to gain seats with minimal scrutiny. The greens. The same greens that were caught red handed in an e-mail scandal at the UEA in Norwich, wherein they altered the climate science figures in order to match their propaganda. So essentially lied on government endorsed statistics. And faced no prosecutions.
Dr. Ben Santer. A talisman of the greens specifically chosen to be put to this test due to his many outbursts on "the stupidity of the climate deniers".
How did Dr. Santer's character fare in the basic test of convictions and humility? Actual quote: “Today, we are told, Americans need a wall on our southern border. We are told that we need the wall to keep us safe from rapists and terrorists; from those who are not like us, who speak differently, or do not look like we do.”
Did he back this up with any quotes from the president himself that might show his motivations? Of course he didn't. Rather, all this showed was he assumed President Trump was as odious a figure as himself; the type to use his job and status to promote his politics. This projection shows a lack of genuine research and slanderous mud slinging. Only from a doctor of "climate science." If his world views consist of so little research can we trust anything else he says?
Let's hone in on his specific area of expertise. Though he didn't delve deeper or retract his idiotic statement above, we all deserve a second chance. His take during the Climategate scandal, when one of the members suggested there should be more of an evidence based take on findings; political slants should be avoided, he said, “I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.”
Tell their story? How is something based in science a story? Surely it is entirely fact based. Though as Climategate exposed, the narrative took precedence over the truth. That's a double failure on strength of character AND lack in humility.
Now for MY more specialised test. Where I have constructed a few hurdles of salvation, where a straight up mud slinging liar like Santer can salvage some character points:
Humility points (after one of his team attempted to talk down the narrative emphasis): 0
Double down deduction: He reiterated the need to embellish actual figures to "tell the story" -2
Glass house stone thrower: -1 *he accused Trump of using personal feelings to inform policy with no evidence, all the while being guilty of the same thing himself; using his climate alarm message to present fraudulent data.
Redeeming qualities: He has been most vocal on the need to get the climate change message home and people he considers refugees. SO...Has he offered any of his salary to aid their plight...or any recent data back up by hard science? Big fat zero here I'm afraid Santy babes!
Leaving Dr. Santer with a -3. And him being one of the most outspoken political voices of today's greens too. I must say, as much as I like to have as many choices available on the ballot as possible so I can decide each election cycle, whom I should back based on their stances and the state of the country at the time...I honesty can't ever see myself backing the greens when dishonest and defamatory types as Santer are their figureheads.