climate_change4

It’s something climate skeptics have long suspected: Government involvement in science has skewed data to reflect the government’s agenda.

“Many have suspected that U.S. political intervention in climate science has corrupted the outcome,” notes Ron Arnold in an essay posted on CFact.org. “The new emergence of an old 1995 document from the U.S. State Department to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirms those suspicions, or at least gives the allegation credence enough to ask questions.”

Though a FOIA request for the 1995 document came up empty (“No such correspondence in our files”), the pdf is available online. The 30-page document, entitled “U.S. Government Specific Comments on the Draft IPCC WG I Summary for Policymakers,” gives detailed instructions on “how to change the IPCC’s science document and the summary for policymakers.”

“The document itself consists of a three-page cover letter to Sir John Houghton, head of IPCC Working Group I (Science), from Day Mount, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Acting, Environment and Development, United States Department of State, along with the thirty-page instruction set with line-by-line ‘suggestions,’ written by scientist Robert Watson and others,” writes Arnold.

“Climategate” exposes the global warming scam. Get it now at the WND Superstore.

He also notes, “Among the more revealing tidbits is a remark scolding a scientist for being honest about the weakness of aerosol forcing data: ‘We clearly cannot use aerosol forcing as the trigger of our smoking gun, and then make a generalized appeal to uncertainty to exclude these effects from the forward-looking modeling analysis.’ One instruction was to change a correct statement about warming rates into a flat lie: ‘Change “continue to rise” to “rise by even greater amounts” to provide a sense of magnitude of the extended change.'”

This verbal manipulation as far back as 1995 illustrates how government involvement in climate science is skewing the outcome to reflect an agenda.

In an article entitled “Climate Policy’s Advocates Take Page From Same-Sex Marriage Playbook,” Coral Davenport notes, “Two months ahead of a federal court hearing on President Obama’s signature climate change rule, a coordinated public relations offensive has begun – modeled after the same-sex marriage campaign – to influence the outcome of the case. … While developing the campaign, the environmental advocates closely examined the messaging tactics of the same-sex marriage efforts – particularly the message that the issue affects individual lives beyond the gay community.

“‘On gay marriage, it was that everyone has a friend, a neighbor, a sibling who could be impacted,’ said Joshua Dorner, a strategist at the Washington political communications firm SKDKnickerbocker, who worked on the same-sex marriage public relations campaigns ahead of the Supreme Court argument. The same message could be applied to a campaign on climate change, ‘showing how it directly impacts people’s lives,’ he said.”

NASA is noted to have altered its own temperature data by 0.5C since 2001. “NASA temperature data doesn’t even agree with NASA temperature data from 15 years ago,” notes the article “Global temperature record is a smoking gun of collusion and fraud.”

NASA global surface temperature, 2001 vs. 2016; source Real Science

NASA global surface temperature, 2001 vs. 2016; source Real Science

The article also chronicles similar manipulation by the Japan Meteorological Agency; and that much of the Southern Hemisphere data is “mostly made up.”

“The claimed agreement in temperature data is simply not legitimate,” it notes. “The people involved know that their data is inadequate, tampered and largely made up. They all use basically the same GHCN data set from NOAA (which has lost more than 80 percent of their stations over the past few decades) and E-mails show that they discussed with each other ways to alter the data to make it agree with their theory.”

WND has reported extensively on global warming, including a few months back when, despite no rise in average global temperature for nearly two decades, some two-dozen scientists with major U.S. universities urged President Obama to use RICO laws to prosecute opponents who deny mankind is causing catastrophic changes in the climate.

That’s the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which can put people in jail.

The scientists said their critics’ methods “are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry,” which was the target of a RICO investigation that “played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking.”

“Climategate” exposes the global warming scam. Get it now at the WND Superstore.

Tim Ball, a former University of Winnipeg climatology professor, said global temperatures have been dropping since the turn of the century, prompting the change in terminology from “global warming” to “climate change.”

Activists are also spending less time discussing temperatures and more time pointing to more extreme events such as tornadoes, droughts, cold snaps and heat waves. Ball said there’s a shred of truth there, but it’s being badly distorted.

Marc Morano is executive editor and chief correspondent for ClimateDepot, as well as host and producer of the upcoming film “Climate Hustle.” In an interview with WND, he said, “These documents further reveal how the grand narrative of man-made global warming has been crafted and forged into a partisan like campaign cause. The U.N. reports were altered as needed to promote the ideological and political goals of the establishment pushing climate fears.

“Any talking points that did not fit their narrative were cast aside and any expression of uncertainty quashed,” he added. “The ‘global warming’ movement is a pure lobbying movement on some levels. These old documents echo the 2009 Climategate scandal where the upper echelon of the U.N. scientists were exposed colluding on how to craft a narrative and mold the science to persuade the public, media and policy makers of the urgency of ‘acting’ on ‘global warming.'”

Manipulation of public emotion through various strategies influences public policy in massive ways, which makes the 1995 document noteworthy for how far back this goes.

“The 1995 document raises 2016 questions about the State Department’s actions in the subsequent United National IPCC Assessment Reports,” notes Arnold. “What did they do? Where are the correspondence and instructions to change the science in all the IPCC Assessments? What is the Obama State Department doing to corrupt climate science to its forward its radical social and political agenda? Some of that is obvious. It’s the clandestine part we need to know.”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.