How corrupt is government climate science?

By |2016-04-11T12:57:46+00:00April 9th, 2016|Climate|8 Comments

Many have suspected that U.S. political intervention in climate science has corrupted the outcome. 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.

It’s troubling that a FOIA lawsuit came up empty – “no such correspondence in our files” – when the old 1995 document was requested from the U.S. State Department late last year. This raises a certain ironic question: If I have a copy of your document, how come you don’t?”

State’s response is also somewhat unbelievable because the document that fell into my hands showed State’s date-stamp, the signature of a State Department official and the names of persons still living – along with 30 pages of 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.

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.”

The entire document is too convoluted and technical to summarize here, so it is posted here in PDF form for your detailed examination. The document posted here is unchanged and unaltered in any way from exactly what I received from a well known and credible source that must remain anonymous to avoid harm or retribution.

There is evidence that the document is authentic based on a specific mention in the 2000 Hoover Institution report by S. Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz, “Climate Policy—From Rio to Kyoto: A Political Issue for 2000—and Beyond.”

The 1995 document raises 2016 questions about the State Department’s actions in the subsequent United National IPCC Assessment Reports. 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.

I don’t expect our government to answer truthfully. If they did, they might have to start a RICO investigation of themselves.

Read the State Department document and decide for yourself whether these questions are worth asking.


  1. Dorian April 9, 2016 at 5:02 PM

    I don’t even understand the need for FOIAs. With the advent of the Internet, every single document in Government should be available on a database for anybody to pull. This database should be available 24hours and open for anyone to use. Once on this database, they can never be removed.

    Otherwise how can you police FOIAs? If you have a corrupt government, how do you know they are being honest with an FOIA request?

    The time has come, for everything to be available – its a taxpayer’s right to have all this available.

    • Brin Jenkins April 11, 2016 at 2:29 PM

      Of course you are correct, but the State finds it useful to hide the truth.

    • Alice Cheshire April 13, 2016 at 9:07 AM

      It’s a nice idea, but what keeps the state department from simply not putting the documents in the system? There’s still pen and paper. They can simply avoid to problem. Granted, the current use of email would indicate few are bright enough to actually realize they are monitored, but there’s still a chance of just not putting things in the database. (Just as paper is lost or shredded)

    • Guinea April 17, 2016 at 4:46 AM

      Of course you could hide hundreds of thousands of documents on a private server in your basement, thus avoiding FOIA and document search’s. Away from prying eyes of government and the public !

  2. Frederick Colbourne April 9, 2016 at 9:49 PM

    “The entire document is too convoluted and technical to summarize here, so it is posted here in PDF form for your detailed examination. – See more at:

    I can’t get the link to work in four browsers.

    • Ron Arnold April 12, 2016 at 12:47 PM

      The error has been corrected and the PDF download now works on any browser. The problem was a too-large PDF that has now been compressed to fit any browser without altering readability or changing or omitting any text. Apologies for the delay.

      • Frederick Colbourne April 12, 2016 at 1:14 PM


  3. Frederick Colbourne April 9, 2016 at 10:54 PM


    Nature 381, 539 (13 June 1996) | doi:10.1038/381539a0
    Climate debate must not overheat, Charges by parts of the US energy industry that a recent report on global climate change has been ‘scientifically cleansed’ should not be allowed to undermine efforts to win political support for abatement strategies.

    Nature 381, 546 (13 June 1996) | doi:10.1038/381546a0
    Climate report ‘subject to scientific cleansing’, Ehsan Masood

    The 1995 IPCC Report: Broad Consensus or “Scientific Cleansing”?1 As published in Ecofable/Ecoscience 1:1 (1997), pp. 3-9

Comments are closed.