Skip to content

How corrupt is government climate science?

April 30, 2016

By Paul Homewood  




We know that the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SPM) does not always reflect what is actually in the scientific chapters. But evidence is now emerging that the US State Dept has attempted to influence what was written in both the SPM and chapters.

Ron Arnold has this damning essay on CFACT:


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.


 Robert Watson’s name crops up a lot. He has filled various roles in the climate and environmental establishment down the years, including the World Bank and DEFRA. He was chairman of the IPCC from 1997 to 2002, and is currently Director of Strategic Development at the Tyndall Centre.

Andrew Revkin once described him as "outspoken advocate of the idea that human actions—mainly burning coal and oil—are contributing to global warming and must be changed to avert environmental upheavals." Which does not say much for his scientific objectivity!


The document that Ron Arnold links to has a lot of technical stuff, but I spotted some interesting snippets.  





Note the words:

In keeping with past practice in WG I, it is essential that the chapters not be finalized prior to the completion of discussions "at the IPCC WG I plenary in Madrid, and that chapter authors be prevailed upon to modify their text in an appropriate manner following discussion in Madrid.







What’s more surprising, however, is that a completely new set of estimates by Oerlemans (who is a lead author) has been introduced, suggesting a rise of only 27 cm. IPCC will have to decide which estimates to use, a matter on which the U.S. might want to weigh in.

The alternative set of sea level rise estimates in section 7.5.3 should be deleted,






The new draft (10/9/95) responds well to most of the comments of the United States on the earlier (4/18/95) draft of Ch. 8,


There are many similar comments throughout the document about changes to chapters.

  1. April 30, 2016 4:44 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  2. April 30, 2016 4:58 pm

    Nice work Paul, highlighting this and making it available to your readers.

    As an American, I can tell you that the general impression in most people here is that while they may not agree with government policy and action, we think, by and large, that our government is not corrupt. I mean, corruptions is for some Central Asian theocracy or African pseudo-state or a “Banana Republic”; but not the U S of A.

    We suffer though, from soft corruption – crony capitalism and just this kind of systematic bureaucratic lying shown here. This is the sort of thing MSM should be investigating. Soft corruption: money may not be directly changing hands, but make no mistake, it’s all about the money.

    • Streetcred permalink
      April 30, 2016 11:37 pm

      Moral Corruption, Ethical Corruption … all the same, Corruption. The Clintons take cash for government favours … if the government is this corrupt then the country is corrupt. It won’t take long for the level of corruption to work its way down and become as transparent at Central America, Asia, Africa, etc.

      It doesn’t matter that the common Joe in the street is not outwardly corrupt, the politicians running the State and the Feds are visibly corrupt.

    • david7134 permalink
      May 1, 2016 8:39 pm

      The US is as corrupt as it gets. In my state of Louisiana, it is not hard to find. Lets start with my town. To get authorization for a commercial building, you must have the building inspectors review the work. At some point, they always find a problem. Then they want to do a “study” to see if the problem would be ok. A study cost about $5000. Then, to get a bill passed in the state legislature requires at least $10,000 given to key state representatives. But not directly to them, to their secretary. The same goes on up to the Federal level. I recently went on a trip to Seoul and found that the US is a truly third world country. The technology in Korea was far superior to anything we have. The city was clean, no homeless hanging out, people friendly and helpful. The political process we have going on now should highlight to everyone how corrupt our elected bums are. So, sorry to bust your bubble, but we need to emulate France from the 1790’s.

  3. martinbrumby permalink
    April 30, 2016 5:01 pm

    Hi Paul
    You are presumably aware of BernieL’s excellent history of the Madrid ’95 meeting?

  4. April 30, 2016 5:08 pm

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    From the credible evidence below, one must conclude with 97% certainty that man-made climate change, global warming, global disruption, global weirding or whatever they call it now, is 97% made up by environmental activist government bureaucrats and UN IPCC activist scientists. Shock news. (/sarc)

    Great post. A must read. Share far and wide.

    • david7134 permalink
      May 1, 2016 8:40 pm

      Has nothing to do with the environment. It is a power grab. They will use carbon trading to manipulate people and countries.

  5. markl permalink
    April 30, 2016 5:14 pm

    Ah, but it’s all conspiracy theory. Isn’t it? Until the “theory” becomes proven piece by piece. Anyone who believes they can hide all of the truth in today’s environment is naive. Thanks for bringing this bit of ‘evidence’ to light.

  6. April 30, 2016 8:06 pm

    It is not enough to be unhappy with IPCC, it is necessary to do something about it, by forcing them to explain recent climate changes. One of the good thing on earth is that the truth will always emerge, eventually…

    • dave permalink
      May 5, 2016 10:04 am

      “…the truth will always emerge…”

      There is a story that a humble workman from Sorrento found a way to make toughened glass, two thousand years ago. He showed a sample of the glass to the sinister Emperor Tiberius on the island of Capri. The Emperor said “If glass doesn’t shatter, objects made of it will become abundant and cheap. What worth then of this precious, old, cup from which I drink? I think it will depreciate – and so will its owner! Or it WOULD. Throw him into the sea!”

  7. Green Sand permalink
    April 30, 2016 11:53 pm

    “How corrupt is government climate science?”

    Darn good question?

    Might explain why the ‘Climate Police’ are so hell bent on insuring we are never allowed to ask the question, never mind deserve an answer!

  8. songhees permalink
    May 1, 2016 12:23 am

    Latest book and documentary.
    ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.

    Debate between Dr Tim Ball and Elizabeth May
    Scroll down to Ian Jessop part 1

  9. tom0mason permalink
    May 1, 2016 7:16 am

    Perfect examples of the much quoted “settled science”.

  10. May 1, 2016 9:00 am

    Well done.
    Reading the PDF dated 1995 the scam was obviously well underway prior to that.

  11. CheshireRed permalink
    May 1, 2016 9:27 am

    I’d love to know how such organised corruption doesn’t itself fall foul of RICO and similar laws so for this reason alone want Trump to get the white house. He will explode the climate con in his first term as POTUS. There will be climate blood.

  12. A C Osborn permalink
    May 1, 2016 10:56 am

    There is more evidence over at Real Science, this time it is the Radiosonde data, plus another go at Arctic Ice thickness (age).

  13. May 1, 2016 11:15 am

    Reblogged this on Petrossa's Blog and commented:
    very corrupt indeed. But what else is new? Power corrupts. Absolutely. Without absolute power even.

  14. May 1, 2016 2:46 pm

    The FOIA failure is corruption.
    The 1995 document is only more evidence of the politicization of climate science. But this is not new news, nor the only evidence. The multiple choices by AR4 concerning upper troposphere humidity are a classic example examined in depth in the climate chapter of Arts of Truth. So is Santers attribution rewrite in TAR. The IPCC charter itself is an example.

  15. dennisambler permalink
    May 1, 2016 2:50 pm

    As you say, Watson was IPCC chair, before the now departed Pachauri. This critique of the IPCC TAR, with Watson as Chairman, is from 2001.
    “The hockey stick features prominently in all of IPCC Chairman Robert Watson’s speeches, and to the uninitiated it is very persuasive.”

    Prior to joining the World Bank, Dr. Watson was Associate Director for Environment in the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President in the White House.

    Prior to joining the Clinton White House, Watson was Director of the Science Division and Chief Scientist for the Office of Mission to Planet Earth at NASA.

    He is one of Al Gore’s favourite scientists, (after Hansen of course). Gore was influential in persuading the Labour government and Cameron’s Tory opposition to adopt “carbon reduction”.

    Oct. 30, 2006 At a press conference, releasing a report on climate change by British government economist Sir Nicholas Stern, British Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, announced that he had “hired” Al Gore to “advise the British government on climate change.”

    Watson was appointed to Tyndall and Defra after the sudden announcement that founding Tyndall Director, Mike Hulme, was leaving for “a year’s sabbatical”. Hulme had gone off message with a BBC interview in November 2006.

    4 November 2006 – Must read!

    VIEWPOINT By Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research,

    “Chaotic World of Climate Truth”
    “Why is it not just campaigners, but politicians and scientists too, who are openly confusing the language of fear, terror and disaster with the observable physical reality of climate change, actively ignoring the careful hedging which surrounds science’s predictions?

    “….the discourse of catastrophe is a campaigning device being mobilised in the context of failing UK and Kyoto Protocol targets to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.

    ….the discourse of catastrophe is a political and rhetorical device to change the frame of reference for the emerging negotiations around what happens when the Kyoto Protocol runs out after 2012.

    ….the discourse of catastrophe allows some space for the retrenchment of science budgets. It is a short step from claiming these catastrophic risks have physical reality, saliency and are imminent, to implying that one more “big push” of funding will allow science to quantify them objectively.”

    He compounded his sins four months later with a seemingly harmless book review in the Guardian of Singer and Avery, Global Warming – every 1500 years..

    It was picked up and given prominence by journalist Melanie Philips, who scathingly attacked him.

    March 14th, 2007

    “The ‘post-normal’ science of climate change”:

    “From the horse’s mouth — climate change theory has nothing to do with the truth. In a remarkable column in today’s Guardian Mike Hulme, ….a key figure in the promulgation of climate change theory who but a short while ago warned that exaggerated forecasts of global apocalypse were in danger of destroying the case altogether — writes that scientific truth is the wrong tool to establish the, er, truth of global warming. Instead, we need a perspective of what he calls ‘post-normal’ science:

    “Self-evidently, dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists – and politicians – must trade (normal) truth for influence.”

    15th March 2007 – Al Gore in London, from his blog:

    “I had some really interesting and productive meetings in London this week — discussing the climate crisis with the Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, who is widely expected to be the next Prime Minister when Tony Blair retires.

    Chancellor Brown has introduced a package of binding CO2 reductions in the United Kingdom that represent real leadership. The same day I met with the leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, and 80 of his fellow Tory Members of Parliament.

    They were unanimous in their determination to propose meaningful solutions to the climate crisis. There has been a revolution in British politics, with the two largest parties now wholeheartedly committed to CO2 reductions and international leadership to solve the climate crisis.”

    July 5th 2007 – International climate change expert is Defra’s new Chief Scientific Adviser

    “In his new role, Professor Watson will advise Ministers on science issues and build on existing measures to ensure that science and technology are used to inform policy. He will support the UK Government’s scientific work on minimising the effects of climate change and improving sustainability by promoting coherence across Defra and working together with other Government departments.”

    July 13th 2007 – Gore/Watson Mutual Admiration Society – Watson’s World Bank leaving party:

    “Jack Gibbons, Watson’s former boss at the White House, read aloud a letter written to Watson by Al Gore. In this letter, Gore calls Watson his “hero of the planet,” commends him on his incredible career and contributions, and congratulates him on his new jobs. Gibbons also spoke about the challenges facing scientists whose scientific evidence is often viewed not as strict science but as efforts to steer policy.”

    September 3rd 2007 –
    “Professor Mike Hulme (UEA), the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre and who led it since 2000, has stood down as Director and is taking a year’s Sabbatical from UEA. The researchers, students and staff of the Tyndall Centre thank Mike for his outstanding leadership and his intellectual vision of academia doing climate change research that is truly useful for both theory and practice.”

    13th October 2007 – Gore/Watson Mutual Admiration Society again (dead link)

    “We need an advocate such as Al Gore to help present the work of scientists across the world,” said Bob Watson, former chairman of the IPCC and a top federal climate science adviser to the Clinton-Gore Administration.

    Catastrophe returned to the Tyndall Centre: August 6th 2008 –

    “The UK should take active steps to prepare for dangerous climate change of perhaps 4C according to one of the government’s chief scientific advisers. In policy areas such as flood protection, agriculture and coastal erosion Professor Bob Watson said the country should plan for the effects of a 4C global average rise on pre-industrial levels. The EU is committed to limiting emissions globally so that temperatures do not rise more than 2C.”

    Time Line:
    30th October 2006 Brown “hires” Gore, publishes Stern Review

    4 November 2006 – Hulme BBC interview

    14th March 2007- Hulme’s Guardian book review on Singer and Avery

    15th March 2007 – Al Gore in London

    July 5th 2007 – Watson appointed to Tyndall and Defra

    September 3rd 2007 – Probably earlier, Wayback capture date, Hulme leaves on sabbatical

    I suspect I am just a conspiracy theorist…..

  16. tom0mason permalink
    May 2, 2016 10:03 am

    Now Paul you are raining on their parade!

Comments are closed.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: