Government websites break their own rules to cater to ‘climate cult’

When will .GOV Domains be Reset to Comply with the First Amendment?

Guest essay by Leo Goldstein

Government publications, including websites, must be free of partisan propaganda.  The Obama administration violated this rule and turned government websites into propaganda outlets of the left wing of the Democrat Party.  It was especially shameless in promoting climate alarmism.  Even worse, it used those websites to attempt to establish the climate cult as the state religion.  As of the day of this writing (March 19, 2017), Trump’s administration has not stopped this ongoing violation of the Constitution. Even http://www.epa.gov/climatechange does not seem to differ from its January 19 version.

The promotion of the climate cult on government websites harms the public in two ways:  

First, it gives government endorsement to climate alarmism and climate cult.  U.S. government publications used to be the most authoritative source on almost every matter, and many people still view content created under Obama’s administration as such.  Climate alarmists use this trust by referring to government websites as a proof of their positions, and some abuses are beyond imagination (The Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health, 1, 2, 3 is an example.)

Second, the government websites (easily distinguished by their .gov domain) from Obama’s administration contain outgoing links to climate alarmism websites.  It’s known that search engines heavily weigh (favor) links that come from .gov domains.  There is a good rationale for that.  Government websites are supposed to have few links to non-governmental websites, and those non-governmental websites must be carefully vetted for accuracy and neutrality.  

Examples of external linking policies on government agency websites:

EPA.gov:

“External links: Connections to any website not under the control of EPA or another federal government agency. …

Required Steps:

  1. Develop a rationale for the categories of web sites to which your pages will link.  We strongly encourage you to document this rationale for your files.
  2. All external links must:
  1. Be relevant to, or generally support, EPA’s mission. …
  2. Clearly enhance the value of the information that EPA is providing on its web site.
  3. Help the reader understand the information on EPA’s page.
  4. Go to reliable web sites that reflect high standards in quality, site operations and maintenance.
  1. Do not link to external sites, in any location within that site (not only the location that you are directly linking to), that
  1. Advocate, or are likely in the future to advocate, for or against any partisan political party, candidate or election or that solicit political contributions.
  2. Advocate any activity with respect to any federal, state or local statute, legislation, regulation, or proposed regulation.

  1. Solicit membership in an organization, or are likely in the future to do so.
  2. Have solicitations to buy products or services, or are likely in the future to do so.
  3. Make requests for monetary donations or contributions of any kind, or are likely in the future to do so. Note that this includes state and local governmental sites.
  4. Advise people, or are likely in the future to advise people, to contact an elected representative or to otherwise take action on, or become involved with, a partisan political candidate, group or election, or advocating for or against any federal, state, or local legislation, or any treaty ratification regulation, or proposed regulation.”

From http://www.epa.gov/web-policies-and-procedures/procedure-external-site-links (archive.is/90Doa), in effect from 2006.

USA.gov:

“The USA.gov staff evaluates all links [to non-government websites] using the following criteria:

        …

  • Is the website’s content relevant, useful and authoritative for citizens, businesses and/or government officials?
  • Does the website’s information appear to be accurate and current?
  • Is the website’s approach to the privacy of personal information consistent with the government’s privacy and security policies?
  • Is the primary intent of the website to educate and inform, rather than persuade, convert, or sell? The site may include advertising but must be free from heavy marketing or promotion of products.”

From http://www.usa.gov/linking-policy  (archive.is/8wLvu)

All these rules have been blatantly violated by Obama’s administration in the climate debate.  Illegal external links from .gov have boosted climatist and leftist websites, including websites that are under the control of foreign governments and outright hate sites.  Additional weight is propagated from directly linked sites because links from highly ranked web pages are given higher weight by search engines.  Thus, inappropriate links from the .gov domains to climate alarmism/cult websites boosted (and continue to boost) the search rankings of alarmist websites in general.  Ordinary web users assume that the sites appearing at the top of search results in Google and other search engines are trustworthy, and accept climate alarmism claims as truths.

I conducted research into inappropriate (possibly illegal) links on government websites and, consequently, boosted certain climate cult and other partisan websites.

Research into Inappropriate Links from .GOV websites

The research included only subdomains under NASA.gov, NOAA.gov, and EPA.gov.  The research excluded Climate.gov and GlobalChange.gov (formerly USGCRP.gov) for their obvious mission to drum up climate alarmism and for their probability of containing illegal (for governmental publications) content and links.  Links to the website in the domain .edu were left out of the scope of this research, despite government financing of almost all existing educational institutions.  The websites of the former mainstream media and other popular websites were left out of scope of the research as well.  The research included only some climate alarmist and partisan websites, and there were technical limits to the ability to discover links.

Google and other search engines probably give additional weight to links from NASA.gov and NOAA.gov on scientific topics. Thus, EPA.gov, NASA.gov, and NOAA.gov must have become major providers of “link entity” to the websites of environmentalist groups, the Center for American Progress, climatist hate sites, etc.  

The following table shows examples of alarmist and leftist websites and which among the Three (EPA.gov, NASA.gov, NOAA.gov) are linked to them, thus giving them “link equity” (links rel=”follow”).

Destination \ Source on .gov

EPA.gov

NASA.gov

NOAA.gov

Notorious Climatist Hate Sites

desmogblog.com

desmogblog.com

NASA

NOAA

skepticalscience.com

skepticalscience.com

NASA

NOAA

Michael Mann & Fenton Communications PR

realclimate.org

realclimate.org

NASA

NOAA

Democrat Party & Hard Left

Center for American Progress

americanprogress.org, thinkprogress.org

EPA

NASA

NOAA

motherjones.com

motherjones.com

EPA

NASA

NOAA

MoveOn.org

moveon.org

NOAA

Big Green, Domestic

Environmental Defense Fund

edf.org

EPA

NASA

NOAA

National Resources Defense Council

nrdc.org

EPA

NASA

NOAA

National Wildlife Federation

nwf.org

EPA

NASA

NOAA

World Resources Institute

wri.org

EPA

NASA

NOAA

Sierra Club

sierraclub.org

EPA

NASA

NOAA

Union of “Concerned Scientists”

ucsusa.org

NASA

NOAA

Big Green, Foreign

Greenpeace

greenpeace.org

NASA

NOAA

WWF

panda.org

NASA

NOAA

Foundations

Pew Charitable Trusts (assets > $4B)

pewenvironment.org

NASA

NOAA

Packard Foundation (assets > $5B)

packard.org

NASA

NOAA

Energy Foundation (pass thru)

ef.org

NOAA

Other Notorious Examples

Alliance for Climate Protection (Al Gore)

climaterealityproject.org

NASA

Rainforest Alliance Network

ran.org

NASA

climatedesk.org

climatedesk.org

NASA

takepart.com

takepart.com

NASA

NOAA

treehugger.com

treehugger.com

NASA

NOAA

Center for International Environmental Law

ciel.org

NASA

Environmental Law Institute

eli.org

EPA

NOAA

Grist

grist.org

EPA

EESI

eesi.org

EPA

Earth911

earth911.org

EPA

Environmental Justice OLT

ejolt.org

EPA

Ocean Conservancy (linked to Senator Whitehouse)

oceanconservancy.org

NASA

Certain Foreign Governments

Al Jazeera (Qatar Emirate Broadcasting)

aljazeera.com

NASA

Government of China

.gov.cn

NASA

NOAA

Pravda (*)

english.pravda.ru

NASA

Weirdly HighRanked Individual Pages

Bad Astronomy blog (**)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy.html

NASA

Andrew Revkin of the NY Times

dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com

NASA

NOAA

The raw data is available at https://defyccc.com/docs/GovLinksAnalysis.zip  (50 MB)

(*) Pravda.ru is a descendant of the main publications of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, but is privately owned now.

(**) Bad Astronomy (what a disarmingly honest name!) is a blog of Phil Plait.  This blog has been smearing climate realists and peddling alarmist pseudo-science for years.  Phil Plait, the confessed bad astronomer, wrote a script for a new movie of Bill Nye, the fake Science Guy.  On March 19, 2017, some links from NASA.gov pointed to URLs under badastronomy.com, which forwarded them to http://www.blastr.com/tags/bad-astronomy, featuring more writing by Phil Plait.

 

DesmogBlog, Skeptical Science, the Center for American Progress (the likely nerve center of the Democrat Party), MoveOn.org, Greenpeace, WWF, Sierra Club and other Big Green, Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection (climaterealityproject.org), Al Gore’s friend and benefactor Al Jazeera, the Chinese government, and even Pravda.ru – all of them benefitted, and probably continue to benefit, from illegal links from one or more of the three investigated governmental subdomains (the Three).

The analysis has been done using data collected from September 2016 to December 2016.  Only some of the most familiar outside sites are mentioned; the total number of improper external sites is hundreds for each of the Three. Only links carrying link equity were considered.  Link equity helps boost the leftist and climate alarmism websites to appear high in climate-related searches. These websites also pass their link equity to other alarmist and extremist websites.  Nevertheless, a link to cato.org on NOAA.gov has been noticed.  

All Climate Cult Content and External Links must be removed from Government Websites

In my opinion, President Trump’s cabinet must remove all leftist propaganda, including climate pseudoscience and the climate cult, from U.S. government websites. As far as the websites of agencies whose sole mission is inflaming with climate hysteria (climate.gov, globalchange.gov), they can be replaced with a single page that reads, “We apologize for the lies, exaggerations, support of evil agendas, and the abuse of public trust committed through this website.”  This can be done even before those agencies officially close.

Of course, when all illegal leftist and climatist propaganda is removed from governmental websites, pandemonium in the media is sure to ensue.  Leftists, environmentalists, and the former mainstream media will bellow that science has been silenced and freedom of speech is being trampled – but they would be shouting the same accusations anyway, whether Trump’s cabinet removes the propaganda or not!  One example of this type of behavior is the absurd accusation that Trump’s  administration intended to destroy collected climate data. The former MSM widely reported this as a fact, despite the absence of any factual foundation behind this fantasy. Multiple projects, with funny names like “The Data Refuge Project,” were created to preserve allegedly “endangered data.”  These projects might serve a good purpose, though – they will make it harder for Gavin Schmidt and his accomplices to destroy evidence of data fabrication.  

Leftists, enviros, and their accomplices cannot be accommodated.  The George W. Bush administration bent itself backwards to try to accommodate them on science and climate politics.  In 2001, George W. Bush appointed John Marburger, a Democrat, to the position of Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, where he remained for eight years.  Nevertheless, the wolf pack of enviros and the hand-fed media kept accusing the Bush administration of “manipulating science for political purposes,” “censoring scientific results,” and “silencing the science” the entire time.  

While serving as Director of GISS NASA (a high-ranking governmental position) in the period of the George W. Bush Administration, notorious James Hansen gave hundreds of speeches promoting climate alarmism.  Dr. James Hansen has collected more than a million dollars from special interests for these speeches and other alarmist activities.  Nobody moved a finger to prevent Hansen from using his governmental post for promoting his personal views and interests.  Despite this, the media chorus still claimed that Hansen was being muzzled!  

Today’s media is even more dishonest and left than it was during the time of George W. Bush.  However, a large segment of the public has caught on and lost trust in the former MSM.  Clearly, there is no benefit in trying to accommodate the left and the former MSM.  There is no gain in pandering to it and no loss in standing up to it.  But there is gain in fulfilling the expectations of the silent majority and a duty to restore the integrity of the government’s communication with U.S. citizens.

Even more importantly, all individuals and organizations responsible for turning U.S. government websites into climate cult mouthpieces should be removed.  An investigation into the financial links between them and private corporations should be conducted.  Putatively “non-profit” and “charitable” corporations are not exempt from the relevant laws.

Thanks to H.J. for collaboration in writing this article.

Advertisements

100 thoughts on “Government websites break their own rules to cater to ‘climate cult’

    • I’ve sent the link to this site with a brief explanation to the Contact the White House site. Perhaps if other readers also contacted that site in one way or another it might get beyond the screeners and to the official who can actually DO something.

    • Looks to me like “flush the swamp” is a more appropriate description of what needs to be done..

  1. Excellent work Government endorsed web traffic provides ad revs for these propaganda sites. I sure hope the new regime follows your advice and neuter these websites.

    • Climate Summit of the Americas, Toronto, Canada, July 7-9, 2015

      ‘Climate Summit of the Americas Retrospective’

      Sponsored by the Ontario government.

      Includes highlights, speakers and photos including Al Gore, Gov.Brown, (CA), Bill Ritter, (C0), Gov.Shumlin, (VT) and others including Canadians.

      This Climate Summit was not open to the public as far as is known.

      https://www.ontario.ca/page/climate-summit-americas-retrospective

  2. Interesting study of what the past administration was up to as far as advocacy. As I think there is no such beastie as a nonpolitical source, continuing to list, but rating a link as an advocacy site, as with A. Watts listing of climate sites, is probably a better solution than pretending to act as if a site does not exist. That sort of thing would also deal with claims of censorship.

    • Rather like giving various US organizations the impartial sounding name ‘Non-Government Organizations (NGOs)’, when in fact these NGOs received funding from the US government.

      Defund the beasts.

  3. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    ALL that Obama govt. totalitarianism, wicked as it is, had no impact on “the people’s” choice like WUWT killing the hit count.
    Ergo,
    Dear snowflake elites, beware of the silent majority. They’re all over it. With independent and objective minds on call.
    Groupthink Marxism is too easy to see if you’re even half-way ‘enlightened’.

    Farewell Barrack Hussein and the scientific elite.

  4. Excellent work. To second your conclusion on the error of an accomidative position. There are times to talk and times to act. Now is the time to act. Those in the other side have long pursued a scorched earth policy toward us. They openly advocated our arrest under RICO.Enough then.

    For a moment we have the levers of power. I say we use them with full confidence. We know what pushing a flawed and frankly dangerous manifestation into the dustbin of history looks like. This is like that.

  5. I always, always learn more about the fragile nature of democracy and the U.S. system of government from the over reach and precedent-setting behavior of the Democrats in power. These lessons in practical power management of people and institutions are at least as important as studying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. One should not see these lessons as the result of one elected official but rather the slimy progression and efficient execution of power plays by one particular Party. Focusing on one character alone might cause you be riveted by the conduct of Bill Clinton and unofficial VP Hillary in office and then be shocked by Obama later. It is the Party method and unapologetic behavior that underlies this march to undemocratic systems and the orchestrated cast of thousands in the nonprofit org radicals.

    • Resourceguy:

      You say that to learn about the “fragile nature of Democracy in the US” I should study “the slimy progression and efficient execution of power plays by one particular Party” (viz. “the Democrats”) and avoid study of, for example, Richard Milhous Nixon and his Republican Party.

      Until now I have ignored partisan rants from zealots and I have tried to study the records (good and bad) of both the Democratic and Republican Parties assisted by cogent comments from representatives of both Parties. Hmmmmm. On reflection I think I will stick to that.

      Richard

      • Neither party is innocent but the most egregious in modern times as been the democrat party with the enthusiastic support of certain members of the republican party. Those are the ones who are identified as RINOs or GOPe types. Sometimes it is easier to just accumulate them into the Uniparty with a One World Government agenda.

      • Nixon was a saint compared to your average Democrat.

        The fact that you insist on ranking his minor offenses up with LBJ, Clinton and especially Obama shows that you two have let partisan desires color what you believe.

      • Surely you’re not suggesting that this post is one of those “partisan rants from zealots” ;)

      • Nixon created the EPA and GW Bush the Department of Homeland Security (I hate that name). Both were huge power-aggrandizing blunders. The DHS in particular is the perfect instrument for a future totalitarian pretender. It should be disbanded. Otherwise, it will be used. The FBI is enough, thanks.

      • When someone has to reach back to Tricky Dick to distract from the skullduggery of the evil party, i.e. politicians and bureaucrats getting rich as public servants with the assistant of the Propaganda Ministries, NYT/ABNBCBS/CNN, they expose the abject poverty of their argument.

        RMN would have been the last time the media did their job and puilled down a crooked public servant rather than run cover for them and donate to his and her campaign. The double standard has been degrading the leftist position for over half a century and now they are all scratching their heads trying to figure out how in the Hell a Reality TV star was elected President.

      • I’ve noticed this about some.
        They actually believe that if they can point to one example of a bad person on your side, that it just proves that both sides are bad, regardless of how many bad people are identified on their side.

        Who cares that Hillary conducted top secret government business on an unsecure private server just so she could avoid FOIA requests.
        Who cares that Obama raped the constitution and then advised, you’d better put some ice on that.
        Who cares that Obama sic’d the IRS on conservative groups.

        40 years ago, there was Tricky Dick, so both sides are equally bad.

        BTW, Nixon was impeached for attempting what Obama got away with.

      • richardscourtney, what’s going on in the world is far deeper than political parties or ideologies.
        https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/attention-surplus-disorder-part-two/
        (Maybe a lot to go through but the pieces of what I mean are there.)
        I just want the good news to availbale to be spoken to all without the threat of having their heads cut off.
        And, I ask that that those who wish to respond on Caleb’s sit not do so. He’s let my comments remain but “he doesn’t have a dog in this fight”. I probably won’t notice a reply for months. Give him a break. He doesn’t have “a ModSquad”.
        Replying here? Give WUWT’s mods a break also.

        (Permission to release my email address to richardscourtney is granted.)

      • The two party system has turned into a big joke, as anyone keeping score should realize. There is only ONE political party in the united states–Donkeys and elephants are just two sides of the same coin–bigger always expanding government with less and less freedom. And we all know just who’s pocket said coin is in. I’m afraid that a lot of the hopes Trump brought to the disenfranchised and discontented will go up in smoke. Already the new administration is showing signs of being compromised by the government, and any policy the Powers that Be find too unappealing will not be permitted to take root and bloom. Sorry to report that this is the way of America since the end of the big one.

      • Speaking as someone who tends to lean right on most issues and certainly believes in limited government, I would say that we need not go all the way back to Nixon to provide examples of Republican’s abusing the system. A perfect example is the no bid contracts that Chaney gave to his friends during the rebuilding of Iraq. Trump is also not letting the rules get in his way, letting his daughter setup shop as an adviser to the white house without actually taking any oaths or being an employee of the government. She can choose to ignore the regulations that would normally apply to someone in her position if she decided to, even though she has said that she plans to follow them, for now. I certainly believe the Obama and Clinton administrations were more egregious in their abuses in certain areas, but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking the right is free of folks taking advantage of their power and position.

      • Some seem to be unaware of how conflict of interest and other ethics laws operate.

        For example, one can be a close advisor to the President, and have extremely high security clearance, without being a government employee. I have friends who have had such roles. They were contractors, never employees. That doesn’t mean they are free to ignore the law. Anybody with a security clearance operates under many restrictions. With a high level clearance, many of those restrictions are lifelong commitments.

      • As for no-bid contracts… YES that’s a growing problem. It’s also tricky to solve. “Federal agencies consider just one company for a job when they need urgent action, when a vendor has specialized expertise or when they want to keep working with a proven supplier. Such contracts save time in procuring equipment and services, though they lack the competitive bidding that can drive down prices.”

        Of course we want to see more competition. And we’d like to see noncompetitive contracts closely scrutinized. Unfortunately, the government is incredibly bad at good accountability even with competitive contracts. What do you do when something absolutely needs to be done, done right, and done quickly? You tend to go with the resources you know.

        That’s not about enriching friends. It’s about getting the job done.

        Not necessarily unethical… unlike many other practices.

      • I write to thank all the people who have responded to my comment.

        Of course, I ignore and I don’t thank the MarkW bot because automata do what they are programed to do and, therefore, thanks to them are inappropriate.

        I repeat my point because some partisan zealots seem to have missed it.

        Until now I have ignored partisan rants from zealots and I have tried to study the records (good and bad) of both the Democratic and Republican Parties assisted by cogent comments from representatives of both Parties. Hmmmmm. On reflection I think I will stick to that.

        Richard

      • Gunga Din:

        My email address is RichardSCourtneyAaol.com with @ instead of A.

        Richard

      • energpia is ignorant of history and constitutional law. Nixon was impeached, he wasn’t convicted.

      • Anyone who disagrees strongly with richardscourtney is an automaton. Good to know. (That he’s full of it.)

        Whether or not MarkW gets all the details right history-wise, his general thrust is almost always spot on. Nitpicks and general indignance are his detractors’ only refuge here.

      • drednicolson:

        I have not said any poster to WUWT is an automaton except the MarkW bot.

        The MarkW bot fails the Turing Test. A real human being as predictable and irrational as the MarkW bot could only survive if cared-for in incarceration.

        And the bot’s contributions to WUWT only consist of far-right propaganda, falsehoods and flaming of any who dispute the propaganda. Its flamings of me on WUWT include an assertion that I disagree with charitable giving and support of an assertion by ws that I have sexual relations with my son: those falsehoods are abuse of the worst possible kinds.

        I have already suggested to the writers of the MarkW bot that they need to amend and update it because it is too predictable. Are you one of its writers and is your post an attempted excuse for your failure to update it yet?

        Richard

  6. This will be labeled as “conspiracy theory” like anything else that is contrary to the climate change and Liberal party narratives. It’s the comeback of choice for Liberal/Socialist/Marxist/whatever ‘ist’ you want to apply. They’ll attack with freedom of speech and disregard the propaganda claims. Labeling it “fake news” is a weak rejoinder since the very media complicit in the act is asked to report its’ own involvement. We/democracy needs a better game plan.

  7. Is the primary intent of the website to educate and inform, rather than persuade, convert, or sell?

    I suspect that is the criterion which most of the mentioned sites fail.

    Is there a mechanism to complain about inappropriate links?

    • If you live in the US (or are an expat) just google your rep or senators with your address. They all seem to have websites that allow you to send an email/note. I did, and included a link to this article. Not sure if there’s a complaint number for the EPA and I lost Trumps cell # or I’d give that to you.

  8. Can’t be cleaned up soon enough. As a part time marketing consultant I am well familiar with the incredible importance of any link coming from a .gov site, in terms of moving a webpage up the Google rankings. As identified above, these target sites then boost the sites of their cohorts by linking to them. In terms of influencing the general public, the .gov links are worth far more than money. You can’t buy backlinks that have the same dollar value, unless Google is selling links I don’t know about.

  9. Its not just the links as doCumented by this guest post Much of the .gov information itself is incorrect. Wrote up and documented a specific example in essay No Bodies in ebook Blowing Smoke. EPA.gov says the American pika is threatened by climate change. In fact there was a big push by Sierra Club and WWF to get it listed as endangered along with polar bears. NFWS did a massive study and concluded there was zero possibility of pika climate endangerment. The EPA did not change its website after this legally binding determination was made.

    Documented a second example from NASA.gov in essay Cloudy Clouds. NASA has a web page covering Dessler’s 2010 paper on. Ould feedback. Even quotes Dessler as saying he had proved they are positive. The abstract even says they could possibly be negative, because the r^2 was only 0.02. The whole exercise was statistically meaningless.

    Documented a third example from NOAA.gov concerning the switch from Drd964x to nClim Div for CONUS in essay When Data Isn’t. Manufactured warming in the new version. Posted that example here a few weeks ago.

    There is a lot of swamp draining to be done.

  10. I just Googled my representative and sent him a note using his website. It took 5 minutes. You can then easily use their website to send a short email with the link to this article. I think the more emails they get the more likelihood there is that someone actually looks at this BS and puts a stop to it. What a joke.

    • Done. Good suggestion. Thanks.

      My representative is in the GOP House leadership and on relevant committees. His Web site includes his email address. Staffers read them all.

  11. Trump can stop this nonsense in a few seconds just like he did with the White House website.. Great article but I’m losing my patience.

    • Federal Government has pushed “Social Justice, Medical Allocation Justice,” etc. EPA pushed “Environmental Justice.” Is directing the EPA to do EJ in an amendment of the water or air acts?

      • A little past history

        While the past EPA administration has shown a great deal of incompetence, defamation of good science, plus other allegations that I could not swear to but have no reason to doubt, there could be some good that goes under. The Gulf Breeze, Florida EPA laboratory started out as a Public Health lab back when there was a lot of real pollution. I knew two of their excellent directors and did some work for them in the 70s after the large Mississippi River floods when there was reasonable considerable concern about toxic materials. Conditions were already improving and the lab had a good history. More recently I ran across a paper on classifying estuaries using stressors by three EPA authors, the first from Gulf Breeze (Estuaries and Coasts, volume 29, 2006). While this is not a new idea, they acknowledged the history, and they did seem to realize the difficulties, particularly when comparing biological models versus geological/hydrographic ones. Other papers from there that I am familiar with have similarly shown real science. I should point out that I may still have a very competent former student working there.

        While still necessary, cleaning up, even carefully in the right direction, could have problems, especially when from the top down. Careful evaluation of individual current work is essential as it is not just climate science that has been corrupted.

    • The problem is that they take CAGW as fact. In that light, they don’t even see that they are doing anything wrong. When they say “The debate is over”, they believe it.

      This reminds me of my favorite Bertrand Russell quote:

      Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false. link

      There’s also this, possibly misattributed, quote from Mark Twain:

      It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. link

      • Bob, I would add this by Eric Hoffa: “We can be absolutely certain only about things we do not understand.”

      • Really?

        You can’t spend 5 minutes googling that?

        I imagine you’ll get several thousand peer reviewed scientific papers with all the evidence a rational man would need.

      • “Griff March 22, 2017 at 1:34 am

        You can’t spend 5 minutes googling that?”

        Really? Google is a reliable source of actual science, wow! Learn summat new every day!

    • Posting scientific observations on temperature, air circulation, snow cover, sea ice, etc, etc is not propaganda.

      (I imagine they also link to RSS and UAH data too…)

      And it is the same data used by skeptics.

      Rubbishing the entire body scientific for political advantage is a shameful act. I find no truth or coherence in this blatantly political article.

      • “this blatantly political article

        If a raped woman scratches a face of a rapist, she doesn’t behave aggressive but anty-aggressive.
        If article points the blatant political bias and lies, it isn’t political but anty-political.

  12. OK, folks, lets see how far we can spread this. I’ve tweeted the following with a link to the post:

    Crucial information, improper links from gov’t websites.
    @EPA @NOAA @NASA @POTUS @oreillyfactor @TuckerCarlson

    I invite people who are on Twitter, as I am, to tweet about this. Having the government imprimatur on such bogus sites is a very important issue.

    Does anyone have email addresses for either the heads or the webmasters or the important functionaries of the EPA, NOAA, or NASA? If so, let me invite you to send them a link to this page.

    Finally, if you are willing, post a copy of the message that you sent here on WUWT, so that we can follow the message as it makes the rounds.

    Doesn’t seem like this one will be too hard … I look forward to seeing where it goes.

    w.

      • Whiten: Well, we know Obama had one, under a fake name, he used to contact Hillary at her fake…how to describe it…domain? Wonder why they used back channels? Is there an innocent explanation?
        Anyhow, I would not delete the site, I’d keep the content (get rid of all alarmist and green links, put in this site and few others), but have that old content analyzed on a side bar. I nominate db stealey for editor in chief! That’ll do ‘er.

  13. When you are linking to motherjones, the SS, truth.ogre, etc., you provide circumstantial evidence that you are completely full of scheisse.

  14. These government sites are treating the AGW conjecture as if it were proven fact instead of science fiction. The AGW conjecture is based upon a radiant greenhouse effect provided for by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. The reality is that such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, on Earth, or on any planet in the solar system with a thick atmopshere. Because a radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction, the AGW conjecture is science fiction. All the work that has been done on models has shown that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero, Even in terms of a radiant greenhouse effect, H2O is the dominant so called greenhouse gas and is so dominant that the small changes in CO2 caused by mankind are insignificant.

    Then there is the issue of “scientific consensus”. Sceintists never registered and voted on the AGW conjecture so there is no “scientific consensus”.. Even if there were it would be meaningless because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process. Thse government sites need to stop preseiting the sceince fiction of AGW as if it were real science.

    • Willhass
      I think you’ll find if you bother to read any of the literature that the Greenhouse effect misnamed as it is has complied with the standard model of physics for 150 years if you want to dispute the standard model of physics you going to need a stronger argeument than I havn’t noticed it

      • A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the actions of so called grrenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is a convective and not a radiative greenhouse effect. So to on Earth. Instead of glass we have gravity that limits cooling by convection. As derived from first principals, the Earth’s atmosphere keeps the surface of the Earth on average 33 degrees C warmer than if there were no atmosphere by means of a convective greenhouse effect which is a function of gravity, the depth of the atmosphere, and the heat capacity of the atmosphere. It has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of trace gases. 33 degrees C is the amount derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been observed. There is no additional increase in temperature caused by a radiant greenhouse effect. The convective greenhouse effect has been observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed. If CO2 really affected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the torposphere but such has not happened. The radiant greeenhouse effect upon which the AGW conjecture is based has not been observed. It is fictitious.

    • The atmospheric GRE is real and has been measured in the lab. A real greenhouse works by inhibiting convective cooling. The GHE works by inhibiting radiative cooling. You know not whereof you speak on the basic physics. Please educate yourself better on the basics, lest you give an easy target to the warmunists.
      That said, how important or unimportant the GHe is is not known, for two reasons. (1) In the absence of feedbacks, doubling CO2 produces ~1.2C (Lindzen’s number). Unimportant. The rest depends on feedbacks (water vapor and. Louds being most important) that are not well understood. (2) The feedbacks cannot be modeled because of computational intractability. They have to be parameterized. The Parameters have to be tuned to best hindcast. Tuning raises the presently insoluble attribution problem.

      • The convective greenhouse effect accounts for all 33 degrees C that the Earth’s surface is warmer because of the atmosphere. There is no additoinal radiant greenhouse effect.

        The 1.2 degrees C is too great by more than a factor of 20 because the calculation does not take into consideration that doubling the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere will slightly decrease the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect.

        The H2O feedback is negative which it has to be for the climate to have been stable enough for life to have evolved. H2O is a net coolant as evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate.

      • willhaas,

        “The convective greenhouse effect accounts for all 33 degrees C that the Earth’s surface is warmer because of the atmosphere. There is no additoinal radiant greenhouse effect.”

        “The H2O feedback is negative which it has to be for the climate to have been stable enough for life to have evolved.”

        If the second statement is true, then I don’t see how a minor “additional radiant greenhouse effect” (as in CO2 etc) can be rules out . . Not talking “control knob” stuff, but just a minor (prolly beneficial) bump up . .

      • Will,

        Stability is relative.

        During the tenure of life on earth, which is roughly four billion years, its climate has fluctuated from totally or almost covered by ice to practically no ice. Yet life has flourished all that time, despite some catastrophic extinction events. Granted, for about three billion of those four billion years, life was entirely unicellular, or almost so, setting aside colonial single-celled organisms, such as the choanocytes from which sponges and their animal descendants, including humans, evolved.

        Unless we or our descendants or some new line of living things manage to engineer the solar system, the period of multicellular organisms on earth will come to an end in about another half billion years. Billion, tops.

      • John Knight,

        According to the AGW conjecture all of the 33 degrees C of warmth is caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphre by means of a radiant greenhouse effect. But that ignores the convective greenhouse effect that, as derived from first principals, accounts for all 33 degrees that has been observed. There may be a bit of a radiant greenhouse effect as an anomoly but it is quickly corrected by convection. The actual lapse rate varies from time to time and is a matter of weather but it all seems to average out in time. The AGW conjecture is based on only a partial understanding of science. The AGW conjecture seems to imply that all heat transfer in the troposphere is by radaition and that all gases in the atmosphere except the so
        called greenhouse gases are thermally inert The reality is that no gases in the atmosphere are thermally inert and that heat energy transfer by conduction, convection, and phase change dominates over LWIR absorption band radiation in the troposphere.

        Chimp.

        If H2O exhibited the positive feedback that the AGW conjecture claims that it does then the seas would have boiled away ages ago and the Earth would be more like Venus. The H2O positive feedback would not only be to CO2 but also the primary greenhouse gas, H2O, as well. The more H2O the greater the amplification factor which would result in even more H2O and so forth. Positive feedback systems are inharently unstable whiile negative feedback systems are inharently stable. Of’course there has been a lot more than greenhouse gases that have had an effect on the Earth’s climate.

        Yes, the window of Earth’s human habitability is finite so we need to be looking for possible new homes elsewhere but right now elsewhere is prohibitively far away.

      • willhaas,

        I suggest avoiding absolutist lingo in this realm.

        *There is no [meaningful, substantial, dangerous, worrisome, potent, or whatever] additional radiant greenhouse effect*, will reduce the amount of “push-back” from those who are not actually disagreeing with your basic point, me thinks . . and it leaves open the possibility of none at all . .

      • willhaas March 21, 2017 at 3:39 pm

        IMO the net feedbacks to whatever warming increased CO2 might cause could be negative. Commenters here say that’s not so, and they might well be right. But in any case, even if positive, H2O and other feedbacks can’t be enough to raise the laboratory 1.2 degrees C warming per doubling to the 3.0 to 4.5 degrees C imagined by IPCC. If ECS be 1.6 or 1.7 degrees C, with feedbacks, then Hansen’s runaway Venus Express is a figment of his overheated (as it were), perfervid imagination.

      • Chimp,

        The AGW theory is that the warming caused by CO2 causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which in turn causes more warming because H2O is also a greenhouse gas. Yes, warming will cause more H2O to enter the atmosphere. H2O is also a stronger absorber of IR radiation then is CO2 which also makes H2O a stronger IR radiator. Besides bering the primary so called greenhouse gas, H2O is a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmophere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface, which is mostly some form of H2O, to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. According to some energy balance models more heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR asorption band radiation combined. H2O also affects the convective chacteristics of the atmosphere. H2O’s net effect as a coolant is evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate. So more H2O causes cooling and not warming so the feedback affect of H2O is negative so that rather than amplifying the warming effect of CO2, H2O attenuates any possible warming effect of CO2.

        The basic calculation that yields a Planck effect climate sensivity of CO2 value of 1.2 degrees C ignore’s the fact that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a slight decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which will reduce the climate sensivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20 so that the climate sensivity of CO2 before consideration of feedbacks is .06 degrees C. Instead of amplifying this amount, CO2 attenuates this amount by lets say a factor of 3 to yield a total climate sensivity of CO2 of .02 degrees C for a doubling of CO2. This of’course assumes that there actually exists a radiant greenhouse effect which has yet to be detected on any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere.

  15. American political parties have never been perfect or were ever meant to be such a thing. They are coalitions of interests. Interests not being a bad word. You pick a flavor and do your best to influence the final product. In the US we have two effective choices. One we can influence with great effort and one that wants to lock us up. I suffer from claustraphobia.

    • Personally, the idea that government should have free reign to make the bureaucracy do it’s political dirty work seems underhanded, undemocratic and profoundly against the rational structure of a professional civil service. Government should be constitutionally proscribed in it’s interactions with the public service.

      • john harmsworth March 21, 2017 at 12:30 pm

        Personally, the idea that government should have free reign to make the bureaucracy do it’s political dirty work seems underhanded, undemocratic and profoundly against the rational structure of a professional civil service.

        Seriously? You’d prefer to be ruled and governed by an unelected and unfireable cadre of professional pluted bloatocrats? You want them running the government? Seriously???

        Clearly either you haven’t spent much time in the DMV, or you haven’t thought this through all the way …

        w.

      • The civil service has always been a willing servant of its political masters and, worse yet, frequently really rules the country instead of elected officials. Under Obama we suffered both from administrative tyranny and a lawless executive. Under Trump, the Deep State bureaucrats are fighting back against the duly elected executive and the lawless courts have joined in on the assault on democracy.

        Before the supposedly professional civil service, we had the spoils system of administration. But the civil service was always also political, from its origin in the late 19th century. In the mid-20th century, FDR misused the IRS against political opponents in just the same way as Obama in the early 21st century.

        Professional civil servants area myth. Case in point, government-mandated, politically-motivated “climate science”.

  16. There are state government web sites that will have similar problems.
    The rules of inclusion or exclusion will vary. Patience is advised.

    I suspect the future will bring a multitude of “404 Not Found” pages as “the swamp is drained.”

  17. I am not sure that I endorse the idea that “leftists” should not be accommodated.
    I would prefer that both “leftists” and “rightists” (whatever either of them are) should have equal access and the readers should be free to decide which are giving true messages. It is the imbalance of opinion that has caused a lot of the current problem.
    The point near the end of the paper referring to the MSM as dishonest is spot on. It will take an honest newspaper owner or TV station owner to start to reverse this, and I am not holding my breath for that to happen.

    • Disagree when it comes to ‘official’ government information at .gov sites. In the US there is a Information Quality Act that applies accross the entire federal government. Above gave three examples where it has been violated by EPA, NASA, and NOAA. There are many more relating to climate. For example Schmidt’s NASA GISS press conference announcing 2015 as hottest evah is one– the amount was within the estimate uncertainty and page four of thewritten PR actually said the probability of hottest was only 38%. Precisely the sort of thing the IQA is supposed to prevent.

      • One reason the partisan links are so bad: Just about every school tells students that they can trust .gov sites and that they are good academic sources that can be TRUSTED. Put up biased material, and you have hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of kids taking it as gospel truth.

        And really, Mother Jones and Move On? How can anyone claim those two do not fall afoul of every single requirement? Or some of those “environmentalist” sites, most of which solicit donations as a matter of course? Not only are those groups extremely biased, several of them are recognized as sue-happy, hateful NIMBYs whose scientific ignorance is only surpassed by their greed.

        I know a lawyer who works for an agency not mentioned in the article (often on cases involving the environment), and he loathes most of these activist groups. There is a group out of southern Utah who his division has nicknamed “Sue U.S.”, a play on the pronunciation of its acronym, that just so happens to describe its MO.

        Perhaps the EPA was trying to bribe the mentioned groups to not sue them.

  18. Google your city or municipality and Climate Change. You will be amazed. Mine show huge floods in our parks. Which have never happened.

    • Also – run an internet search for:

      “Your Town Here” + “ICLEI”

      Or:

      “Your Town Here” + “Climate Action Plan”

      You’ll be amazed, as was I…..It was/is a top-down effort, deeply rooted in our society at the local levels, not just links at federal government level.

      The swamp has very deep pools of brownish backwater to drain.

      Regards,

      MCR

  19. Quoth Leo: “The site may include advertising but must be free from heavy marketing or promotion of products.””

    Oh for heaven’s sake. That is the whole point of environmental regulatory science: replace everything with green products and outlaw all existing and all competing technology.

    That is why all politicians and scientists are now electric car salesman — or Hillary was going to sell bikes, so it could be worse.

  20. We vote in the best Silver Tongue Devil , “Silver tongue is an expression used to describe a person who has a clever way with words. Add some clever sarcasm, or sleazy lies to this person’s attitude, and there you have your silver tongued devil.” http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=silver%20tongued%20devil

    And, Lying by Omission is the best tool a sales person or a politician has got. ” Lying by omission, otherwise known as exclusionary detailing, is lying by either omitting certain facts or by failing to correct a misconception. ” http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lying_by_omission

  21. My only advice would be to tone down the inflammatory presentation- the facts of the case you present speak quite loudly.

  22. I believe the “destroy the data” meme is in part the CAGW warmers desire to destroy the evidence for both policy and prosecution of fraud reasons. e.g. Lonnie Thompson’s ice cores happen to melt and of course, his dog ate their original data, but of course it’s Trump’s fault….

  23. I would like to add facebook and twitter to the list.

    Every page at regulations.gov has links to spread the word via facebook and twitter. For instance, the following links to “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act”

    https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-11683

    I see no reason for our government to actively support these commercial sites with free advertising on every government web page.

    It also bothers me that they support the bash Scott Pruitt site – https://www.facebook.com/EPA

    On the other hand, the official twitter feed (created May 2008) content seems ok, but is still questionable.

    • Those four people are just posing…love the caution tape too. Caution, EPA agents at work…too funny!

  24. The only real ‘time lag’

    after 30 years ‘government files’ are opened to public;

    at least in the US: anyway all ‘government files’ not shredded by before gone governments.

  25. Virtually all politicians in all parties are in the propaganda business. Surely ‘conservatives’ are not naive enough to believe that will change under a Trump presidency or Republican rule generally.

  26. Everybody who kept insulting we scientists who said this shit isn’t real, and that ”the basic science was sound” should be ridden out of town on a rail, tarred and feathered.

    To all of you who said this fake sh** was real, KNOW THIS:

    WE the REAL SCIENTISTS of the world

    are going to bury every single reference to your existence before it’s all over.

    We’re telling out kids who you are

    We’re telling our kids what you’ve done,

    and we’re most definitely going to crow like roosters worldwide when the last of you has resumed room temperature, which is where you belong for having deceived the entire world

    in order to profit from ALARMISM.

  27. I used to run a government agency website. It took a year or so to make a change in it, as there were onerous procedures and long, long sign-off lists. A typical government bureaucrat might take two weeks to have a version reviewed and signed off on, and for each objection and subsequent change, the list has to be re-entered at the beginning. Don’t expect anything quickly anywhere in the government.

Comments are closed.