A detailed look at the Guardian’s framing—and why Michael Mann’s Stalinism comparison is flat‑out wrong. The Guardian has a flair for drama. Their latest entry, headlined “Scientists decry Trump energy chief’s plan to ‘update’ climate reports: ‘Exactly what Stalin did’”, is a case study in framing, innuendo, and the casual misuse of history to shut down legitimate scrutiny. The article targets U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright for saying the administration will review and “update” the National Climate Assessment (NCA) reports, calling forth a predictable chorus of “the science is under attack...
This post is for VIP and Premium Subscribers Only. To sign up, click here.
The Guardian is close to, if not the worst newspaper there is. Should be avoided like the plague.
No, I read it most days.
“Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.”
Oh dear, Mr Watts now monetizing his content.
You mean “asking for money for products provided”? That’s outrageous! It’s almost capitalism!
/s
“Now”? This opportunity to donate to help defray the costs of this website has been ongoing for a long time. Did you just wake up? Maybe a cup or two of coffee will help you to think clearly.
Were you forced to pay, Eric?
And why not.
As The Godfather said –
“we’re not communists, after all”
Yes, only government should do that.
As a non-premium subscriber, I approve Mr Watts monetizing his content.
Not about to peer behind the paywall for this, but it is unequivocally true that political appointees editing peer reviewed scientific reports to better align them with the policy goals of the current administration is a bad signal for a functioning democracy.
It’s wide open! I can see it.
Like I said the other day, lighten up. The world is thriving.
What’s worse, Alan, is “scientists” producing “research” to boost “The Cause”, as Mr.Mann described his agenda.
This is objectively worse than the imaginary fantasy you’ve invented because it is a real thing that is happening.
You clearly haven’t read the trove of unredacted Climategate emails that some insider at the university compiled and released.
Entertaining, if what they exposed weren’t so disgusting.
Perfidy laid out for all to see.
But apparently all ok, because – “The Cause”.
(Mann’s term, not mine).
I’ve read all of the hacked emails. They show scientists trying to do good science, often while under attack by ideologues trying to subvert or corrupt the science they are presenting. Sometimes they show these scientists making human judgements about responding to the attacks by political ideologues, but never do they show scientists actively working to rewrite published scientific results to further political aims.
You need to go back to school and bone up on reading comprehension and objective critical thinking.
What , getting rid of all the alarmist fakery out of climate reports…
…. about time, I’d say.
objectively-You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Where does it say that the political appointee, personally, will revise the documents? Or will the political employee empanel a group of well-respected experts in their fields to review and revise the documents?
The reports were written by well-respected scientific experts, and peer reviewed by the same. What is happening now is purely ideological. If it were about the science, the government would not have fired the scientists and experts engaged in writing the 6th assessment, they would have let the process continue unimpeded, and they would not be retroactively editing past reports. It isn’t an exercise that has any basis in scientific process.
You can’t be serious. We all know how it works; Latest paper says “It’s worse than we thought, please send more money for follow-up study.”
It’s the magic money circle, and it happens with this like it does with anything else. Government is on the lookout for forever problems to solve to justify increases in tax revenue. War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terror, War on Climate Change, whatever, it doesn’t matter so long as the government can raise more funds while pretending to do something good for everyone.
If it really were about the science, we wouldn’t be here arguing about it, because scientists with integrity would have dismissed “Global Warming” as the nothingburger it really is.
I post this again. It may be framed as comedy, but I reckon it’s a documentary.
Well, I know how it works, because I read and have participated in scientific research literature. And it doesn’t work anything like that. So when you say something flagrantly false to me, I rather feel like disregarding your opinion as woefully under-informed and naive.
It is about the science for myself, and for actual scientists. It is not about the science for ideologues like you. You frame everything through your political lens. You deny climate change because it clashes with your political ideology.
None of us here denies climate change.
Climate changes second by second.
What we deny is that a statistical construction can affect weather.
What we deny is the alarmism that is pushing policies in total destruction for all human life on the planet.
I am a statistician by training. I look at the way many of the
“climate science” papers misuse statistics and wonder whether it is incompetence or deliberate. Either way, it is not proper statistics so therefore it is not proper science because if your analysis is flawed, generally so is the outcome. And the key outcome that is readily observable with a functioning brain is that the models are overhyped and their predictions are rarely accurate. The science is not settled. True science keeps questioning and challenging.
That’s one of the arguments I use a lot. As I learned from Steve McIntyre’s blog, a huge number of the papers touted in the media completely crumble after a real statistician looks at it. Essentially, he showed us the statistics version of “you forgot to carry the 1”, invalidating the result.
I laid the 5th assessment side by side with the IPCC summary.
Guess what? They did not match. Lots of glossy photos in the 5th assessment.
It was propaganda, pure and simple.
Of course you will deny that.
Mr. 4: In another string, a comment vaguely recalls a deliberate change of language, where the summary “confirmed” human cause not found in the report. I can’t recall details either, was it a guy named Trenberth? In the library with a candlestick? I do recall that it happened, couldn’t be denied.
Anyway, I mention it because our friend Mr. J jumped in to explain it, but he got it badly wrong! The comment was so vague, it was difficult to tell which CliSci bolox was referenced, but Mr. J knew!! Well, he thought he knew, but he prattles on about 1995 or something, and even gets that wrong! I’m so pleased his comments are rolling in now, I get to play decon.
AlanJ says “editing peer reviewed scientific reports to better align them with the policy goals of the current administration is a bad signal for a functioning democracy.”
Do you mean how the IPCC AR is adjusted to fit the SPM which is of course written by politicians and bureaucrats?
It is nothing like that at all. The Summary for Policymakers is drafted by scientists, then reviewed line-by-line in an open session with all participating governments present. Any edits must be consistent with the underlying report, and if there’s a wording issue, scientists either reject the change or clarify language so the SPM and the science match. On rare occasions, clarifications are made in the main report, but that’s about wording and clarity, not changing conclusions
What we are talking about here is the opposite: political appointees unilaterally rewriting the science itself, behind closed doors, to match the Trump administration’s agenda. It’s literal censorship and propaganda, ironically the very things you are pretending to care about when you criticize the IPCC.
FYI all of my replies are placed into lengthy, indefinite moderation queues, despite the fact that all of my comments follow site rules and are always approved. It is an intended form of censorship by the admins. So expect my responses to be slow.
It should be renamed – Suppository for Morons fits.
Oh, we do…we do…
Mr. J: Well, your comments are SO worth the wait! We’ve been observing political appointees unilaterally re-write science itself, behind closed doors, to match an agenda for thirty years, so I’m delighted you are now open to the possibility of it after all those years with your eyes so firmly shut to it.
You are talking about the IPCC Summary?
It is written by politicians.
If the Summary and Science reports, it is the Science reports that are revised per IPCC rules.
We know your responses are slow, but not in the way you mean.
That is completely incorrect. But, of course, knowing this would have required you to do an ounce of research on the subject before forming an unwavering and entirely baseless opinion.
https://www.ipcc.ch/about/preparingreports/
It seems political appointees edited scientific reports happens in the UN, WHO, and under Biden and Trump and Obama and Bush and Clinton and Reagan and Carter and Ford and Nixon and and….
Also, the USA is a Constitutional Republic. We have a democratic voting system that elects Representatives and Senators. The voters do not vote on Federal and State legislation, unlike Athens in ancient Greece.
On that we can agree, however we’re probably thinking of different administrations.
Trolls should either be amusing or informed.
I am not a troll, but am both informed and amusing, so I must tick every box for you.
No, actually you’re not.
You’re certainly amusing but not for reasons you would like.
Bless your soul. (Texan drawl)
Hey, dumb***, they are respected and accomplished scientists – not political hacks. And I would not expect you to look behind the paywall as your only obvious reason to be here is to harass.
And of course, being the climate sycophant you are, you miss the big picture and leave Mann and his ugly comparisons off the hook.
They are accomplished scientists within their domains of expertise – they are not domain experts on the areas they are writing about (I assume you mean the dynamic quintet who authored the DOE hack job report). Since they all know they don’t have the requisite knowledge to be writing these assessments, and are doing it any way, I feel quite confident in saying they are indeed political hacks. If we want to extend a more generous disposition, I would say at best they are being used as political tools. I’m more than happy to say this to their faces if they want to comment. More than happy to engage in live discourse with them (video conferencing or otherwise) any time they wish to defend their views.
Mann’s comparison is quite apt, as it is, quite literally, exactly what Stalin did – he censored and revised scientific research to force alignment with his ideological political aims.
If ideological propaganda wasn’t the intent, this administration could quite easily invite all the world’s top scientists (many of whom they literally just fired from working on the next NCA) to come and provide a rational, evidence-based assessment. They could do so transparently and openly, not in the dead of night behind closed doors, with zero peer review or oversight.
As we see, Mr. J’s comments simply double down on NOT GONNA GET IT! If CliSci uses math and stats, a statistician can credibly analyze and point out flawed stats without learning about trees. He won’t get it, but I say let him through, he’s his own worst enemy.
Pointing out math errors is of pretty limited utility. I’m sure a statistician can advise on the statistics (and indeed many climatologists have backgrounds in math and stats), but little else.
Your conception of a plucky generalist who has broad knowledge and can competently assess every single domain of science with basic tools is like… thinking stuck in the 19th century. Only someone utterly ignorant of the complexities of modern scientific research thinks such inane things.
Mr. J: Again the strawman, my concept was not of a plucky generalist, you simply made that up from whole cloth, attempting to reframe my comment into gibberish (which is your native tongue). No, Mr. J, the statistic errors of CliSci are well established (by fewer than five scientists!!), and utterly undermine your cause. The stats guys proved the errors, like, 20 years ago. That you continue to deny it is why I say your comments should post, they show you are the type of fool who won’t shut up and let others wonder if, maybe, you’re not a fool. Please post a reply and show us again!
Michael Mann as “The Bloody Dwarf” Yezhov! Not sure which one you’re insulting.
Haha a good one Guardian, last time I checked Mann is neither freezing in a siberian Gulag nor has been shot in the head…nor that anyone would wish him such a fate.
Well it’s summertime, somehow the empty pages must be filled with shallowness….
The Guardian is a tawdry 6th form student politics publication that is so niche it loses tens of millions every year. And wears that as a badge of honour.
Its largest customer is still the BBC. Defending the indefensible – ME Mann – is right up their neo-feudalist alley.
Charles…
This post is for VIP and Premium Subscribers Only. To sign up, click here.
Not for the likes of yours truly.
Youtubers tell us how many subscribed. Where do I find such info on this?
Ask a Youtuber? You could ask the site management.
I did. As of August 12, 2025 7:32 am.
What did they say, then?
Chill. It’s been all of less than an hour. AW will undoubtedly read this, but must ponder about how to avoid replying.
Only you are vexed by the question, maybe you should chill. Stats like that are pretty meaningless, anyway. For example, the left always tries to shout loudest.
leftist governments make liberal use of the old “commercial in confidence” excuse to avoid providing info to the public
(pun intended)
“Stats like that are pretty meaningless, anyway.”
Channels Pat Frank trying to explain to us why he gets functionally no citations for his papers. s, the “meaning” is that, if AW was successfully monetizing WUWT, we’d be hearing about it. After all, he is/was a TV guy, and self pimping is part of the job.
Channelling facts irks you BOB?
Your profile probably needs a tweak – very needy and in thrall to the number of likes etc That is sad.
So b.o.b., what if the answer is say “9“.
Will you relay this to your anti-oil movement members as a break-through exposé and tell them that this is more evidence that almost nobody visits WUWT?
Or will you be understandably concerned that AW might just be blowing smoke up your arse?
A question should not get down votes.
I would never pay for that tripe.
Most of what is laughingly touted as “climate science” is what conjures Stalinism. Specifically Lysenkoism.
As in, people will look back on the pseudo-scientists pushing the “climate crisis” crap today as the “Lysenkos of the West.”
And rightfully so.
Updating the purely political NCAs is a move back TO (actual) science, not a move away from it.
When I first saw that headline I thought ” Almost right- Stalin installed Lysenko and persecuted anyone who disagreed with him. Lysenko’s pseudoscience killed thousands and it took decades for the lies to be removed. So Mann’s analogy is close- CAGW hypothesis was installed in the 1980s and is finally being broadly challenged after much lost wealth and life.
The Grauniad, written by morons, to be read by morons.
I resemble that remark 🫣
If you really did, you wouldn’t be here offering valid comments 🙂
Funny to hear the label of Stalinism from the modern day Lysenko.
Shouldn’t they change ‘the science’ to ‘our science’?
I have a premium account, but I’m still getting the stub asking me to sign up. Does anyone know who to contact to get this fixed? Do I send an email to Anthony Watts or to one of the other administrators?
I looked through the site and I couldn’t find anyplace obvious to report the problem.