By Jim Steele

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Our children under 25-years-old are certainly unaware that a small group of climate alarmists scientists tirelessly worked for decades to control the climate science narrative and suppress the most critical process in science – skeptical debate. So our children becomes pawns in their agenda.

The 3 temperature graphs below, illustrate the evolution of climate reconstructions. In 1990, the IPCC featured a graph estimating the Medieval Warm Period 1000 years ago showing higher temperatures than 1990s. In 2001, the IPCC featured a different reconstruction with no Medieval Warm Period but with global temperatures sharply heating up over the last 150 years, (aka the “hockey stick graph”), from Michael Mann’s 1999 publication. Mann’s climate interpretation became the basis for claiming a 150-year correlation with rising CO2 “proved” fossil fuel burning was causing unprecedented warming that would destroy our planet. Despite alarmists falsely insisting the science was settled, and slandering skeptics as deniers, climate researchers are still publishing new interpretations, and again some suggest our present climate is not unusual such as Buntgen et all (2020). But such hopeful science gets much less media fanfare nowadays and a brief history shows us why.

Two astrophysicists, Soon and Baliunas from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, published a peer reviewed paper in 2003 titled Proxy Climatic And Environmental Changes Of The Past 1000 Years. They wrote, “Our results suggest a different interpretation of the multiproxy climates compared to recent conclusions of Mann et al. (1998, 1999, 2000).” By compiling 240 previously published papers, they concluded climate change could be attributed to natural variations and our current temperatures were not unusual. Mann’s alarmist faction were threatened, so hoped the paper would escape attention stating in their emails “the last thing we want is to bring attention to the paper.”

But the “climate wars” took off when Soon and Baliunas’ paper caught the attention of the George W. Bush’s administration and Senate hearings fostered more debate. Later Mann’s ally John Abraham formed the Climate Science Rapid Response Team to match media inquiries about climate change with the “appropriate” scientist. Their efforts biased media coverage, partially explaining why the media often prints the very same narrative by the very same select scientists.

By December 2010, they made matches for The Guardian, The New York Times , Los Angeles Times, CNN, National Public Radio, and the Associated Press (AP). AP’s climate journalist Seth Borenstein became a conduit for Mann’s alarmist climate views. Unsurprisingly, in 2022 AP received a grant for more than $8 million over three years, to hire about 20 new climate journalists funded by groups such as the Rockefeller Foundation. AP was also just given $300,000 by Danish activists seeking a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels.

Meanwhile, Mann was angered that a peer-reviewed journal published a skeptical paper giving credence to skeptics of Mann’s narrative. Chris de Freitas was the editor at Climate Research who had sent Soon and Baliunas’ paper to 4 peer reviewers who all accepted it. Editors exert tremendous control. Editors of top science journals alone reject 80% of all submitted research before sending it out for peer review. So, Mann and his like-minded colleagues attacked de Freitas who described their efforts to remove him as “a mix of a witch-hunt and the Spanish Inquisition.” To further intimidate the journal, Mann’s gang talked about blackballing the journal for allowing skeptical ideas. Emails amongst Mann’s gang also revealed some were peer reviewers who bragged about trying to prevent skeptical papers from being published elsewhere.

To further counter skeptical criticism, Mann launched the RealClimate website in December 2004 with 8 other climate scientists. One of RealClimate’s founders was William Connolley who conveniently edited Wikipedia entries from 2003 to 2009. In 2010 the Wikipedia board voted 7-0 to temporarily suspend Connolley for “improperly revising” over 5400 articles, and his involvement in other climate-related disputes.

Having made successful inroads in suppressing skeptical debate in peer-reviewed journals and in the media, Michael Mann, James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth, and 3 dozen alarmist scientists worked to ensure skeptical climate interpretations aren’t viewed in museums. They sent the museums a petition and a letter (excerpts here):

“As members of the scientific community we devote our lives to understanding the world, and sharing this understanding with the public.….

Museums are trusted sources of scientific information, some of our most important resources for educating children and shaping public understanding….

We believe that the only ethical way forward for our museums is to cut all ties with the fossil fuel industry and funders of climate science obfuscation.”

The petition’s intent was to eliminate any skeptical influence and force David Koch off the American Museum of Natural History’s board where he had served for 23 years without any complaints. The Koch foundations have donated over a billion dollars to fund cancer research, the United Negro College Fund, the American Ballet Theatre, Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and other arts and science organizations. In 2012 they gave $35 million to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History and $20 million to the American Museum of Natural History.

But the Koch’s generosity was a potential threat to Hansen and Mann’s climate views. So, the billionaire Koch brothers were vilified for owning companies that manufacture paper, process minerals, create fertilizers, and refine oil. And worse, the Koch foundations gave $25,000 to an American conservative libertarian think tank, the Heartland Institute, and Heartland supports climate skepticism. By minimizing any funding for skeptics, good skeptical science would be further suppressed. Only funding for climate alarmism that maintains their narrative is now acceptable.

Remember this history! Because that’s how climate alarmists have corrupted science!