Rewriting History To Push A Political Agenda

My sense is that the destruction of the US temperature record is a scandal comparable to any in US history, but it is certainly not the first time history has been rewritten to push a political agenda. That was a central theme of George Orwell’s 1984.

Other famous variations of this theme include

  • Nazi book burning
  • Holocaust denial
  • Taliban destroying Afghan archaeology
  • Turkey erasing the Armenian genocide
  • Soviet revision of Russian history and theft of historical artifacts
  • US press hiding Barack Obama’s history

Feel free to add to the list.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to Rewriting History To Push A Political Agenda

  1. Doug Proctor says:

    Where in all this controversy are the actual technical people who did the adjustments Hansen releases? Current or new retirees? Same in New Zealand with the NIWA problem, including its Australian review which NIWA refuses to release to the Coalition. Why aren’t they on the blog sites, explaining just how this foolishness is being done?

    To your mind and mine, the fundamental style of changes to the temperature data are unequivocally biased, with the amount of questionable adjustments equal to the amount that creates the alleged CAGW trends. If even half of the rise in temps is discounted, the already compromised IPCC models fall flatter than Hansen’s image as a detached scientist. Yet for all of your work and the tremendous work of others, those in the middle of creating the narrative but who are not identified with it, remain silent.

    Something is “off”. Doesn’t it seem to you that there should be whistleblowers coming forth? Especially the retirees. There would be large personal gain from showing how the mess is created, a note in history of who brought the scam down. The incentive is there financially, also: a book on the ruse played, maybe a movie. But nothing.

    I’m a skeptic about CAGW. Actually, a non-believer. But I have a serious concern about this.

    Something is not right with our disbelief in the data we are getting OR someone or some group is actively supressing the discontents within the climate government circles. I’m not a conspiracist, but I suppose that it is possible, but I really doubt there are MIB on the case. So …

    Something is off.

    What do you think?

    • Doug,

      If they are like the research associates I once worked with, they are used to performing their jobs like eunuchs in the sacred temple of the Goddess (they are just doing their job, “guarding the vestal virgins and no more”, and leaving the religious instruction to the priests). Research associates are like slaves to their principal-investigator bosses, with no tenure or other job guarantees, and can be fired without cause (so they are like temp workers in other fields, except the pay and perks are much better, so long as they keep their heads down and don’t cross the boss in the slightest). Then there is the small matter of the very real, general incompetence, due to the miseducation of the last two generations of climate scientists to the idea of routine runaway climate change (how else to explain why they think 0.04% of the atmosphere can cause such a runaway?), and the forgetting of the empirical, stable Standard Atmosphere. There are other causes as well, I’m sure.

      • Doug Proctor says:

        I’m an industrial scientist, I suppose: an oil and gas geologist. I am a boatrocker, but virtually everyone else isn’t, so I understand well how bizarre activities that make no sense technically or economically go ahead. Most want to get their pay without rocks being thrown at them, go home, have a beer and watch TV. But most know that foolishness (and lying) are going on when they are occurring.

        This is why I wonder where the whistleblowers are/are not. The truth is known within the organization. If Congress called the technical people below management in, for “advice”, these guys would be hard pressed not to explain what the group really thinks. They do what they are told, yes, but when pushed to what they think is the better way, then they fold.

        So they exist. The retired ones … if any investigative work was done, the retired ones are the ones to approach for interviews. Us blog writers look for public data. But the data has been sanitized for release. And the management speak to the conclusions they “peer-reviewed” before approving for release. It requires a journalist or internal affairs type to speak to these people.

        But the potential money and fame is huge. So I’m still surprised that nobody has bit yet. Even as a “Deep Throat”. But maybe that is what the Climategate hackers were, only there are only a couple in the world with the cahonas it would take.

  2. Regretfully, science and politics became intertwined in the aftermath of Second World War.

    Official responses to Climategate emails and documents that surfaced in Nov 2009 destroyed any illusion that deception in government science was only the work of a few rogue scientists.

    Guilt-ridden scientists and world leaders were apparently manipulated into abandoning constitutional limits on government after the sudden death of thousands of innocent citizens on 6 Aug 1945, as documented here:

  3. gator69 says:

    The Tuskegee Syphilis Study.


    The Inquisition.

    Mohammad was a prophet pf peace…

    • Shooter says:

      The Inquisition really wasn’t that bad. Thousands were trialed and only a few were executed.

      • gator69 says:

        That is correct. Plus, it was initiated by the king, and not the church. The king’s authority was derived from God, ergo heresy undermined his power, can’t have that. (It’s good to be king.)

        The church took over the proceedings when they saw how the flock was being abused, and the physical abuse stopped once the church assumed control.

        Meanwhile, the protestants (who wrote the history that most have read about the Inq), were burning witches at the stake to keep warm.

        Don’t lose a war if you can’t stand bad PR.

      • Me says:

        What church would that be?

      • gator69 says:

        That of course was the Catholic church.

      • Me says:

        Ok, Just wondering!

      • Eric Barnes says:

        Ahh yes. The innocent bystanders who stepped in and brought a sense of balance to the use of torture, intimidation and murder.

      • Me says:

        Who was that Eric.

      • Eric Barnes says:

        You have to ask Me?

      • Me says:

        Yeah! that’s why I asked.

      • gator69 says:

        I think Eric is referring to the outdated and political Protestant point of view. The fact is that torture and abuse stopped when the church stepped in, it was the reason they intervened. Fun as it is to bash Christians, they were indeed the good guys, at least that time.

      • Me says:

        I grew up Anglican, ya know!

      • gator69 says:

        Mutt Protestant myself, dad was military and we moved alot. I’m something of a Presbapethodist. 😉

      • Me says:

        Personally I don’t trust any of them! 😆

      • Eric Barnes says:

        Hard for me to imagine people in the Church not being at least complicit when it started. Perhaps more forgiving people in the Church prevailed, but it was an environment of intolerance that the Church itself fomented for it’s own benefit.
        IMO, a turd is a turd whether Catholic, Protestant or Agnostic. I was raised Catholic and am now agnostic. I’d like to think I’m not a turd, but I’m sure people have varying opinions.

      • Me says:

        Yeah Eric, that’s where I am, an agnostic and for a long time now.

      • gator69 says:

        Actually Eric, it is man who is evil. It was the king. The king was the most powerful human in Spain, and his power was (allegedly) derived directly from God. This is man usurping religion, not religion, you must understand the difference. If a man does not try and follow the teachings of Christ, he is not a Christian, no matter how much ID he shows.

        History is rife with examples of men using religion for their personal gains. Anything on this planet is capable of corruption.

      • Me says:

        Money, Power, and Prestige, is what it always goes back to doesn’t it

      • Eric Barnes says:

        Yep, agnostic is for Me and me. Most of my immediate family is still Catholic though and I can’t think of a single negative thing to say about anyone in the Church I grew up with. I think they are and were all exceptionally good human beings.

      • Eric Barnes says:

        Thanks Gator. I’ll admit I haven’t read a great deal about the Inquisition. I’ll try to read in more depth sometime. I’ll have to agree to disagree til then though.

      • Me says:

        I don’t think you are really disagreeing, just arguing over the semantics of who did what and when! Well from Me point of view anyway.

      • gator69 says:

        It has been my pleasure. 😉

      • Me says:

        And no, I’m just laughing at how all this came about.

  4. Glacierman says:

    How the democrats opposed the civil rights act.

    • PaddikJ says:

      Really?! I always thought this was one of the few plusses in the Dem’s ledger. Could you point me to a few sources?

      • Richard T. Fowler says:

        It’s not such a simple issue. As I understand it, it ultimately passed with both parties’ overall support nationally; but in the South it was especially opposed by the Southern Democrats. In the North and West, it had the support of both parties, but a higher percentage of Democratic than Republican members of Congress. Also, it was originally proposed by the Democratic leadership, and the Republicans angled for some compromises to it, presumably due to taking some flack from a significant minority of their membership, or perhaps hoping to get some Southern Democrats to switch sides and become Republicans because of that issue.

        Also it is certainly true that the original Civil Rights Act of 1875 was passed by the Republicans and vehemently opposed by the Democrats. But by the 1960’s, the situation had become very confused, because you had different dynamics going on in different regions of the country.

        It is fair to say that both major parties have had long periods where they would have opposed at least some provisions of federal civil rights legislation. And it is fair to say that both parties’ leaderships now have a motive to help cover up that history. So one could perhaps say that there is a conspiracy to hide the full truth from the younger generations of today about this matter. I would say that both major parties have participated in some “rewriting” of history, to that end.


      • Richard T. Fowler says:

        Look at it this way: the Northern-controlled Democratic and Republican parties had already swapped sides on this and other issues (though not all issues), and they wanted to get their Southern counterparts to do the same, lest everything remain totally confused in perpetuity.

        The two parties’ leaderships thus conspired together to manipulated Southern Democrats into becoming Republicans and Southern Republicans (who were primarily black at that point) into becoming Democrats. They succeeded in their mutual plan, and now they both have a motive to cover up the truth of what happened, because let’s face it, who wants to be a member of a party whose leadership habitually conspires with the other side’s leadership and against its own rank and file? What they did stinks to high Heaven, and what’s more it is a textbook case study in what’s wrong with American politics.

        So, having conspired to do the deed, they now conspire to cover it up, for however long it takes for everyone to forget what really happened. Look at the whole picture, rather than just a tiny cross-section that might be politically useful at one moment in time.


    • John Silver says:

      The democrats support for eugenics.
      Eleanor Roosevelt was a big fan. The Nazis used the American eugenics as a defense at the Nuremberg trial.

  5. johnmcguire says:

    Much of our knowledge of early and pre-Christian history was destroyed in the zealous destruction as the muslims swept accross southern europe and northern africa. We lost much historical knowledge in the ninth century. Since then we have much speculation and interpretation that is not backed by real knowledge . Thanks to the religion of pieces .

  6. Me says:

    The Oil-for-Food Scandal……

  7. PaddikJ says:

    Your post says “rewriting of history” but your list includes a few “erasures of history”, so I will too:

    The Burning of the Books – China, ca: 220BC: The “Hundred Schools of Thought” were purged along w/ several hundred scholars, by burying them alive. Much of pre-unification Chinese history was lost. BTW, the “Hundred Schools of Thought” was the source of Mao’s elegant paraphase, “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend.”

    The Burning of the Scrolls – Alexandria, ca: 642AD: The great library of Alexandria was well past its prime by the time Alexandria was taken by the Muslims in 642 and had already been damaged several times, starting with Caesar’s frantic defensive maneuver in 47BC of torching the docks district, which spread to the nearby Library; but there were still enough scrolls to keep the citiy’s several hundred baths heated for six months. Caliph Omar justified this vandalism with one of the world’s most infamous solipsims: “If the texts are in accordance with the Quran, they are not needed; if they are not in accordance, they are heretical. Therefore, destroy them.” Historians estimate that between 60 & 80% of western history was lost.

    Richard III Plantagenet, 1452 -1485, Duke of York, King of England, and nephew-murderer: Has been rehabilitated 3 or 4 times now, the latest by Elizabeth McIntosh, AKA Josephine Tey & Gordon Daviot, in her eccentric 1951 detective novel, “The Daughter of Time”; but most people, at least those who have heard of him, still think of Richard as the demented hunch-back that murdered his two nephews, who according to the standard canard stood between him and the throne (they didn’t). His villification at the hands of the usurping Tudors began with St. Thomas More, who was all of 5 years old at the time of the Battle of Bosworth Field, and then cast in stone by Shakespeare, who knew even less about him. I always recommend The Daughter of Time to my more credulous friends and relatives as the most concise, single volume work on skeptical, critical thinking that I know of.

    Eugenics: The facts are out there, but the MSM and enlightened “knowledge class” still avoid discussing it – to the point where most people haven’t even heard of it – so horrible were the outcomes, including intellectual justification for the Holocaust.

    DDT Wholesale Ban: Like Eugenics, the facts are out there, but unlike Eugenics, most people (including of course enviromentalists) still regard it as a a major environmental victory. Rachel Carson is still deified in certain circles. Estimates of preventable malaria deaths range from 20-40 million, making Carson and her enablers by far the biggest mass murderers in human history.

    History is traditionally written by the winners, but this is the Internet age where a handful of mostly unpaid volunteers have managed to expose and (almost!) block the greatest and most well-funded scam of all time, so I am guardedly optimistic.

    • Shooter says:

      Don’t forget feminist revisionist history and conspiracy theorist history. Those are the worse, the former even more. The latter is just ridiculous.

  8. John B., M.D. says:

    Japan rewriting their WWII atrocities (what they teach their schoolchildren), claim dropping A-bombs were crimes against humanity.

  9. kirkmyers says:


    This is not my copy. But it’s totally the truth:

    So, instead, the “godfather of global warming” has essentially said, “Nope, we can’t figure out the puzzle because it’s too complex. But statistically this is so unusual that it must be man-made global warming.”

    Rather than trying to prove something that cannot be scientifically proven (because there is no way to truly reproduce a test condition), they have taken to analyzing the issue statistically. They assign what they consider to be reasonable odds for various events taking place, and then use statistics to calculate the probability that those things could have all happened to produce the species we see around us.

    “The weakness is that statistical associations are not reliable indicators of causality.”
    “The biosphere, even with all its marvels, as far as is now known very probably can be a simple accident; we mortals have no reason to reject such a presumption”

    But, regardless, what we can conclude is that global warming “science” is dead. They’ve given up on fudge-factor-filled climate models. They’ve given up trying to scientifically explain how it’s really possible for humans to have the impact they say we have on the climate. They’ve simply given up. Instead, they want us to trust their statistics.

    Global warming has been dying a slow death for years. But global warming is now dead.

    And, ironically, it was killed by the arguments liberals use against Intelligent Design.

  10. Me says:

    I was gonna ask what godfather would that be, because there are many, so I looked it up instead. 😆

  11. SOYLENT GREEN says:

    Reblogged this on SOYLENT GREEN.

  12. cb says:


    I’ve grown quite tired of writing little snap summaries all over the web, so I’ll just reiterate 4 points here:

    1) Complexity. I.e. the number of states where a delta in given organic molecule is functional, versus those that are not. If you cannot grasp that this makes Evolution impossible, then go grow a brain.

    2) Genetic ‘mutation.’ As time passes, genes are damaged, and transmitted to the next generation. The inherent ‘presence’ of some search algorithm cannot overcome this. Its like shooting at a broken car in the hope of repairing it. The car is transmitted with an imperfect matter transmitter. Repeat. You have to be, well, stupid to think that that will work.

    3) Natural Selection is ALL about playing LEGO with alleles. If you do not understand what these words mean, go read. NS can turn a big bad wolf into an annoying lapdog – no ‘Evolution’ required. (NS can also activate-deactivate such things as bones, eyes, extra-stomachs, etc. etc. etc.)
    Ask yourself this: is the fossil record a record of Evolution, or of Natural Selection? Which happens faster? Mmmm? Then, given that NS can and does change species very rapidly, without ONE single new gene present, kindly explain the extended periods of stasis in the fossil record: clearly, NS did not exist in the past, which means alleles must necessarily be a brand new phenomenon. I am so glad that we were all taught Evolution SCIENCE in School, so we are all aware of all of these things, and all the responses to them… oh, wait.

    4) The Scientific definition (as per big bad books, peer-review, etc etc etc) of Evolution (descent with modification) is perhaps the most obvious example of massive conflation (which is, duh, a rational-logical fallacy) in the history of the written word: the percentage of prevalence of a given allele is Evolution, per definition (NS certainly exists, so it then follows…): which also serves incidentally to PROVE that Evolution is scientifically ‘correct’. Both viruses and bacteria have the ability to acquire whole genes from their environment – no effort needed to create new genes: and once again Evolution is proven. Logically, given the definition of descent with modification, the mere fact that children are different from either parent IS PROOF of Evolution. Since Evolution has been proven to be true, it is of course a fact that new genes are created by Evolution… Yay for science.

    A lastly. Apart from trivial examples, example sickle cell anaemia, there is no one, single, recorded example of ‘Evolution’ creating new genes, EVEN IN THE LAB. For rapidly breeding species, with enhancement of the rate of genetic damage… sweet bubkis. Oh, unless you use the decent with modification definition. Then, of course, Evolution is happening all around everyone all the time – yay.
    Oh, but do let me guess: we must fight the battle against the lies and corruption of AGW first… because people will laugh if you say that Evolution science is nothing more than lies and corruptions. So let the lies and corruptions are left to stand, because we must fight against the lies and corruption… yeah, that will work just fine.

    AGW was never the start of some kind of collapse of science: EVOLUTION was. If the enemy is lies and corruption, then Evolution ‘science’ MUST also be rejected. And I am sick of preaching to terminally stupid, lying, corrupt, fucktard Evolutionists.

    • Richard T. Fowler says:

      Dude, please calm down. I haven’t read all of your post yet, but your language is too much.

      I don’t advertise this too much, but astute readers of my posts over the years may have noticed that I am a creationist. But I allow my climate skeptic friends their beliefs. When I find out that I’m conversing at a blog where the host has strong beliefs in opposition, I don’t get into it. There are other issues that we can agree on. I just try to picture what it would feel like for them to come to my blog and start shouting at me about it. What good could possibly come of that?

      Peace be with you.


  13. okay… how can you do that list and only have 6 items on it… and your number 6 is “US press hiding Barack Obama’s history”???… I mean did he commit genocide on millions of people before he was 10 … did he have a drug addiction, cheat on his wife?? If you are going to go there and include that information… where is the bullet point “•Hiding George Bush Jr’s history”… drug addiction, hiring people to do his college work for him, his supposed military service (laugh of the century)? I mean if you are going to start talking about deceptions from US Presidents, you’ve got way more to list than some obscure comment about “Barack Obama’s History” (whatever the hell that means)… at least he’s not a masongonist, adulterer, druggy, drunk/ex or current drug addict… who ignored signs of a major attack on US soil that got over 3,000 people killed… or played golf everyday on our tax dime. Sheesh!… and what about all the corruptions via govt dealings… like the political/church bribery that takes place… promising things to church leadership to get them to preach a certain agenda to their congregations (hello evangelicals)…and large corporate interests who bribe politicians to pass laws that benefit them financially, what about the abuses that are made in the name of corporate profit like in eminent domain land cases, where corporations scam and bribe public officials to take away land and homes from law abiding citizens and then get money from citizens tax dollars to build things like sports stadiums that then the same citizens end up paying for… meanwhile CEO’s and large corporate interests get their profits… you’ve only skimmed the surface here, and really? “US hiding Barack Obama’s history” is number 6 on your list as one of the main autrocities that have been committed to rewrite history for political agendas after Nazi book burning, genocide cover up??? WOW! well at least you managed to somehow connect Barack Obama’s name with the Nazi’s (not). There are so many other important things that need to be talked about… because even if the President changes, these other things will still remain a problem politically for the actual people of our country and the world.

  14. sabretruthtiger says:

    The globalists are constantly rewriting history to push their feminist agenda, claiming women scientists were pioneers in this and that, only to find with digging that it’s bullshit or their husbands did the pioneering work while letting them participate. Google is a massive part of the agenda.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s