Climate “Science” on Trial; The Prophet Eisenhower Warned Us About Climate Scientists

1101940606_400In his farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned America about the dangers of a “scientific-technological elite” addicted to government funding abusing their power and betraying the public’s trust. The Climategate Emails and recent NOAA Whistle Blower accusations are proving him correct on an epic scale. It is time for the government to end funding of CO2 centric climate research and outsource the data compilation to Google, IBM, Oracle or some other unbiased impartial data management organization to run an Open Source Temperature Reconstruction Project. If the cost of the resulting public policies is measured in the multiples of world GDP, we have got to get the science and data right.

Here is a video clip of President Eisenhower’s warning.

President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address Text

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in labaratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system-ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Farewell Address
January 17, 1961


27 thoughts on “Climate “Science” on Trial; The Prophet Eisenhower Warned Us About Climate Scientists”

  1. What reason is there to expect that a single “independent” agency would be less susceptible to suborning of the integrity of the science to the rewards of the money supply? Better an open market, competitive system with a multiplicity of participants subject to anti-trust regulations.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That is kind of the idea. Outsource the piece to private companies, each one kept in the blind as to the final purpose. Open source the final assembly of the data. Also, the research projects should be done by multiple independent bodies, and their results should be used to confirm or reject the findings. There is way too much concentration of power in the field of climate “science.”


      1. Firstly CO2 is absolutely life, its incredible the dullard world population cant see this…and I’d like to add that I agree with everything you say but would add this: we must have rigorous methods for rooting out scientific fraud and borderline-barbaric consequences for those fraudsters.
        As it stands ‘they’ can just say whatever they like, no matter how insane and zero consequences. I am of course primarily talking about the great global warming swindle.
        I am yet to hear an answer to this question below that I ask frequently?
        Given that since the Carboniferous-Permian boundary 300 odd million years ago, we are at a record equaling low 400PPM CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, up 100PPM-ish from 300PPM at the end of the little ice age. And that over this time frame we have had all the additional CO2 from both the water vapour as the planet recovers from the little ice age and all of the CO2 from the entire industrial revolution…and we have only increased CO2 concentrations 100PPM…and given that over the geological timeframe the average CO2PPM concentrations are well above 2,000PPM, and have been well in excess of 8,000PPM…How can it possibly be that due to a miniscule, record equaling low CO2 concentration of 400PPM, that we can expect “Run away catastrophic global warming?”


    1. Once again, you design it so no one source sees the big picture. One measures, one compilies, one adjusts, one analyzes. No one controles the entire process.


      1. If it was all open sourced then one (openly accountable) body could be administrating the project but anyone or group could go in their preferred direction or concentrate on particular facets. The proof of the endeavors would be in the publicly verified and validated results being consistent with observations.
        Not that dissimilar the GNU/Linux project where the results are those processes that are verified safe and perform the task to which they are designed.


      2. Yep, and the whole process should be broken into parts so no one source controls all aspects. One group would collect the data. Another group would “adjust” the data and a third group would compile the data, with each group separate and independent from the others. We have simply concentrated way way too much power in the hands of a few unethical activists.


  2. I really like the idea of an Open Source Temperature Reconstruction Project, IIRC I suggested it decades ago when AGW was in its infancy, a suggesting that died of ridicule.
    However I am always amazed how people have been so easily deflected into the belief of CO2 causes….whatever argument without observable or experimental evidence. A virtual tower of Babel founded on the soft science of climate modeling.

    I do note though that throughout the centuries humans have been affecting climate by their action. The major ones are deforestation, draining swamps, land reclamation and watercourse alterations.
    Did anyone (scientist, statisticians, etc) look at these effects when the IPCC put forward their spurious ideas of AGW? Surely one of man’s biggest contributions to global climate change is the of building dams and the altering of natural watercourses. For instance America has been damming waterways for centuries and making natural deserts like California very much greener, while the Russians were draining massive inland lakes like the Aral Sea. Action that has cause a vast desert to open up across the region. (see Or Bangladesh where mountains were torn down for coastal land reclamations, and ballast for huge dams to feed irrigation schemes of the enormous rice fields that have replaced the native forests.
    Surely these actions have changed the local and global climate.

    Along with deforestation, the altering of waterway throughout the world has, and will continue to cause more manmade climate change than any amount of atmospheric CO2 vented by humans in their industrial endeavors.

    Were these actions properly assessed as they proceeded through the industrial age by anyone carrying out the orders of the IPCC, or have they all been suppressed?


    1. Thanks for the comment. Yes you are right, and point out a tragic side effect of this AGW nonsense. Real environmental issues are ignored.


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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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