Can Scientists be Trusted to Tell the Truth? Part II

Continuing from the last post regarding being able to trust science to tell the truth, it was discussed how scientists are often held hostage by their own beliefs as well as the beliefs of science in general. This causes, or forces, a conformity to which the scientist finds a necessity to follow if he wants the acclaim of his peers, time on university computers, funding and having his work taken seriously.

However, there is always the chance that the scientist is motivated by yet another problem—his own need for acceptance, praise and achievement, even where it is not warranted. There are, unfortunately, areas in science where the scientist is acknowledged with high praise when his findings agree with the accepted scientific beliefs of his day, and his results not questioned because of that conformity. Take for instance, the new research of Shaun Marcott, an earth scientist at Oregon State University, and his colleagues,” who was reported in the New York Times as having compiled the most meticulous reconstruction yet of global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, which is virtually the entire Holocene period.

The group used indicators like the distribution of microscopic, temperature-sensitive ocean creatures to determine past climate, which sounds very impressive and meticulous, but was that reconstruction accurate? Not according to David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D. and Senior Fellow in Energy Economics and Climate Change at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. Before joining Heritage, Kreutzer was an economist at Berman and Company, a Washington-based public affairs firm, and for over twenty years taught economics at Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia, where he also served as Director of the International Business Program. 

Kreutzer was also a Visiting Economist at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and a visiting economics instructor at Ohio University. His research has appeared in The Journal of Political Economy, the National Tax Journal, Economic Inquiry, The Southern Economic Journal and The Journal of Energy and Development.  He has also written for mainstream media outlets including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, the Journal of Commerce, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel.

Dr. Kreutzer claims Marcott’s data was rigged in the same way that the famous global-warming “Hockey Stick” graph was rigged in 1998 by Michael Mann in order to bring overall historical global temperatures down, so that our present day temperatures can look warmer by contrast.

Michael Mann’s infamous hockey stick graph that was rigged to show global warming 

“As a young, relatively unknown recent Ph.D. graduate,” says James Taylor, Forbes columnist and a fellow researcher at Heritage, “Mann attained wealth, fame and adulation among global warming alarmists after assembling a proxy temperature reconstruction that he claimed showed global temperatures underwent a steady, roughly 1,000-year decline followed by a sharp rise during the 20th century. The media reported on the Mann hockey stick reconstruction as if it settled the global warming debate, but objective scientists pointed out several crucial flaws that invalidated Mann’s claims.”

Unfortunately, Mann achieved his results, in part, by cherry picking data using proxies for temperature data-proxies like the “distribution of microscopic, temperature-sensitive ocean creatures,” rather than data that would conflict with his goal of showing dramatic, current-day temperature increases. While Mann’s data showed that temperatures were hotter now than any time in 1,000 years, Marcott goes him four times better by showing that the earth has never been hotter in 4,000 years.

On the other hand, many temperature studies, including studies presented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, indicate current global temperatures are cooler than the vast majority of the past 4,000 years.” Historical records agree with the UN’s findings. In fact, records indicate that temperatures today aren’t even the hottest in the last 1,000 years. 

The actual temperatures over the last 1200 years shows just the opposite from Mann’s hockey stick

Interestingly, Matt Ridley, a supporter of global warming, writing in the Wall Street Journal, concludes that there is ample reason to believe that temperatures are cooler now than during the Medieval Warm Period, saying “the evidence increasingly vindicates the scientists who first discovered the Medieval Warm Period.” He cites four recent scientific studies that tend to support the notion that temperatures were hotter then.   

Mann’s hockey stick and Marcott’s findings both eliminated an historical epoch called the Medieval Warm Period, a period during which archeological, written and historical records suggest temperatures may have been warmer than those of today. The Medieval Warm Period was a period that saw the Vikings colonize Greenland, between the 10^th and 15^th Centuries, for example, disappearing just as the climate began to cool. It would have been impossible to conceive of the Vikings being able to colonize Greenland without significantly warmer temperatures. It also would have been impossible to have grown varieties of flora that were found on Greenland during that period were the temperatures as cold as those of today.

Data actually suggests that the earth stopped warming 15 years ago. This pause in warming wasn’t anticipated in any climate change models created by global warming advocates. And that’s really the rub when it comes to climate science. When the data doesn’t go their way—which is almost always—they either re-write the science, the history or rely on an Obama executive order.   

Global climate over the past 2000 years. As shown, we have not achieved the height of the Medieval warm period

Another problem is shown when scientists who speak out against the global warming problem. Recently eight government scientists were recently fired from the Department of the Interior, or reassigned, after voicing concerns to their superiors about faulty environmental science used for policy decisions. Which begs the question, "Are some government agencies manipulating science to advance political agendas?"


Rural America has long been a target of environmentalists. Government agencies such as the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and the DOI (Department of Interior) have been hijacked by extreme elements of environmentalism and rural America is feeling the heat. When environmental protocol is pitted against the welfare of a rural community, these agencies almost exclusively side with the environmental cause, and adverse consequences to the human element are considered last, if at all. DOI has engaged in an aggressive crusade to obstruct and undermine the use of natural resources, restrict human access to public lands, and increase its influence over private property. Decisions made by the agency are presumed to be based on sound scientific analysis, but often times policy is driving the science, rather than science driving environmental policy. This has led to harmful decisions and a violation of the public trust.

The government’s use of fictional science should concern every American. Our public servants at DOI are brazenly advancing their own agendas at the expense of the truth and regardless of adverse impacts on the environment, humans, and on rural communities. Environment and human interests are not incompatible. We have to find solutions that work to the benefit of both. That requires agendas be put aside and allow complete science to determine policy.

And if scientists are going to get anywhere within such government agencies, or obtain grants, or access to research and records from such agencies, then they have to agree with the intent, beliefs, and policies of those agencies—even if it is the opposite of what is actual in the real world. The same is true with matters of evolution, geologic column, fossils and other similar matters—if a scientist wants to be accepted among his peers and those who determine contracts, funding, and career success, they are better off going with the flow than going against it. Because of this, it is difficult to find accurate information in mainstream print, and certainly within the academic world.

So, can scientists be trusted to tell the truth? You decide.