US to rewrite its past national climate reports

Scientific revision vs. ideological rewriting

• Several comments distinguish legitimate scientific reinterpretation from political “rewrites.”
• Examples given: historical ship temperature logs and geophysical surveys where raw data stay intact but calibration, bias corrections, and stitching across instruments improve over time.
• Multiple people stress that original measurements must never be altered or deleted; reinterpretations should be layered on, not substituted.
• Others argue some “revisions” are clearly ideological, driven by money or partisan goals rather than new evidence.

Orwellian framing and post-truth concerns

• The move is widely compared to 1984 and Animal Farm: controlling the past to control the future, changing texts to fit the current party line.
• Commenters link this to broader patterns: firing statistical officials, “new” economic numbers, doctored videos, and symbolic constitutional edits.
• Some describe this as fascistic or “evil”; others say institutions still function, so it’s a dangerous testing of limits rather than total collapse—yet.

Climate policy, economics, and geopolitics

• Many argue that regardless of US denial, market forces favor decarbonization: renewables now attract more investment than fossil fuels and are often cheaper.
• The US is portrayed as ceding leadership in growth sectors like green energy and EVs (a “Kodak strategy”), while China in particular races ahead on solar and electrification.
• Debate over responsibility: some emphasize China/India’s current emissions and coal use; others note China’s rapid clean build-out and stress that “someone worse” is no excuse for inaction.
• Several point out that energy transition is now also national security (especially for fossil importers), not just “hippie idealism.”

Debates over consensus, trust, and “religion”

• One thread challenges language like “scientific consensus,” calling consensus political; others respond with detailed physical reasoning on greenhouse gases and attribution to human CO₂.
• A commenter criticizes “quasi-religious” climate rhetoric and tribal shaming; replies counter that rejecting evidence on ideological grounds is itself a form of bad faith or “religion.”
• There is acknowledgement that models and forecasts are imperfect, but most argue uncertainty doesn’t negate strong evidence of human-driven warming.

Extremes, evidence, and denial tactics

• Some insist storms, droughts, and floods aren’t clearly worsening and cite datasets; others analyze those same graphs and find upward trends or note misinterpretation.
• Several note that denial rhetoric constantly shifts: from “it’s not warming” to “it’s not human-caused” to “it’s too late/too costly to act,” whatever works for the audience.

Impact and limits of rewriting reports

• Many say rewriting reports and removing older assessments won’t change physical reality but will confuse the public, delay action, and provide cover for fossil interests.
• The new DOE “critical review” is described as a compilation of long-debunked skeptic arguments, culminating in the claim that US policy has “undetectably small” climate impact.
• Commenters expect scientists and archivists to preserve and use the original reports, but worry that, politically, edited versions will be used to exclude inconvenient facts from the “official” conversation.