Posted by
Patrick Henry on Saturday, June 12, 2010 4:52:22 PM
Science has long been exalted as the last bastion of objectivity, the one field
of inquiry in which facts are discovered and documented by the ruthless application
of empirical methods of gathering, measuring observable data and assimilating it
with existing proveable information to reach a schiolarly consensus about what is
and is not true. Philosophies, religions and governments have always been fair
game for challenge. But science has nearly achieved the status of the sacrosanct.
Until now.
Those who wish to buttress an argument often turn to "the science" of whatever
it is they're discussing. Invocation of "the science" is always intended to put the
matter once and for all to rest. Enter Carol Browner, Barack Obama and the
grand plan for subornation. A panel of seven petroleum engineering experts
approved by the American Institute of Engineering was asked to study current
oil drilling procedures and produce a report of their findings to be used in setting
governmental drilling and energy policy. They did so, utlizing the very best science
at their disposal. When the report was surfaced by Ken Salazar. Secretary of the
Interior, it called for an across-the-board six-month moratorium on drilling, plainly
representing it to be based on the findings of the seven scientists. Government
policy based on hard science. Sounds good, right? Not so fast!
Almost immediately some facts began to emerge that called the report and the
so-called science into question. First, the scientists protested to Salazar that the
report that appeared was not the one they signed off on. They further stated that
their studied recommendation based on the facts was in many ways the opposite
of what the report in its final form proposed. They further represented that Salazar,
or someone else, had tampered with and altered the report AFTER they signed off
on it. Faced with their protestations, Salazar quickly backpedaled and admitted that
the conclusions and the recommendations were his and the president's, not those of
the scientists as originally represented. Even more incriminating, when asked by
the scientists why the report had been so doctored, Salazar said that the moratorium
declaration had been "required" by the administration as a pre-condition of the report's
release to congress.
So, to be sure we're clear: the Obama administration commissioned a "scientific"
study, the results of which they dictated in advance. And we thought that science was
supposed to follow the truth wherever it led. Silly us! Not on the watch of Barack
Obama!
Faced by a storm of protest and accusations of data manipulation, Obama dispatched
his climate czar Carol Browner, a former official in the Intenational Socialist Party,
to say that, "No one was deceived or misrepresented." Now, a fourth grader reading
the report can see that it represents itself as a scientific statement of facts. So, when
it turns out that the so-called "facts" in the report are NOT at all what the scientists
determined, the claim that there was no misrepresentation or intent to deceive is
exposed as an outright lie -- par for the course for Browner, who left a previous
administration in disgrace and was smuggled in as a "czar" because even Obama
knew she could never pass muster as a cabinet member.
Ms. Browner has also worked with the Environmental Protection Agency to
draft Draconian carbon emissions standards that will limit production, cost jobs and
do little to clean up the environment. This radical move was also supposed to be
based on the "science." Only the climate change hoax is crumbling on every side
as the truth about manipulated data, selective inclusion of facts and formulas that
are being mysteriously sequestered by those who claim to have proved that global
warming is man made is in such disarray that many are laughing out loud at it
and the president's vaunted cap-and-trade legislation is in deep trouble. Not a
single scientist is able to explain exactly how man made carbon emissions damage
the environment (the "science" of it) and climatemongers like Al Gore will no
longer debate the matter in public. That's how weak their "scientific" case is. Their
bogus theory fell into further disrepute when a recent arctic expedition, sent to
prove that the glaciers were thawing found, instead, that the ice was 100% thicker
than expected.
When scientists and their conclusions are suborned or manipulated to score
political points, both the scientists and the politicians eventually lose credibility. Ken
Cuccinelli. attorney general for the state of Virginia had launched a criminal
investigation to determine whether one of the main climate change studies was the
result of manipulated data. If so, the unversity under whose auspices the alleged
research was conducted may owe the govenment hundreds of thousands in misspent
grant funding, and the researcher may be found criminally liable. One of his
colleagues there has protested that science should be left to judge science, and that
it should not fall under the purview of the law. In a perfect world the independence
of science would seem a good principle to follow. But when science panders to
politics or worse, as in the petroleum engineers' case, is misused for political gain,
then an arbiter must intervene. The truth is that in the name of free inquiry science
does not police itself, and scientific work, some of which is shoddy and second rate
is regularly used to justify outlandish political decisions.
Caught redhanded, the Obama administration has been forced to admit that they
doctored the report and predisposed its outcome. That's not science, it's corruption.
And Barack Obama, Carol Browner and Ken Salazar are knee-deep in it. So while the
Gulf Coast suffers an unspeakable catastrophe, its residents must now watch as tens
of thousands are laid off from their oil-related jobs. Part of Obama's economic recovery
plan, no doubt. When is enough lying really enough?