“Former Interior Dept. adviser: Administration’s report on dam removal ‘intentionally biased,’” the Daily Caller’s Alex Myers reports:
A former science adviser to the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation was fired in February, shortly after he alleged that the Obama administration intentionally falsified scientific fact in a proposal for dam removal in the Klamath River.
Professor Paul Houser of George Mason University, in an allegation to the Office of the Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs in the Department of the Interior, said that Sec. Ken Salazar’s determination to remove the dams resulted in “intentional biased (falsification) reporting of scientific results.”
He also alleged that when he voiced his concern about the scientific integrity of the press release involving the dam removal in September, very few of his concerns were taken into consideration.
Houser was later terminated from his government job.
Salazar wants to go ahead with the project because there is a possibility it will bring salmon back to the basin, despite the loss of low-cost hydroelectricity, water for irrigation, and the effect it would have on human life.
Just like his boss, Salazar has gone on the record that he really doesn’t care much about low-cost energy:
“Remember, Obama is the All of the Above Energy Candidate,” Ace of Spades adds. But given that today is Easter, this is as good a time as any to recall the late Michael Crichton’s observation in 2003 that radical environmentalism is “the religion of choice for urban atheists,”
More from Ace:
Salazar says removing the dams will bring back salmon populations, but the whistleblower says there are nine factors suggesting salmon won’t come back, dam or no, and yet Salazar is determined to destroy yet another source of domestic energy on what amounts to hope.
I like this “expert’s” quote. It says so much about environmental science.
“There are no guarantees that removal of dams will solve disease problems,” Oregon State microbiology professor Jerri Bartholomew told The Daily Caller, “but returning the river to a more natural system is expected to bring it into better balance.”
There is nothing in that statement that is scientific — there are no numbers, there are no tangible predictions.
He’s talking about “natural” states and bringing “balance” to things.
Is this about chakras?
Yes, it’s an alternative religion, with broad corporate support, as we’ve noted before. The American Express Card — don’t destroy dams without it:
Back in November of 2010 at the Politico, Joel Kotkin contrasted today’s reprimitivist left (a topic we explored last year in video form, in a two-part edition of Silicon Graffiti) with their more enlightened forerunners:
When FDR commissioned projects such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, he literally brought light to darkened regions. The loyalty created by FDR and Truman built a base of support for liberalism that lasted for nearly a half-century.
Today’s liberals don’t show enthusiasm for airports or dams — or anything that may kick up some dirt. Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior Deanna Archuleta, for example, promised a Las Vegas audience: “You will never see another federal dam.”
Salazar’s call for the removal of dams actually goes that edict one better. No word yet from MSNBC on this development, though this is the rare issue to which they’ve actually defended both sides — the pro-construction side most dramatically — and amusingly — taken up by Rachel Maddow, in a commercial directed by noted flood-control expert Spike Lee:
Related: “Durbin Says We Must Buy Hybrid Cars Because Of Tornadoes: ‘It’s Your Money Or Your Life.’”
That’s pretty much the motto of all Chicago politicians isn’t it? But seriously Dick, you convince the president of that notion, as well as convince him to ground Air Force One, and you both take this pledge and provide proof that you live by it, and then we’ll talk.