No room for science that is not "on message"

It has been a while since I have posted, as has been pointed out to me.

The reason is twofold. I have far less time to spare for blogging than I used to and I frankly despair that it makes any difference. The public sometimes seem indifferent to the lies, obfuscations and fiddles of politicians.

I listen sometimes to a sound bite or even news report and the broken logic and confused reasoning is truly incredible to behold. And they do it with straight faces too. You can practically see the fishing hook in the reporters mouth sometimes.

It’s certainly not because there was nothing to post about.

There is something that has disturbed me quite a lot recently. You see it every now and then in the news.

Most recently, ahead of the Copenhagen talks, over the fuss caused by those leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, in the UK that suggest leading ‘climate scientists’ may have fiddled figures and destroyed data to bolster the anthropomorphic theory of climate change, Man Made Global Warming.

The UK Premier and Glorious Leader Gordon Brown came out strongly in defence of consensus global warming with another personal contribution of hot air in the Guardian ranting:

"With only days to go before Copenhagen, we mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics,"

Now why anyone in their right mind would by now imagine Gordon Brown to be competent in anything - let alone “climate science”, when he is clearly a complete buffoon in his own claimed area of expertise… economics, I fail to grasp. Better for the warmists camp if he had kept quiet.

His mere mention of it almost makes one want to seriously review everything one knows about “flat earth science”, in case there just might be something in it after all :-)

Surely it is "anti science" to fiddle results? To bolster your own research? To destroy data that someone who is questioning your figures asks for? To discount evidence against your theory. Or indeed to shout down opponents, denigrate them.

The language becomes even more suspect when another politician Ed Miliband (David Milliband’s not so famous younger brother), branded anyone who is not fully on New Labour’s political message as, “dangerous and deceitful, climate saboteurs”.

David is the one Hills seems to like.

Ed, like David, soaked up Marxist Theory at his father Ralph’s knee so he probably knows a thing or two about class enemies and re-education. One wonders when they will enact legislation to lock these climate saboteurs in mental institutions and outlaw their deceitful lies.

That it is all over climate change in this particular instance is almost irrelevant to my point. If the science is good it can stand on it’s own feet. It can stand up to scrutiny, It does not fear verification. It certainly does not need the sort of language employed by religious or old style soviet leaders.

As soon as one hears things couched in that sort of intemperate hyperbole Brown and Milliband deployed you know you are dealing with a deep belief like a religious or political conviction, not subject to being moved by reason or proof and willing to do anything to protect and support their dogma or belief.

But it is not in relation to just one of the state’s pet enthusiasms you see this dubious attitude wherever it surfaces in a certain mind set.

Recently it was discovered by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) that the original recommendations for an individual’s average daily calorie intake, which were made in 1991, underestimated the average requirement by up to 16%.

The official UK guidelines were and still are at the time of writing, 2,000 calories for women, 2,500 calories for men and 1,800 calories for children aged five to 10, 16% below the real figure.

The first official thoughts seem to be concern that revising the guidelines might risk sending "mixed messages", rather than concern for accuracy.

It was reported that health campaigners were concerned that the Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) could seek to "sweep this report under the carpet" in a bid to avoid sending out “mixed messages “in the middle of an “obesity epidemic”. Especially as New Labour are looking at the introduction of new food-labelling schemes. The FSA has spent two years evaluating new methods of labelling and this will change things

This view was bolstered when The National Obesity Forum partnered with the government’s Department of Heath chipped in warning that it was a ‘dangerous assumption’ that adults could consume more calories each day.

Advice Service Diet Scotland representative Lorraine McCreary, said: “People have lived with these established guidelines for a long time and most people understand if they go above the recommended intake they are likely to put on weight” she went on to say she thought it would be “very confusing for people.”

Again, when New Labour’s drug aviser complained that government policy on drugs didn’t fit with the science or the advice the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) were giving the government he was ruthlessly forced out by Alan Johnson the UK Home Secretary to shut him up.

The unfortunately named Professor, David Nutt had criticised Labour politicians for "distorting" and "devaluing" the research evidence in the debate over illicit drugs. Pointing out that some "top" scientific journals had published "horrific examples" of poor quality research on the alleged harm caused by some illegal drugs.

UK police boss Johnson said the Professor’s comments “damaged efforts to give the public clear messages about the dangers of drugs”.

Time and again we see those who run the UK state have scant regard for whatever may, or may not, be the actual facts.

Their prime concern seems to be that science is "on message", that it should be forced to bolster whatever policy they happen to have, shoehorned to fit with any square corners roughly hacked off to fit the round hole they insist it will be going in.

Whether it is to enable them to criminalise and control vast swathes of the British public or to find new and inventive ways of stealthily taxing them (for their own and the planet’s good of course) in these straightened times.

The party dogma machine just grinds away. Anyone who questions it, right or wrong, is shouted down, ground under, called bad names, briefed against.

No wonder people are more interested in voting for the X-Factor TV show, at least they get the chance to do that once a year and their vote influences the outcome of the contest.