Trust in Science Leading to End of FDA?

December 12, 2009

By JLancaster

Scientists Would Never Lie, Right…

(TTfD) Breaking fake but logical News — Obama Administration is on verge of declaring the FDA obsolete as Science itself is beyond question. Well-known, now, that Big Pharma claimed its seat at the Health Care negotiation table, the Obama Administration is logically following its own direction as it has in the Climate Change Cult, led by Vanderbilt Divinity School failure Al Gore.

The Gore Cult of Untested Science

Letting non-tested or proven medical treatments and pharmaceuticals go to market without having to garner government approval would in all likelihood reduce the cost to consumers. There should be no fear of safety because scientists discover and create compounds and produce the drugs, so they must be flawless and hardly a risk to anyone.

In fact, if the public is willing to ignore the deaths and negative outcomes surely to come of using untested prescription drugs, the cost savings to the nation would be so great that Health Care reform would take care of itself.

Today, more than 6,000 protesters were arrested in Copenhagen, wondering why they have to protest at all to get World Leaders to actually check the numbers of the Big Climate Scientists before they decide to wreak financial havoc across the globe. Those protesters will go to jail, but the World Leaders will just get richer, and civil rights will suffer because liberals are obtuse.

According to the People’s Press:

It is hard work defending a cult. Especially when the truth might harm its foundations.

Cult leaders will suppress the truth to protect the religious movement. Scientists seek truth.

That, my friends, is the difference between members of the Al Gore Cult of Global Warming and actual scientists.

The New York Times reports that the Cult’s internal memos demonstrate a deliberate intent to suppress the truth to preserve the religion.

Some examples:

In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discussed whether a string of recent years of relatively stable temperatures undermined scientific models that predict long-term warming.

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Dr. Trenberth wrote.

An actual scientist faced with data contrary to his hypothesis would ask if his hypothesis was wrong. A religious zealot curses the data and calls it a travesty.

In a 1999 e-mail exchange about charts showing climate patterns over the last two millennia, Phil Jones, a longtime climate researcher at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, said he had used a “trick” employed by another scientist, Michael Mann, to “hide a decline” in temperatures.

Obviously, TTfD is not the only news source that feels this way.

When information was “leaked” to the media during the Bush Administration, newspapers and puppet Pundits cheered. When emails — current and dating back as far as 1991 — expose that the science behind the Climate Cult isn’t quite clear, or even honestly presented, the Left cries foul.

The Common American Journal clearly pointed to the misplaced outrage of Obama’s Congressional hacks below:

The truth is if the Democrats were so concerned about illegal things happening they would have already banished Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Charles Rangel and others.

The hackers — believed to be based in Siberia — actually made more use of science in securing the emails then the Climate Cultist Scientists did, ever.

From ecotretas.com, a selection of the emails which gives plenty to worry about:

Actual scientists do not use “tricks” to fool people. Cult leaders and snake-oil salesmen use tricks, to, well, trick people into believing a lie.

“Drinking the Kool-Aid” has become a cliche, but Jim Jones would have made an excellent climate change advocate from his campground in Guyana. Jones led a very successful cult.

Just like Al Gore.

From: Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 08:44:19 -0700
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

From: Tom Wigley, Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these).

From: Tom Crowley, Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:13:28 -0400
I have been fiddling with the best way to illustrate the stable nature of the medieval warm period – the attached plot has eight sites that go from 946-1960

From: Gary Funkhouser, Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700
I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. (…) I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have – they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian.

From: Keith Briffa, Date: Wed Sep 22 16:19:06 1999
I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming.

These are not the kind of words that offer truth beyond a reasonable doubt. If anything, it just offers doubt in both the political and scientific climate, which are apparently one and the same. Those opposed to jumping before we truly have the science worked out are not necessarily doubting global warming, but the media is being quite cold to them.

There are many Americans who would counter this Cult Movement and remind the liberals pushing it on us that science would probably agree that the heartbeat of an unborn baby is not protected by law, even though heartbeats are only observed in the living. If “Science” is to become our master, and Al Gore our Lord, let’s propose that Human Life is a whole lot more sacred then a bunch of scientific nonsense which appears to be co-opted by a Liberal agenda.

In this, and many cases, it is the Liberals who refuse “tolerance” even though they force upon conservatives. It is time for President Obama to lead from the middle — as he promised — to represent the needs and concerns of all Americans. I don’t expect much, though, because of the few things we actually know about him, we do know he is a Lawyer.

What are you doing to prove Global Warming, or do you feel just a little bit less sure of its reality?

-30-

TTfD on Twitter

Comments Welcome