Can we really trust government scientists to deal with a cooling world?

Russ Steele

A long string of current events are beginning raise questions about the ability of government scientist to deal effectively with the facts. In the past I have questioned the ability of CARB and EPA scientist to present global warming facts truthfully, but now I will have to add the Interior Department.  This is another agency that is twisted the facts to meet their agendas. Now Congressman Tom McClintock and U. S. District Court Judge Oliver Wagner are questing the ability of the Interior Department to deal with the facts.

Wanger was angered by testimony from the two scientists, Frederick V. Feyrer and Jennifer M. Norris, that he said was “false,” “contradictory” and “misleading.” He accused the Interior Department of “bad faith” in providing the two scientists as experts, and claimed their testimony was “an attempt to mislead and to deceive the court into accepting not only what is not the best science, it’s not science.” An Interior Department spokesman defended Norris and Feyrer, telling the New York Times that “we stand behind the consistent and thorough findings by our scientists on these matters and their dedicated use of the best available science.” Full story is HERE.

Congressman McClintock is upset that Interior Department is moving to tear down dams on the Klamath River, which produce much-needed clean electrical energy, to improve salmon runs.

 Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced yesterday that the administration is moving forward with a plan to destroy four perfectly good hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River capable of producing 155,000 megawatts of the cleanest and cheapest electricity on the planet – enough for 155,000 homes.

Why would the administration pursue such a ludicrous policy?

They say it’s is necessary to help increase the salmon population.  We did that a long time ago by building the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery.  The Iron Gate Fish Hatchery produces five million salmon smolts each year – 17,000 of which return annually as fully grown adults to spawn.  The problem is, they don’t include them in the population count! Full Article is HERE.

Why should we be concerned about these issues at the Next Grand Minimum?  Colder weather is going to reduce agriculture production, and the more land we have under production the better off we will be. Reducing the flow of water into the Central Valley will be creating a man-made reduction in agriculture production, which will be amplified in a much cooler world.

In the past California has experienced long-term droughts, we should be building dams, not tearing them down. We need to store as much water as possible during those years when there is sufficient rain and snow for the dry years to follow. Tearing down dams is not a good long-term strategy. Farmers will need that water to insure we can have as much food as possible during the cool and dry periods that are in our future.

Recent studies of tree stumps rooted in present day Sierra lakes, marshes and streams, suggest that California’s Sierra Nevada experienced severe drought conditions for more than two centuries before 1112 A.D.  And, for more than 140 years before 1350 A.D. During these periods runoff from the Sierra was significantly lower than during any of the persistent “dry spells” that have occurred in the region over the past 150 years. California drought details are HERE.

The Department of Interior scientist are not looking at the bigger issue, which will be the production of food in a cooling world.




2 thoughts on “Can we really trust government scientists to deal with a cooling world?

  1. Interstellar Bill September 25, 2011 / 10:52 am

    The less food that is produced,
    the more the starvation, so the faster we go
    towards the population reduction that benefits Mother Gaia.
    This is why Govt is highly confident of its ability to ‘lead’ us.

  2. W. P. Sokeland December 10, 2015 / 9:45 am

    It will be tough to live in a starving world and governments will not survive. Your grand children will have a life of misery if they live. Man will regress to the dark ages. Why not identify the causes of a future “Little Ice Age” and design systems to support the worlds population so that mankind can continue to advance to his destiny rather than go backward (been there – done that)?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s