Judge Slams Govt. Scientists’ “Bad Faith” Preservation Plan
A federal judge has blasted government scientists for lying to justify a drastic reduction in the amount of water that flows into California’s central valley for the sake of protecting “endangered” fish.The feds provided “equivocal or bad science,” in order to divert two years’ worth of water from the state’s central valley farmland, according to a 279-page opinion issued this week by U.S. District Judge Oliver W. Wanger in Fresno. Considered the state’s agriculture hub, the area spans 2 million acres and has a population of about 25 million.An adequate water supply is essential and should trump the needs of “endangered” fish. That’s not how the Obama Administration sees it, however. To make its case the government put together an official “biological opinion” of different species that migrate through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. To save them the feds essentially have to stem the flow of water into the area, according to government biologists from various agencies.But the judge dismissed portions of the government’s biological opinion, calling them “arbitrary, capricious and unlawful.” He also determined that many of the government scientists provided “false” and “incredible” testimony in order to support a “bad faith” preservation plan. Specifically named in the opinion were scientists from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The judge called one a “zealot” who didn’t let facts get in the way of her goals and the other an “untrustworthy” witness.”I have never seen anything like what has been placed before this court by these two witnesses,” the judge wrote in his ruling. “The only inference that the court can draw is that it is an attempt to mislead and to deceive the court.” Ouch! That must hurt, though the government got much of what it wanted, permission to push encroaching salt water back in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.The bottom line remains, however, that taxpayer-funded scientists provided false information—to a federal court, no less—to make a case for a bogus preservation plan. We’ve seen this repeatedly in the Obama Administration’s global warming hype. Government scientists have made all sorts of wacky assertions about the ills of climate change, even as esteemed scientists—including Nobel laureates—dispute the findings.Among them: That climate change will threaten national security, make food “dangerous,” add to the malnourishment of millions worldwide, cause mental illness and cancer. Just a few days ago a group of federal researchers determined that global warming is much worse than previously imagined because the ocean masks the true rate of damage for periods as long as a decade. They used computer simulation to make that brilliant discovery.