Science must drive government policy, but under Democrat Obama, policy drives science

From Towhall  Hat tip to Americans for Prosperity; "Something’s amiss at the Department of Interior. Eight government scientists were recently fired or reassigned after voicing concerns to their superiors about faulty environmental science used for policy decisions. Which [prompts] the question, “Are some government agencies manipulating science to advance political agendas?” "....

...."The government’s use of fictional science in the Klamath dam removal project should concern every American. Our public servants at DOI are brazenly advancing their own agendas at the expense of the truth and regardless of adverse impacts on the environment, humans, and on rural communities. Environment and human interests are not incompatible. We have to find solutions that work to the benefit of both. That requires agendas be put aside and allow complete science to determine policy.
"DOI Secretary Ken Salazar is stepping down in March. His replacement needs to be someone who can be trusted to end the culture of fictional science as a means to advance environmental agendas." Emphasis added.

David Spady is President of Media and Public Affairs Strategy based in Camarillo, California. He serves as Director of Government Affairs for Salem Communication Corp., and as State Director of Americans for Prosperity in California, a national grassroots organization focused on economic issues, free-markets, and limited government. ....

This article Facts and fiction on the Klamath River Settlement Process and dam removal appears at first glance to be unbiased, but is written by a member of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council, which wants the dams removed.

I find this interesting: Talking Points on Klamath Dam Removal.
Have you ever wondered how advocates for positions get their information when they write letters to the editor or speak in public? Have you noticed when they are challenged, they are accused of speaking in "talking points"? Here is just what they are talking about and principled, informed journalists know to follow up each statement made from these to test the knowledge of the speaker. Media advocates of the speaker's cause will let these points go unchallenged, unlike true journalists with integrity such as Chris Wallace, Jake Tapper and the late Tim Russert.
This article begins with: "Talking Points on Klamath Dam Removal
Use the talking points below then click here to send a letter to the editor to newspapers."

The above explains how young skulls get filled with mush

 

More on the debate:It’s unlikely Congress will fund and implement Klamath River water and dam removal agreements this year. But what if it never does? What happens then?

"The company chose the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement because it put a $200 million cost cap on dam removal and removed the company’s liability if there are issues when the dams are removed, said Tom Gravely, PacifiCorp spokesman.
"But to renew the licenses without dam removal, the company would likely have to install fish ladders, which would cost more than the $200 million cost cap put on dam removal."

The dams provide electric power that is "green" energy and way more efficient than wind and solar; Disagreeing on dam removal: Klamath River Basin split on removal issue "Siskiyou County Supervisor Jim Cook said he and his four fellow supervisors oppose dam removal.
" "My personal stance as an individual is that I don't want to see that kind of green energy go away - not when fish ladders work," he said".