When I wrote recently about how children are killed by abortion, some thought I had gone too far when I said this:
“If by some miracle the little one survives this monstrous cruelty and is born alive, he or she is left to gasp a last, fluttering breath on a cold, metal tray under the cold glare of the strip-lights and the still colder glare of the vicious profiteers who salve their shrunken consciences by declaring to one another, mindlessly, over and over and over again, that ‘it’s just a fetus.'”
The Kermit Gosnell case is orders of magnitude nastier even than this. It is not my place to pre-empt the 12 Americans who must decide whether the doctor in that case is guilty of having killed babies after they had been born alive.
However, as a result of the case, several abortionists have gone public and said that if a baby destined for abortion was born alive they would do nothing to keep it alive. Shame on them!
As with medical science, so with climate science, we have made the dangerous mistake of treating as a high priest anyone who wears a white coat with Biros sticking out of the breast pocket.
We have deferred to scientists for too long. We have abased ourselves before them. Now it is time to remind them that, even if they are not subject to the same statute law as everyone else, they are – or at any rate ought to be – subject to the same moral law as the rest of us.
In the eighth century, Pope Stephen wrote to a bishop who had asked him whether it was justifiable to kill a child that had been born handicapped. The shocked pope wrote back that, since it was wrong to kill a child invisible in the womb of its mother, how much more visibly wrong was it to kill a child once it had been born alive?
Yet the consensus among the scientific classes is that baby-butchering is just fine. After all, it’s profitable.
In the 11th century, Al-Haytham wrote that the seeker after truth (his beautiful phrase for the scientist) does not place his faith in any mere consensus.
Where, then, has the notion of drab, regimented, cloying conformity among scientists in every discipline sprung from? It has oozed from the political hard left, the Borg, the hive mind that has given consensus its own dismal “ism” – collectivism.
During a recent month-long speaking tour of New Zealand, I was subjected to a series of merciless, coordinated, personal attacks in the news media by five climate “scientists” from three separate “universities.”
The attacks had little or nothing to do with climate science. I was under fire because I had dared to refuse to be assimilated by the Borg. I had asked the unaskable, questioned the unquestionable, doubted the indubitable.
I had committed the ultimate thought-crime of thinking for myself.
One night I stayed with a judge of the New Zealand High Court. He told me a thing or two about how to fight my detractors. I took his advice. Five separate and very public items of correction, very humiliating for the ignorant “professors,” have now appeared in the media.
Why have the vice-chancellors who ought to have maintained a discipline of honesty and honor at their seats of “learning” not kept their turbulent “professors” in line?
The reason is that making stuff up, not only about an opponent’s reputation but also about science itself, is now encouraged as long as the inventions further the party line.
One vice-chancellor in particular – Pat Walsh of Victoria “University” at Wellington – was unwise enough not to act on my complaint that one of the three “professors” at his “university” who had been more than usually economical with the truth at my expense had furthered an international organized-crime fraud by posting at the VUW website a bogus graph lifted from one of the climate assessment reports of the U.N.’s climate panel, the IPCC.
The chancellor of the “university,” a local councillor, now has the matter before him but has been imprudently slow to respond. If I do not receive a reply very soon, police will be asked to investigate not only the “professor” who had posted up the dodgy graph but also the vice-chancellor, the chancellor and the “university” itself as accessories during and after the fact of scientific fraud. Don’t send your child there, and don’t give it any money.
Christian theologians wield a simple and sensible moral yardstick. They measure the gravity of a wrong act by the gravity of the harm it causes. Using that yardstick, any “doctor” who kills babies, whether in or out of the womb, does a grave wrong.
By the same yardstick, any “professor” who knowingly manipulates data in a manner calculated to deceive the scientific illiterates who now govern us also does a grave wrong.
Food riots in a dozen regions of the world tell us that millions were flung into starvation and death by the doubling of world food prices that, according to the U.N., resulted directly from the biofuel scam that is one of many pernicious spin-offs from what professor Niklas Mörner has called “the greatest lie ever told” – the global warming scare.
No matter how fashionable the party line may be, it may not be pursued by immoral means. The corrupt actions of profiteering “scientists” have serious consequences.
How, then, are we to restore a workable moral yardstick to the center of scientific life? It will not be easy, but it must be attempted. The prosecutors who bravely bucked the party line by indicting a doctor they alleged had unlawfully killed babies who had been born alive have taken a welcome first step.
The prosecutors who will in due course bring Victoria “University” of Wellington to court for the fraud I allege against it and some of its senior staff will also do us all a service by reminding “scientists” that their white coats are not suits of armor. “Scientists,” too, are answerable before the moral law.