Scientific reconstructionism redux

I explained last Monday in "Scientific deconstructionism" how a direct outgrowth of Marxism-Leninism was the invention of, postmodernist linguistic deconstructionism (which I learned how to do at Vanderbilt). This textual criticism maintains that,

... all text is tainted by bias and that objective points of view are impossible. Hence, the objective of expression is to exercise power. (Formerly the type of expression so designated has been confined, mostly, to those of history, literature and politics. But now we see that even mathematics may be considered biased and subjective.)

Hence, there is no such as thing as objective truth and statements are never more than propositional in nature. A statement's truth content is never more than opinion, and opinions are nothing but expressions of power. Therefore, in a basic sense, all speech is power directed. ...

What this means is that when climate science became dominated by the Left (well, it began that way), then its purpose was not to determine scientific truth, but to use science to exercise political power. A standard Leftist critique of the West's standing values was that they were social constructions, not rooted in objective reality (which does not exist, anyway), but in class struggles.

Today the WSJ's Daniel Henninger explains how Climategate unmasks the humbug behind the curtain of climate science.

What is happening at East Anglia is an epochal event. As the hard sciences-physics, biology, chemistry, electrical engineering-came to dominate intellectual life in the last century, some academics in the humanities devised the theory of postmodernism, which liberated them from their colleagues in the sciences. Postmodernism, a self-consciously "unprovable" theory, replaced formal structures with subjectivity. With the revelations of East Anglia, this slippery and variable intellectual world has crossed into the hard sciences.

And he goes on to explain that science itself, as a category of understanding the world, "is on the credibility bubble. If it pops, centuries of what we understand to be the role of science go with it."