Canada's New World Rep?

[brothert]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16861468

The allegation of "muzzling" came up at a session of the AAAS meeting to discuss the impact of a media protocol introduced by the Conservative government shortly after it was elected in 2008.

The protocol requires that all interview requests for scientists employed by the government must first be cleared by officials. A decision as to whether to allow the interview can take several days, which can prevent government scientists commenting on breaking news stories.

Coming across this story on the BBC News website really caught my attention.  As a I guy who voted for the Conservatives recently, mainly due to a lack of leadership elsewhere,  I can't believe this type of thing has been going on since 2008.  Who in Ottawa is steering the ship?  By that I mean where is the opposition to such a protocol?  Climate change is happening, the causes are most likely very complex, but stifling half of the debate is wrong.  I want to hear all of the arguments and decide for myself.  Canada is known for being one of the most free and open societies on the planet and I think this kind of action damages our world image and in my case our self image.

 

[L K]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16861468

The allegation of "muzzling" came up at a session of the AAAS meeting to discuss the impact of a media protocol introduced by the Conservative government shortly after it was elected in 2008.

The protocol requires that all interview requests for scientists employed by the government must first be cleared by officials. A decision as to whether to allow the interview can take several days, which can prevent government scientists commenting on breaking news stories.

Coming across this story on the BBC News website really caught my attention.  As a I guy who voted for the Conservatives recently, mainly due to a lack of leadership elsewhere,  I can't believe this type of thing has been going on since 2008.  Who in Ottawa is steering the ship?  By that I mean where is the opposition to such a protocol?  Climate change is happening, the causes are most likely very complex, but stifling half of the debate is wrong.  I want to hear all of the arguments and decide for myself.  Canada is known for being one of the most free and open societies on the planet and I think this kind of action damages our world image and in my case our self image.

The road Canadian politics is headed (lie your ass off at all times, and when you get called on it, lie about the fact that you said/did something and try and blame it on the opposition; and stifle all information that doesn't fit with your vision of Canada) is really disappointing.

But hey, then you look at Toronto and a guy who is less than a year away from retirement is about to get fired for not being a Yes-man so hey! all is well with the world.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Scientists have been gagged for a while now, unless they tow Al Gore's line. IMO, the whole climate thing is a sham, but you'll never hear from the scientists that are proving as much. It's all about the carbon tax, follow the money and you'll find the source.

I'm not saying that we aren't treating mother earth poorly, because we are, but research and get the real facts, they won't come out on the MSM.

I don't like Harper, he reminds me of a wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

[Kin]

I think, with my vast and extensive scientific training, that climate change is all a bunch of hokum created by the overwhelming majority of scientific minds after seeing Al Gore's(howcome we never heard anything about it pre-2004? huh?) movie so that they can continue to live the lavish lives of luxury that we now associate with research scientists.

 

[L K]

Scientists have been gagged for a while now, unless they tow Al Gore's line. IMO, the whole climate thing is a sham, but you'll never hear from the scientists that are proving as much. It's all about the carbon tax, follow the money and you'll find the source.

I'm not saying that we aren't treating mother earth poorly, because we are, but research and get the real facts, they won't come out on the MSM.

I don't like Harper, he reminds me of a wolf in sheep's clothing.

As a member of the slightly related medical profession, I can assure that you are absolutely right.  Big Pharma has routinely held a gun to my back when I have read literature on drugs so that I solely prescribe horrendous medications used to enslave the human race.  And the climate change lobby is strong with my research colleague who are all bought and unscrupulously evil.

 

[brothert]

Nik,

Can you explain you point differently?  I don't understand what your saying?

That Climate Change debate is a waste of time? or it isn't? Sarcasm.  Or its ok to legislate suppression of opinions when the topic is inflammatory yet meaningless?

Cheers

JKR

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Nik,

Can you explain you point differently?  I don't understand what your saying?

That Climate Change debate is a waste of time? or it isn't? Sarcasm.  Or its ok to legislate suppression of opinions when the topic is inflammatory yet meaningless?

Cheers

JKR

I think he's saying that when upwards of 90-95% of scientists consider climate change/global warming caused by man to be occurring, that it's not exactly a 'debate'.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

I don't think climate "change" is being debated, I think it's the man made part that is in question.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I don't think climate "change" is being debated, I think it's the man made part that is in question.

No, the scientific consensus is that it is caused by humans:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-we-have-a-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change.html

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/06/22/the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change-stronger-and-stronger/

Unless you are a scientist yourself who has studied this sort of thing, I don't know how you can not believe them for any reason other than you just don't want to.

 

[brothert]

Climate change and what goes on with it whether it's man made or "natural" is really out of our control at this point IMO but that's not really what got me to post this article.  The part that is bothering me is hearing that government employees are "muzzled" because their "truth" may not reflect the elected government's opinion and policy.  Government employees have a right to let the people know to the best of their understanding, what is going on with government programs and policies.  There have been some really disturbing trends over the last few decades.  For example, the costs involved in setting up the gun registry, and the firing of the Ms.Keen over the chalk river incident.  Specifically the Keen incident disturbs me in that she may not have understood fully the risks involved with "repairing a nuclear reactor on the fly" but she was right to express her concerns to the extent of her knowledge and responsibility.  Maybe I am niave but I am beggining to think that elected governments don't really have the concerns of the people who elected them in their heart when they are making policy.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Unless you are a scientist yourself who has studied this sort of thing, I don't know how you can not believe them for any reason other than you just don't want to.

Of course I'm not, I'm just saying that it doesn't appear to be consensus to me is all.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/open_letter_to_un.html

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/UN_open_letter.pdf

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/1000_scientists_dissent.pdf

I mean, if there was consensus, wouldn't most everybody agree and just move along to the next problem? I'm not trying to derail the thread, as it wasn't specific to climate change, but there are scientists out there that don't buy it.

 

[L K]

Unless you are a scientist yourself who has studied this sort of thing, I don't know how you can not believe them for any reason other than you just don't want to.

Of course I'm not, I'm just saying that it doesn't appear to be consensus to me is all.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/open_letter_to_un.html

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/UN_open_letter.pdf

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/1000_scientists_dissent.pdf

I mean, if there was consensus, wouldn't everybody agree and just move along to the next problem? I'm not trying to derail the thread, as it wasn't specific to climate change, but there are scientists out there that don't buy it.

I can't speak for the qualifications of the individuals on that list but a quick glance would show that there are at least 7 individuals on that list with Masters level qualifications (which in being up front does not preclude them from being experts).  Further the list includes a number of experts who are hardly leaders in the field of climatology or geophysics.    Including a few who have worked on behalf of the coal industry, a few economists and a physician with research background in epidemiology of viral coat proteins and predictive mutation of virulence proteins. 

I would love to know why Lord Lawson of Blaby (Nigel Lawson whose claim to fame in the Energy sector was ruthlessly protecting the coal mining/burning industry under the Margaret Thatcher government is deemed scientific refutal of climate change.

Simply being against climate change and having a title behind your name does not make you an expert.

 

[Bullfrog]

As a member of the slightly related medical profession, I can assure that you are absolutely right.  Big Pharma has routinely held a gun to my back when I have read literature on drugs so that I solely prescribe horrendous medications used to enslave the human race.  And the climate change lobby is strong with my research colleague who are all bought and unscrupulously evil.

At least you can admit it.  :-X You should be at my house over Christmas when my father-in-law is in the room and someone mentions they got a flu shot!

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I've been up writing a paper and must get some sleep, so I can't really reply, but I did a quick Google search and that Science and Public Policy Institute seems quite sketchy.  I mean one of the first scientists that signed that letter was a "social scientist" - what the heck would he know about climate change?

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

I've been up writing a paper and must get some sleep, so I can't really reply, but I did a quick Google search and that Science and Public Policy Institute seems quite sketchy.  I mean one of the first scientists that signed that letter was a "social scientist" - what the heck would he know about climate change?

I could have got that letter from a number of sources. Listen I'm not claiming to know everything about climate change, nor am I disputing that there is climate change. I'm simply saying that there isn't consensus and it looks "sketchy" to me.

Prof. Richard Lindzen

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw&feature=player_embedded#![/youtube]

All I'm saying is that you don't have to look far for people that disagree with the party line or whatever you want to call it. I certainly can't disprove it myself, but I don't think I have to believe what everybody else believes, especially when government's have something to gain by putting this stuff out there. I won't say anymore on it, because I think the initial thread had another point in mind.

 

[crazyperfectdevil]

being that none of us are world leading scientists in the fields of anything ..obviously we're going to have to defer to some kind of authority ..... i understand being skeptical ...however it seems in this case that saying global warming isn't happening ..or ..now backing up to saying that it has nothing to do with mankind's influence seems the more self motivated of the two positions.  It seems to violate occum's razor to think that the overwhelming majority of scientists out there that are saying that this is happening ..are really part of some kind of vast conspiracy to further their goals to get more funding for a fake cause .....where as it seems pretty easy to see the motivation behind saying that global warming does not exist .....the latter position seems to match up quite nicely with all of our self interests .... just keep doing what we've been doing and we'll be okay... 

 

[Kin]

I mean, if there was consensus, wouldn't everybody agree...

Consensus does not mean unanimity.

 

[Darryl]

Hey who needs to worry about the environment when you can spend billions on jet fighters that might not actually be built and super prisons. I have my fingers crossed a good leader will emerge from one of the other two major parties.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

I mean, if there was consensus, wouldn't everybody agree...

Consensus does not mean unanimity.

Yes, thanks, there is supposed to be most in front of that.

 

[Kin]

Yes, thanks, there is supposed to be most in front of that.

My point wasn't one about using the wrong word but that you're trying to hold up a tiny minority of dissenters as evidence that there isn't a consensus among the scientific community. There is a consensus because most everyone does agree. Finding a handful of people who disagree doesn't contradict that because, again, a consensus does not require unanimity.