CC Random thread

[Strangelove]

It just smacks of an attempt to control messaging right down to the smallest minutiae, which is absolutely typical of this government.

That's exactly it. Science goes against much of the ideological underpinnings of this government, be it resource development, environmental or social policy (hell, even government itself). It's better for the plan if everyone is ignorant. Facts just get in the way.

HMMM.... looks like Topper needs to dumb it down a bit.

[Topper]

It just smacks of an attempt to control messaging right down to the smallest minutiae, which is absolutely typical of this government.

That's exactly it. Science goes against much of the ideological underpinnings of this government, be it resource development, environmental or social policy (hell, even government itself). It's better for the plan if everyone is ignorant. Facts just get in the way.

HMMM.... looks like Topper needs to dumb it down a bit.

The Zach Kassian scenario was as dumb as it could get and they didn't understand that.

[ukcanuck]

I agree Doc if we gave people free speech they are liable to say anything!

We place limits upon freedom of speech here in the civilized world UK.

For example, we often place our "Jews are evil and running the world" folk in rubber rooms/jails.

Deal with it...

You can't draw that line and claim any credibility

First of you put those words in my mouth

And secondly politically muzzling scientists and hate speech are Two different things

[dbr]

Topper, you're such a character.

Otherwise I'd ask you to provide some examples of these lesser lights of the scientific community going to the press and causing actual problems that needed to be solved by a change in policy.

Or maybe we could talk about how a peer reviewed journal like Nature, which is highly respected in the scientific community and presumably values peer reviewed research like you do, has spoken out against the conservative government policy in this area. I could certainly take the time to provide a boatload of examples of leading scientists being prevented from responding to the media, which runs counter to your rationale as I understand it.

Oh well.

[dbr]

Do you really believe that's what's happening for the most part - or that your example, while rare, is SO damaging that people whose opinions are recognized as legitimate by their peers should also be required so submit to this process?

Mark Bothwell is a famous example and he's a respected expert in his field, I don't see how it follows that he's unqualified to speak on it.

It just smacks of an attempt to control messaging right down to the smallest minutiae, which is absolutely typical of this government.

This post belongs in the Conspiracy Theory thread!

*reports post to the CSE*

So nothing to contribute, then?

[Strangelove]

This post belongs in the Conspiracy Theory thread!

*reports post to the CSE*

So nothing to contribute, then?

The first step is to admit you have a problem Dave.

Scientists have human weaknesses just like you and I.

Also their science is limited and sometimes flawed.

And what if a scientist is not a great communicator or tends to get his facts mixed up?

What if a scientist is driven at least partially by a private agenda.

If a scientist leans a little to the left politically and holds a certain environmental ideology…

Well that scientist just might end up screaming something like:

“This (Harper) government is not acting according to our scientific findings!”

… when it is not necessarily true (he’s overreacting).

He may even seriously believe it to be true, even though it is not (his ideology may be leading him astray).

What if he’s a paranoid conspiracy nut who thinks the (government paid!) team leader is one of... them.

Alotta folk seem quick to question the ideology of the government, and wonder if it’s skewing the truth.

But what about individual scientists doing the same?

Or what if the editor (media) is the one with the hidden agenda?

What if the media misrepresents what the scientist has to say… does that ever happen Dave?

What if the media is searching out only the scientists that will say what they want them to say on a subject?

(effectively “muzzling” the majority of scientists who say something different)

Does that ever happen?

Yeahno, these things happen all the time brah! (#youngasyoufeel)

I’m always doing research on American scientific articles and finding major flaws.

(a lot of the time you will see that reflected in the comments section)

Perhaps the Harper government wants Canada to be more civilized.

Folks are always running around half-cocked based on some silly messed-up media tripe.

Do you really think the average person is smart enough to parse scientific information for themselves?

Don’t you think the government that paid for the research has the responsibility to arbitrate the access?

To put that info into proper perspective?

I have a family member who is a biology professor; I’m always catching him getting biology facts wrong.

It’s a good thing he doesn’t give interviews.

Now where was I….

Oh yes: If you think the government is hiding evidence that would undermine its policy agenda

…. you’ve become a wide-eyed conspiracy nut.

(same thing if you believe Jim Benning doesn’t know what he’s doing as an NHL GM)

These researchers are public servants who are paid to provide information that helps set policy.

It is not their place, after that policy is made, to say the policy is wrong.

They should be fired on the spot for doing so.

Anything less would be uncivilized.

Then they can go out and find a real job (and spout to the media to their heart's content)

You must remember that research results often conflict with other research results.

That research teams come to different conclusions than other research teams.

And that raw research is just one of the factors that goes into policy decisions.

We need our researchers to work hand-in-hand with…

bureaucrats/engineers/economists/statisticians/sociologists/politicians.

This is how civilization works Dave (you fucking anarchist you).

The facts/evidence are weighed and the decisions are made.

There are always going to be folks (from any of the above groups) unhappy with the final decision

…. but yeah, those folk should shut the fuck up and remember they’re part of a governmental team!

And conspiracy nuts should be rounded up and locked up IMESHO.

[Strangelove]

politically muzzling scientists and hate speech are Two different things

YOU brought up "free speech" so.... someone... had to balance that off with "hate speech".

[dbr]

Jesus Doc, I might have to make a couple more attempts to get through that stream of consciousness.. whatever.. at some other point.

On my way through it I noticed you making the salient point that scientists shouldn't be disagreeing with federal government policy which is a rule that's been in place for decades, isn't questioned by most scientists and has nothing to do with this. I noticed you making suggestions that Harper is trying to make Canada more 'civilized' as though that were the governments business in any imaginable way. I did not notice you attempting to demonstrate that there was a measurable problem with scientists going to the press that justified 'solving' that 'problem'.

I'll try to get back and read this.. er, whatever.. later on but I'm not encouraged about the prospects of it being a worthwhile endeavour.

[Strangelove]

Jesus Doc, I might have to make a couple more attempts to get through that stream of consciousness.. whatever.. at some other point.

Might I suggest you respond in point-by-point fashion ole chap.

On my way through it I noticed you making the salient point that scientists shouldn't be disagreeing with federal government policy which is a rule that's been in place for decades, isn't questioned by most scientists and has nothing to do with this.

Yup, definitely best to go point-by-point in this case.... if you're man enough!

I noticed you making suggestions that Harper is trying to make Canada more 'civilized' as though that were the governments business in any imaginable way.

It would appear my signature tongue-in-cheekedness is suddenly lost on you!

The first time I used the word, I was comparing the Canadian way to the American way.

(Canada's way being more prudent... or "more civilized")

The second time... was to take a cheap shot at civil servant researchers who would whine to the public.

("should be fired"... "Anything less would be uncivilized")

The third time I used the word was to point out that researchers/scientists play but a small role in policy-making.

("This is how civilization works Dave")

Hey, I've got an idea, why don't you respond in point-by-point style!

I did not notice you attempting to demonstrate that there was a measurable problem with scientists going to the press that justified 'solving' that 'problem'.

I thought this debate was about YOUR assertion that scientists are being "muzzled".

Are you now suggesting they are not being muzzled?

Or perhaps you should tell me in what way YOU feel they are being muzzled.

(I get the sudden impression you're not taking the common stance in the Harpo-muzzling-scientists debate)

I'll try to get back and read this.. er, whatever.. later on but I'm not encouraged about the prospects of it being a worthwhile endeavour.

Your instincts are correct Dave!

(you would get your intellectual butt kicked)

BTW your "nothing to do with this" comment makes me wonder if you understand the entire "issue" at hand.

But hey I'm good with restricting the conversation to whatever your beef here happens to be.

Can you spell it out exactly?

[Topper]

If there is a bias in the interpretation, it goes in favour of whoever is funding the research. That does not mean there is a bias in the interpretation.

[dbr]

Doc as much as I love debating about the forest by going tree by tree, and then branch by branch, and then leaf by leaf.. just doesn't seem worth the effort. I guess I'm not "man enough" to get into a days long exchange with you over this (mind you, this is coming from someone who takes the bait from RoyalDude at least once a week!).

Frankly, I don't think there's that much to debate, even.. you floated the possibility of scientists whose political views don't match the governments earlier in this thread to support your point and that is exactly what I am talking about: throwing the baby out with the bath water because the government is afraid of the experts using their research as a cudgel against them.

This government has made clear efforts to stifle public discourse on a number of fronts and making it effectively impossible to talk to leading experts about "hot button" topics like sea algae (or for scientists issue red tide warnings without checking in with Ottawa, or talking to anyone in the media without a script, etc..) is completely consistent with that.

(As an aside, Topper responded to this by pointing out that without these restrictions it's possible for scientists with "minority opinions" to go whining to the press, which again, can anyone demonstrate that this was a measurable problem? Seems far more likely that the Conservatives don't want individuals going to the press with observations and opinions that they find to be problematic, as you intimated above.)

It's funny that you can call it conspiracy theorizing because I'm really just talking about an evident pattern of policy-making. If anything, the insistence that nobody speaks out of turn is representative of a paranoid fear of being on the wrong side of the facts.

Unless you think the Conservative governments fear of being on the wrong side of the facts is grounded in reality...

[SKYO]

What it boils down to, ALL these strategical political moves were tactical to get the pipelines (tankers/fracking yadayada) built across canada without much opposition.
But all of this backfired with the demise of oil prices and now China's going through a bit of economic downturn a tad.
Now Alberta is somewhat suffering from this, hence the huge change in power there recently.

[Topper]

The pipelines still make great economic sense. Being able to sell it through Gulf and Pacific coast ports opens markets and competition for the product.

Fracking has added to the stable domestic supply and is cheaper to produce than oil sands product.

You do realize the Saudi's are now running a deficit budget by continuing to flood the market with oil.

You do know the US has very strict export policies on their domestic oil. It is a holdover from the early '70's energy crisis and only now being loosened slightly in hotly contested senate and house debate because fracking has meant a domestic surplus.

[Strangelove]

I guess I'm not "man enough" to get into a days long exchange with you over this

Hell boy, you ain't even man enough to handle a cup of my notorious coffee!

*takes another swig*

This "muzzling of scientists" is just a bullshit political tactic that caters to the paranoia of the left-leaning.

Show me a person who claims it's real and I'll show you a Harpophobe.

And yeahno, any "scientist/journalist" credentials the person may happen to hold doesn't impress me.

EVERYONE is political these days to the point of not giving a shit about what the truth may actually be.

Choose a camp and spout the party line amirite?

[Island Nucklehead]

A timely piece from the New York Times.