The Canadian Government's War On Science 474
FuzzNugget writes "A contributor at ScienceBlogs.com has compiled and published a shockingly long list of systematic attacks on scientific research committed by the Canadian government since the conservatives came to power in 2006. This anti-scientific scourge includes muzzling scientists, shutting down research centers, industry deregulation and re-purposing the National Research Council to align with business interests instead of doing real science. It will be another two years before Canadians have the chance to go to the polls, but how much more damage will be done in the meantime?"
Dang, Canada... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I know it was the Koch brothers probably talking to each other, but Mr. Burns is who I picture.
Re:Dang, Canada... (Score:5, Funny)
Mind transference experiment. It's the only explanation for how Obama is almost exactly the same as Bush.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Obama is right-wing from Canadian perspective, so "when the right finally tanks the US" is still applicable.
Re:Dang, Canada... (Score:4, Informative)
Only in the USA. We got lefties here in Canada that would make righties explode in terror just by voicing their ideas.
So untrue (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole right, left perspective is an illusion. When are you people going to wake up?
That is so lazy intellectually. Some politicians are power hungry pathalogical liars (e.g., Issa). Some politicians are plain old cranks (e.g., Inhofe/Bachmann). Some politicians really believe in things and fight for them, and are often indistinguishable from cranks (e.g., Rand Paul). Some politicians really believe in things and fight for them (e.g., Paul Ryan).
The trick to understanding politics is sorting out the grand-standing from what people really believe in. The GOP is currently defined by hatre
Re:So untrue (Score:5, Interesting)
Strange. I don't seem to fit into either category.
People are different - politicians or no, you're going to have liars and hypocrites along with those that actually try to make the world a better place. The problem is that the actual JOB of being a politician puts you in a position to be surrounded by a toxic environment the from before you actually get elected. That kind of toxicity is tough to wash off, and the deeper you get immersed into the political culture, the harder it is to reverse course. The path of least resistance involves letting other people make decisions for you, and those people have no scruples.
Re:So untrue (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So untrue (Score:4, Insightful)
Nah...can't possibly be - we've been doing it for thousands of years and it seems to be working out really well for us.
Re: (Score:3)
Was it Hard Core History by chance? If not, you'd probably like his work:
http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive [dancarlin.com]
There's a 6 part series about Rome still up free and the 5 part series on Genghis Khan is great.
Also if it was not HCH, please provide a link. I'm always in the market for excellent history podcasts.
Re: (Score:3)
Because they actually were or because the podcaster had already done so when preparing the cast? After all, every political idea can be fitted into a left-right axis, just like any point on Earth's surface has a latitude. That does not mean it's sufficient information to capture the essence of the idea.
The
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. Most religious people simply cannot grasp the concept that their religion should not permeate all things.
Citation required. "Most"? Hardly. Some? Maybe. But you're now conflating conservative/right with religious/zealot, and by doing so you show a strong bias. I could also point out that some atheists believe that their religion should permeate all things. And that some muslims ditto. So, like I said, freedom FROM religion requires acknowledgement of things that are religious in nature but that call themselves something else.
And, as I said, you've confused a belief that ethics and morals are important with
Re: (Score:3)
"Brain and brain! What is BRAIN?"
Now, Pinky... it's what we do every night... -try to take over the world!
Re: (Score:2)
How did that happen?
Many Americans have asked the same thing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wait - Bush and the GOP are is still in power?
How did that happen?
Obama is pretty far right compared to the Democratic party in the US, much less the rest of the first world.
Re:Dang, Canada... (Score:5, Insightful)
True. He turned out to by a crypto conservative plant, a false flag operative operating under the guise of hope and change. He is right of Ronald Reagan on a lot of issues, much to the absolute horror of the actual liberals in this country.
Re:Dang, Canada... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dang, Canada... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
He is right of Ronald Reagan on a lot of issues, much to the absolute horror of the actual liberals in this country.
As he wrote in his book the Audacity of Hope and said over and over in many speeches in which he praised certain RR policies.
It seems that both the left and the right solely focused on the color of his skin, and projected "what he' supposed to do 'cuz he's black" on him, without ever realizing he was and has always been the most centrist Democratic candidate ever elected president.
The GOP still doesn't get it, some (disillusioned) Dems now get it.
Re: (Score:3)
It seems that both the left and the right solely focused on the color of his skin, and projected "what he' supposed to do 'cuz he's black" on him, without ever realizing he was and has always been the most centrist Democratic candidate ever elected president.
Anyone who ever looked at this [politicalcompass.org] already knew this. Obama is about as conservative as anything the Republicans can get into the presidential election, with a few twists thrown in that move him slightly left of the standard republican.
The fact that Obama was the most liberal politician that could get elected to the national office should tell actual leftists/socialists/liberals exactly what they're fighting against.
For the record, I'm ok with with Obama being fairly conservative. I can live with his brand of c
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Dang, Canada... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes they are -- power has been handed over to the New GOP (AKA Democrats) so that all the Executive branch power grabs and Constitutional abuses of the GWB era can be legitimized as the "New Normal".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
62% of the voting Canadians voted against the Conservative Party.
Re: (Score:2)
They both exist to keep deranged Wingnuts angry and stupid so they don't wise up and turn back into Conservatives..
Apparently they succeeded. ;D
But, just for fun, here are some more links.
A Timeline Of The IRS's Scrutiny Of The Right [npr.org]
2011
Dec. 16: Despite being briefed about the matter six months earlier, Lerner does not divulge the flagging of conservative groups when she and others from the IRS meet staff members of the House Ways and Means Committee to discuss the issue, according to the staff's timeline of events.
Tea party groups call IRS process 'nightmare' [detroitnews.com]
Higher-Ups Knew of IRS Case [wsj.com]
Reality Check Exclusive: Cincinnati agent giving orders in IRS scandal? [fox19.com]
It Didn’t End - The IRS is still stringing conservative groups along [nationalreview.com]
Now I'm curious though, when were you last conservative?
Re: (Score:2)
I would not trust the Daily Mail to tell me what color the sky was.
You are more likely to find facts in Pravda than the Daily Mail.
Re: (Score:3)
None of the claims in the linked articles are in dispute, and the Brietbart article simply recaps a local Cincinnati Fox TV reporter, who's "Rogue IRS Agent" story is a strawman, which he does not attribute to any source -- he cannot, since nobody reputable has claimed this. It's dutiful, rather mild and uninformative reporting that has a provocative headline and unsubstantiated lede, for the purpose of headline trolling, which is about all most conservative news sites are good for.
Ed Rogers calls attenti
Re: (Score:3)
I see the date on your poll is May 20 2013.
Fox News poll: Obama ratings dip, voters say government 'out of control' [foxnews.com] - Published May 21
After a week of revelations about government spying on reporters and the Internal Revenue Service targeting conservatives, most voters feel “like the federal government has gotten out of control and is threatening the basic civil liberties of Americans.”
At the same time, a new Fox News poll finds disapproval of President Obama’s job performance is above 50 percent for the first time in a year, his honesty rating is at a new low and half of voters already think he’s a lame-duck.
More than two-thirds of voters -- 68 percent -- feel the government is out of control and threatening their civil liberties. About one quarter disagree (26 percent).
Nearly half of Democrats (47 percent), as well as large numbers of independents (76 percent) and Republicans (87 percent) feel Uncle Sam is taking liberties with their liberties.
Those who identify with the Tea Party movement, one of the groups targeted by the IRS, are among those most likely to say things are out of control and civil liberties are being threatened: 92 percent of Tea Partiers feel that way.
I would like to think that you value civil liberties enough that you wouldn't stand behind this sort of behavior even if it does have popular support. After all, Nixon enjoyed considerable popular support well into Watergate [uconn.edu]. What kind of government do you have when the government can select significant segments of the population to disadvantage and harass them based solely
Re: (Score:3)
Please expand on that, I'm curious. Is it the bringing up of topics that don't have the progressive stamp of approval? Using sources that march to a different drummer? Should we only be posting the approved truth or talking point of the day? What a strange notion in a forum post complaining about the alleged politicization of science. Isn't the truth important? Diversity of ideas? Or do we all have to think alike?
Re:Dang, Canada... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. But what we're talking about here is science and scientific research.
I can understand a fiscal conservative's opinion that government has no business funding scientific research - and considering this horseshit, I would think that a liberal might side with that just for the reason of science getting politicized even more.
But when a government starts meddling with science and research because it pisses off their backers - industry - then we are headed for some serious trouble. The Bible thumpers don't scare me because, although a pain in the ass, they are easily defeated.
Industry scares me. They have the deep pockets to get their way and it's very hard to fight them.
Examples of industry screwing science over to get their way:
Cigarette industry - fought for decades that their products were safe and later, there was no proof that they were dangerous.
Automakers and every safety and pollution control system demanded. And decades ago, they fought tooth and nail to KEEP lead in gasoline. That's why it tool so many decades to get rid of it: the auto industry bullshitted the US Congress.
Fossil fuel producers and doing everything they can to misinform the public about global climate change.
Those are just off of the top of my head.
And no one was surprised... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And no one was surprised... (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is one thing that politicians all agree on, it's that you should change the facts to match your agenda, not the other way around.
FTFY
Re:And no one was surprised... (Score:5, Insightful)
Preferably some example where the vast majority of peer-reviewed studies support the opposite side. Like climate change, where 97% of studies conclude that climate change is real. Or evolution. As opposed to some other issue where there is much more support for either side.
Re: (Score:3)
I think your fix would be more reasonable if you cited examples of when liberal politicians ignored science to match their agendas.
Any liberal politician who has ever voted for or in any way promoted drug prohibition.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think your fix would be more reasonable if you cited examples of when liberal politicians ignored science to match their agendas.
While I generally agree that the R's pretty much ignore science, gun control is an example of where the D's ignore it.
Specifically US related data, while there isn't much, what there is, points at gun control being useless in the US for controlling gun related homicides. Areas with the highest homicide rates also tend to be the ones with the strictest gun control (see Chicago a
Re: (Score:3)
So once again the R's are ignoring the data as a whole and opting to take a smaller sample, that's only ever had what I could call half assed measures and failed because they lack teeth and are repeatedly repealed because they don't work
The 1930s happened ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To make things worse, the Liberal Party was decimated (more like nonagintaeted) in the most recent election, and then went on to pick a playboy (who is the son of one of Canada's most polarizing Prime Ministers) as their new leader. They do not have a hope of winning the next election. At present the only significant opposition party is the New Democratic Party, but their charismatic leader died right after the last election, and their new leader, while competent, is rather boring and hardly the sort of per
US Government's War On Science (Score:2)
There, fixed it for ya...
Re: (Score:2)
As much as that may or may not be true, Canadians actually elected them.
To be fair, it was more of a suicide pact by the left. They forced an election when most people were profoundly sick of being expected to vote for a new government every year or so, and were rewarded with a right-wing majority.
Re:US Government's War On Science (Score:5, Informative)
Excuse me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Excuse me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, while they're doing all of those things, they're discrediting the science behind it.
They make assertions which don't match facts, and then say the scientists who have the facts have an agenda.
And you wonder why so much of the US fails in a basic understanding of science? It's because the douchebag politicians do all they can to undercut science.
Maybe if your positions aren't borne out by science, it's you who has a problem with reality? You know, like the drooling trolls who say "Intelligent Design" should be treated as an equally valid theory to Evolution, even though it's anything but.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Excuse me? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the groups which do that are mostly shell companies and think tanks paid by large corporations to kick out position papers which support their claims.
People are doing actual science in many domains, and large corporations and political groups try very hard to say "see, we have science too".
That's usually a lie -- the tobacco companies claimed for years smoking wasn't harmful when they knew damned well it was.
There's science, and there's shills. It's important to know which are which. If you can convince the masses that science is just what a bunch of people want you to believe, you can undermine it to the point where you can make any claims you like.
So go find me some scientific evidence for Intelligent Design, because you can't, since there's absolutely zero science behind it.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Exactly.
There may be a few pure science projects on the list, but they are hard to find, and should have been the bailiwick of University Research
at best, not National government paper shuffling bureaucracies that take on a life of their own.
Re:Excuse me? (Score:5, Informative)
I clicked one of the blog-troll's links at almost random. It was a hysteria filled column about how the "EVIL Conservatives (who obviously were being lead by the EVEN MORE EVIL Bush family)" were being EVIL by removing an "Environment Canada" logo and text from the weather page. The top-rated 9000 comments were all outrage, but the most recent three explained that the "Environment Canada" web page still exists and that (gasp, shock, horror) this actually helps because the weather page had been the top response when searching for "Environment Canada," and now searching for that term actually gave you what you searched for.
After reading that, the next link could've had video evidence of their hated PM firing nuclear weapons at baby seals and I still wouldn't care.
Re:Excuse me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Science isn't just about particle accelerators and battery tech.
Re:Excuse me? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to break it to you, but the Kyoto Accord is based on science, whether you like that science or not. This is exactly the point: you don't like the science, and neither do most conservatives, because it indicates that a BIG business (fossil fuel based energy) is bad. Since those businesses have a fair amount of money, the Kyoto Accord is pretty anti-fossil fuel business.
Despite that fact, it is still based on valid science.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Something "based on science" isn't Science. It is something "based on science". I can be against Kyoto accord (policy) for reasons other than the "science" behind it (policy). This is something liberals cannot fathom.
Kyoto Accord has about the same amount of science behind it as does the Piltdown Man did. Remember, Piltdown man was accepted as "science" for years and many PhD in sciences were awarded to people who did their Thesis on it. Just because Science claims something doesn't mean it is true.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I can be against Kyoto accord (policy) for reasons other than the "science" behind it (policy). This is something liberals cannot fathom."
I fathom it just fine, speaking as someone way more 'liberal' than the term implies. That coming from the POV of a multi-national research director.
Doesn't matter your thoughts on th policy - the science behind it is with a 5-sigma degree of certainty FACT. (6 sigma is almost undeniable, but 5-sigma is damned close.)
And that is something ill-educated people such as yours
Re:Excuse me? (Score:5, Insightful)
So the part of Kyoto which exempted gigantic polluters such as China and India... exactly what science do you consider to be justification for that?
That's what GP was talking about - one can certainly be against a proposed political action, and not really care what scientific measurements or papers were touted to back it up.
Now try and say that, and suddenly you don't get the whole sentence out before everyone of a certain ideological persuasion points and screams "He's anti-science!"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I never said I didn't believe in or believed in AGW. What I said was that the Kyoto Accord was based on the same kind of science and Piltdown man. I suggest you google it. Kyoto was based on the flawed and flat out fabricated information coming out of the U.E.A. Doesn't mean U.E.A was wrong, it also doesn't mean they are right.
And I'm opposed to the Kyoto Treaty based on other reasons. It excuses or doesn't affect the people that are actually causing the most harm to the environment, namely many third world
Re:Excuse me? (Score:5, Informative)
You must be a conservative.
I hate to break it to you, but the Kyoto Accord is based on science, whether you like that science or not. This is exactly the point: you don't like the science, and neither do most conservatives, because it indicates that a BIG business (fossil fuel based energy) is bad. Since those businesses have a fair amount of money, the Kyoto Accord is pretty anti-fossil fuel business.
Despite that fact, it is still based on valid science.
I remember the Kyoto Accord very differently then you do. The Kyoto Accord was signed by the Liberals at the end of a very unpopular Liberal term. The Liberals never made a plan of how to meet the requirements of The Kyoto Accord because it was impossible for Canada to meet it in the specified time frame. Signing it was a recognized political joke at the time.
Full disclosure: I voted Conservative for that election and Liberal for the one after.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You know what, instead, just read my sig. That might hit you harder than reality does.
In case you didn't catch the joke (made by a woman no less which makes it funny that feminists decry its usage) you're the whore (such as it is said.)
A whore for anti-science.
Re:Excuse me? (Score:5, Interesting)
We need to ignore people who went to school for climatology, because they are ALL out to lie to us.
How about this, you show me instances where a scientist has lied for personal gain, and I will compile a list of when big business has lied for ceo/stockholder gain. Who ever has the biggest list wins.
Re:Excuse me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it is, it's a completely falsifiable proposition.
A non-scientific statement would be, "It is right to reduce carbon emissions," or "It is not in our best interest to restrain global warming regardless of the cost."
Re:Excuse me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Science is a method not an outcome and as such is amoral. "We must reduce carbon emissions in order to reverse global warming", is not a scientific statement.
You're obviously right. Similarly "you should step off the tracks before that freight train barreling along kills you" is not a scientific statement. However "if you don't step off the tracks before that freight train arrives then you will die" is a scientific statement. Many people think the recommendation to step off the tracks is obviously, if not scientifically, a reasonable recommendation under those circumstances. Some may disagree.
Re:Excuse me? (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately, climate science isn't capable of making even that statement. All it can say is that continued carbon emissions will lead to modest and gradual temperature increases. Whether those are good or bad is purely speculation at this point.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Excuse me? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a very interesting movie about farmed salmon in BC and the ISA virus (an internationally reportable virus like mad cow). http://salmonconfidential.ca/ [salmonconfidential.ca]
Basically, the Canadian government, despite highly reputable testing, continues to deny that there is ISA and other viruses in the farms, muzzles the scientist who published research on the topic, and almost passed a law making it a felony to report on infections in livestock/farmed fish. All the while, native stocks of salmon plummet due to diseases that fill the narrow passageways in which the farms are located. And no, you can't just replace wild salmon with farmed salmon -- unless you're going to truck them out to the forest and dump them because even the trees get fertilized by dead fish that bears leave around after eating the eggs (and then of course there are Orcas and seals to feed etc. etc). The rivers can provide nutrients to an entire ecosystem including people -- farmed salmon destroy that but provide profit for big business. With most fishermen being small time business people -- guess which wins. http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/fw580/pdf/15.%20MDN%20riparian.pdf [oregonstate.edu]
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I guess I was inarticulate -- ISA is internationally reportable "like" mad cow is internationally reportable (not that it is like mad cow). The upshot is that when cattle are suffering from mad cow, you can't export the meat. When farmed salmon are suffering from ISA, you can't export the meat. Protecting exports is why the Canadian government is trying to hide it's ISA problem.
The sad thing is, if you take infected fish home and wash it before cooking, there is a possibility that ISA then ends up
Re:Excuse me? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's possibly more accurate to say the Conservative government here is anti-information, or anti-data. Anti-science is just part of that.
Eliminating the mandatory long-form census has made some data entirely unusable. It went from 94% participation to somewhere in the 60% range. Some areas of the country now have no information by which to base decisions on. You can correct--to a certain extent--for discrepancies that occur in large population centres where the participation rate wasn't bad and you have good anchor data from past years, but this last census was supposed to form the basis of NEW anchor data.
Statistics is science. Information collection is critical in a country as spread out and diverse as Canada.
But again, this is just one more thing on the pile. Muzzling scientists, shutting down a world-class lakes research facility (that only cost $20 million/year to run--the Conservative government has spent twice as much on advertising about how good a job they've done with the economy, and they haven't really done a great job there), ignoring scientific advice from all quarters, etc. The list is long, and it all has the same common thread throughout it: "we don't care what the data says, and if we can make sure that nobody else sees the data, they can't accuse us of making decisions that are contrary to the data".
Re:Excuse me? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure you're seeing a bias by the author as much as a list of actions by the Conservatives (which are generally anti-liberal, anti-environmentalist, and pro-business political moves).
This head of the Nuclear regulatory agency got fired over controversy that led to an important research reactor (that manufactured important medical isotopes) being shut down for a while over safety issues. The minister eventually fired the head of the agency and the government forced the reactor to restart. Overall most people felt the reactor should keep running (and I'd agree). Either way I'm not sure I'd really call it an attack on science as much as a struggle over agency independence. Looking through the article (from 2008) I found this fun little tidbit
A ministerial directive on Dec. 10 ordered the CNSC to reopen the site. The agency refused, insisting a backup safety system be installed to prevent the risk of a meltdown during an earthquake or other disaster.
Too bad she couldn't have found a job in Fukushima.
Discontinuing a mandatory census?
Stopping the collection of good scientific data in favour of some fuzzy ideological principals? Since then we've had a few provincial elections where the polls turned out to be completely inaccurate, I wouldn't be surprised if that was related.
Rolling back environmental regulations? Withdraw from Kyoto Accord? Changes to fisheries regulations?
Environmental regs are largely suggested by science, as are carbon emission regs and regs to keep fisheries healthy.
Frankly the message I get from this is they care more about the short term economic impact than the environment, and combined with their other actions in gutting research and muzzling scientists there seems to be an active effort to cripple science so that science can't contradict their policies.
Hand wring much? (Score:2, Insightful)
Go read the list, and see if you think more than a small minority of those items affect real science in any real way.
There are a few, to be sure, but most of them are trimming of non-science paper-shuffling jobs, a shocking number
of which seem to only employ journalism majors.
Closing a Downtown Vancouver coast guard station? Really?
Re:Hand wring much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Closing a Downtown Vancouver coast guard station? Really?
Where do you think the data to do the science comes from? Fisheries and Oceans has closes dozens of data collection sites just in the Maritimes region alone. It's awfully hard to argue that industry is over fishing or that salmon farms are contaminating wild fish stocks when there's not data to back it up and scientist are under muzzle orders.
Re:Hand wring much? (Score:5, Informative)
It was down town rescue station. Largely redundant with Vancouver Police and Fire rescue. There was no science done there.
It wasn't part of fishery management or fishing regulation. The 12 people were re-assigned to other coast guard stations, some of which actually do get involved in fishing enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the people in the Maritimes region that were "relocated" were then "work force adjusted" several months later, meaning the relocation was a temporary step to firing them. Then to claim "fishing enforcement" is the same as data collection used to support science!! Data collected in fishing surveys is used to determine how necessary services such as "fisheries enforcement" are, not the other way around.
You sir are off your rocker.
Re:Hand wring much? (Score:5, Informative)
Coast Guard stations do not do fishery data collection. Especially down town rescue stations in a busy port.
So if any one is off their rocker it would be the person claiming the closure of this station was anti-science.
Re: (Score:2)
I should say... my above comment is mainly in reference to my own country Canada.
If other countries have managed to cultivate a better scientific community, more power to them.
But in the case of Canada, and probably the US as well... scientists are simply not pursuers of science and truth, especially when they are in politically attached bodies.
Re:Hand wring much? (Score:5, Insightful)
What BS. Nobody has ever been jailed for failing to fill out the long-form census. It was mandatory and there were potential fines and jailtime in place, but if you go looking, basically nobody ever runs afoul of the laws. The census people just come and talk to you and help you fill out the form.
That participation is vital. As a result of not having it be mandatory this year, we now have big chunks of data that have to be completely thrown out. Something like 40% of municipalities in Saskatchewan have no relevant data this year. It's criminal. How do you make decisions in a country without data to base it on?
There's never been a freedom problem with the census. It's a red herring that the Conservatives used to tenuously justify a move so absurd, the head statistician of Statistics Canada felt it was his moral obligation to step down in protest.
An accurate census is fundamental to any government that's interested in actually governing. Without it, all your decisions are just shots in the dark. You can't set any metrics that determine success, because you don't even know what problems you're supposed to be solving anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
How is it any more criminal than forcing your citizens to tell you basically everything about themselves. Just because my government wants to know where I live, what my sexual preference is, and how much money I make, does not mean that I should be legally bound to tell them. It is not like they actually make policy decisions based on the greater good or peoples opinions anyways.
Re: (Score:3)
Even the most basic issues in government need good data to work with. Whether you're speaking of the Environment, Economy or Health Care, you have to know where the people are, what their needs are, and what the trends are if you want any hope of doing a good job.
A one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work here. Manitoba is not BC, and BC isn't Quebec. Trying to do anything governance-wise without data is folly. Like it or not, the government DOES spend money on programs and it DOES handle a lot of problems.
Re:Hand wring much? (Score:5, Insightful)
They just might not get the funding taken forcefully taken from everyone's pocket book to fund their research.
Oh boy, you're one of those types that think taxes are equivalent to jackboot thugs raping your daughter. This is going to go all sorts of fun places.
But no, it IS a war on science. The Canadian government has a lot of ways they can decide what to do. They can get a public vote, they can go with their gut, or they can ask an expert. You know, like a scientist. If they decide to get rid of that portion of their organization it's like they're waging war on that fundamental. If they, somehow, worked towards ignoring everything the populace wanted them to do, we'd say they were waging a war on democracy.
It's like if a programming firm decided to axe their QA department, you could say they "waged a war on testing".
What about the mandatory long form census. Do you wonder where that data comes from? From threats and violence against citizens.
How can you sit there and hyperbole like this and claim it's not a war on science? Are you the chosen one who is solely allowed to exaggerate?
Listen, there's this form, you have to fill it out. Do your civic duty otherwise there is a fine. Yeah, yeah, paperwork is a pain in the ass, but it's not the end of the world. And it's not jackboot Nazi thugs breaking down your door.
Considering scientists have become advocates of specific policies and ideologies instead of simply doing research, I'm in favor of defunding them as well. If all scientists did was provide the data on things like the fishery or global warming, more power to them. The moment they come in support of carbon taxes or any kind of policy, they are not doing science any longer.
When the science is screaming that the boss is screwing over generation of fishers just to get a couple of tax dollars, and it's your job to go do that science, you'd become an advocate too.
The longer you live in old age, the greater healthcare costs.
Scientists don't like to point that out because they have souls. You're literally suggesting we should let people die from health complications when they're young. Because it's expensive to take care of them in old age. Whoa dude. Whoa.
This is actually kind of an issue. The "hard truths" have a hard time getting publication and circulation because people, well, don't want to be evil. But since we're talking about policy here, I'm actually ok with the darker facts of life not being implemented. I mean, the euthanasia/eugenics/forced-sterilization crowd don't need much encouragement before they go all crazy. They're kinda already there.
Scientists being on the government payroll and being involved in politics has ruined any notion of objective science.
As opposed to being on the corporate payroll?
Or do you have unyielding faith in the scientists of academia?
Good science ain't cheap, and someone has to pay. Or you can live in ignorance (which is often more expensive).
There is a war on science and we're going to fight you.
Re: (Score:3)
umm..... (Score:2, Insightful)
What is actually happening here is called "balancing the budget". The funding of many programs have been cut --from sports to science. Why scientists feel their programs should be immune to budget cuts when governments the globe over are practicing austerity is a mystery.
Re:umm..... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:umm..... (Score:4, Insightful)
While I'm no great fan of Harper, that might have something to do with being in a global depression where every government is trying to borrow and spend their way out. Take a look at how much the national debt has exploded in other Western nations.
Science in this case is another special interest (Score:2, Insightful)
after public funds. The author uses the word science, but in reality what this boils down to is a political viewpoint not popular with the current politicians controlling the purse strings. I'm sick of seeing the removal of public funding for something being called a "war".
Re:Science in this case is another special interes (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo. Eisenhower warned about the Military-Industrial Complex, but everyone seems to forget his other warning in the same speech about the government-science complex.
At least 90% of the results I see from government-funded 'science' look to be a total waste of my tax dollars.
The other 10% form the foundation of our economy. Most of them were unintentional. Which is why anyone who responds with the above just looks like an uninformed fool.
Re: (Score:3)
Ever been in an ICU recently? All that remote monitoring technology was "government science" developed for space travel. This internet? Yup, More government science money. Use a microwave oven? Yup, government money!
Basic science research is needed to develop ideas and test theories that could later be developed into mass use products!
Re: (Score:3)
At least 90% of the results I see from government-funded 'science' look to be a total waste of my tax dollars.
Given a randomly selected tax-funded scientific research project, 99% of us aren't qualified to say whether it is or isn't a waste of tax dollars.
The big roundup of intellectuals (Score:5, Insightful)
The conservatives in power at the federal level in Canada have been figuratively rounding up all the intellectuals, scientists, educators, and scholars who do not toe the line. It is disgraceful and eerily familiar to historians, who BTW are about to undergo a government investigation of how Canadian history is to be taught [ottawacitizen.com] since the conservatives do not much recognize anything but their own mythology.
Status quo barring economic collapse (Score:5, Insightful)
This statement assumes that canadians will not re elect the conservatives again. Unfortunately, most of my fellow countrymen only care about one thing - the economy. Witness the recent election in BC where the BCliberals (really conservatives, just liberal by name) were super corrupt (head of party resigned in shame) and most people agree are doing a bad job, were re-elected. Why? They ran on the platform of creating more industry jobs, ignoring the effects of climate change, and selling off resources to china which they say will make us and our children rich.
Unless the housing market collapses, and takes the broader economy with it, before the next election, the conservatives will most likely win again. There are many theories as to why this is, but the fact is people have been led to believe that the government having closer ties to business equals a better economy. Thanks in no small part to the shit ton of propaganda (economic action plan = propping up construction sector) that reinforces this belief and glosses over reality. Science is facts, and the conservatives hate fact based policy. They base policy on ideology and authoritarianism. Its stupid and backwards, but thats been the state of canada since 2006.
alas, righties routinely deny bodies of fact (Score:4, Interesting)
in favor of their own clear and true vision of paisley pink skies and money trees in the gardens of "job creators."
facts frequently are at odds with their vision/religion.
I use the terms "fact" and :"science" here in the dictionary sense, that which has been proven through rigorous and repetitive testing and discovery.
falling off your barstool after a night of swilling "Old Reaganomics" and getting an epiphany, or something, when your butt hits the tiles is not a fact.
You can perform science without the government (Score:2)
Science doesn't have to stop when the government stops paying for it. There are other was to fund scientific research.
Re:You can perform science without the government (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
a) tragedy of the commons - nobody owns the fishery, thus nobody is responsible, thus it's in each person's best interest to take as much as they can from the fishery, and then it gets destroyed, or
b) the people who own the fishery are incompetent.
Ideally there would be a w
Re: (Score:3)
why would one group of people (the regulators) be better at deciding what another group of people should do (those who are being regulated)?
So you're arguing that we should deregulate murder because politicians aren't any better at deciding what people should do than murderers are?
If you plan goes against the evidence (Score:3)
Then the evidence must be suppressed.
- *sigh* this got ranty and unfocused, not goint to fix it now -
Example#1
This governments plan is to "solve crime" with a "hard on crime" agenda that is being acknowledged in Texas as not being the correct solution. The government also claims to be fiscally responsible.
So if you claim to be fiscally responsible yet want to setup and plan that is expensive and has been proven not to work you must deny the science.
The Harper Government has many many plans that ran counter to science. They slashed the census program which gathered data that was used for planning by all levels of govenment. Why they claimed it was because people complained, on file about 2 complaints in 15 years. Really it was if you want to throw money at pet projects you don't have to validate it against actual facts if the facts don't exists.
So yes this is a deliberate attack on science and it is required because they want to "govern from the gut".
In Canada our Government is Psychotic, and the general question is why have people lost faith in government? Well is because the government operates on faith and not facts.
Simple solution (Score:3)
I would propose this solution:
Show that the Canadian conservatives are just following what the American conservatives are doing.
If there's one thing that Canadian politicians don't want to be accused of, it's acting like (or taking direction from) Americans.
It's reasons like this (Score:2)
That I say "religion is poison".
AECL (Score:3)
A big one that is missing is AECL, or the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
Back in 2011 they sold off most of it to SNC-Lavalin. For 15 Million. They might as well sold it for 1$ dollar.
Hundreds of engineers and nuclear scientists.
Official:
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/media-room/news-release/2011/57/2138 [nrcan.gc.ca]
CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/06/29/aecl-sale.html [www.cbc.ca]
In case you are wondering who SNC-Lavalin is, Google them and see how many scandals they have been in the last few years, most of them to do with corruption and governments.
Ironically some of the scandals were in India, and guess where we sold most of our Candu reactors over the years.... India!
Anyway this isn't about Lavalin, its about Harper basically dumping our national atomic R&D. Remember Chalk River and the international shortage of radiological isotopes for medical use because it had to shut down? Yeah we kept the liability of that, but are not doing any research or design as to how to replace those 50+ year old facilities.
And on the tinfoil hat side of things: Despite what all the touchy feelies might think, we need atomic energy for our electric grids. Guess what the only replacement is for those things? Solar, wind, puppies, and positive thinking? Nope. Oil and Gas. Funny that. Alberta should like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)