Conservative War On Science

[ToadBrother]

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Tightened+muzzle+scientists+Orwellian/3515345/story.html

Frankly, I'd like to know the science that my tax dollars are paying for without the filter of ministers, particularly seeing the viewpoints on science that some current ministers seem to have.

[Shady]

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Tightened+muzzle+scientists+Orwellian/3515345/story.html

Frankly, I'd like to know the science that my tax dollars are paying for without the filter of ministers, particularly seeing the viewpoints on science that some current ministers seem to have.

LOL, this constitutes a war on science? Breaking News! When your salary is paid by somebody else, they will have final say on your work. I'm shocked I tells'ya.

[Sir Bandelot]

LOL, this constitutes a war on science? Breaking News! When your salary is paid by somebody else, they will have final say on your work. I'm shocked I tells'ya.

Breaking news, the government's salaries are paid for by you and me.

[ToadBrother]

LOL, this constitutes a war on science? Breaking News! When your salary is paid by somebody else, they will have final say on your work. I'm shocked I tells'ya.

Science only flourishes where this free exchange of information between scientists. If governments zip shut scientists mouths, how do you suppose knowledge will be furthered? Besides, as someone else points out, we're the people that pay these guys' salaries.

[Shady]

It's pretty simple. They can choose not to sign the non-disclosure agreements.

[GostHacked]

It's pretty simple. They can choose not to sign the non-disclosure agreements.

Then you don't get funding.

[Shady]

Then you don't get funding.

Then raise money privately.

[ToadBrother]

It's pretty simple. They can choose not to sign the non-disclosure agreements.

You didn't answer my question.

[ToadBrother]

Then raise money privately.

I see, so there's no benefit to taxpayer funded science, eh?

[segnosaur]

Science only flourishes where this free exchange of information between scientists.

Ummmm... after reading through the article you referred to, it appears that scientists are not bared from freely exchanging information with other scientists. They can publish papers, attend conferences, etc. (And, of course, any informed journalist writing for the mainstream press has every right to publish that information in newspapers, or talk about them on TV.)

The rules only appear to apply to situations where the scientists are talking directly to the media (which, of course, is not the way scientists exchange information.) It may or may not be a bad idea (while it does limit the spread of information to the public, it also prevents a scientist holding a minority position from being seen as "representing the government"). Just don't suggest its something that its not.

[ToadBrother]

Ummmm... after reading through the article you referred to, it appears that scientists are not bared from freely exchanging information with other scientists. They can publish papers, attend conferences, etc. (And, of course, any informed journalist writing for the mainstream press has every right to publish that information in newspapers, or talk about them on TV.)

The rules only appear to apply to situations where the scientists are talking directly to the media (which, of course, is not the way scientists exchange information.) It may or may not be a bad idea (while it does limit the spread of information to the public, it also prevents a scientist holding a minority position from being seen as "representing the government"). Just don't suggest its something that its not.

Why on Earth would a scientist be forbidden from talking about a 13,000 year old flood? Unless of course there are more Creationists in the Tory caucus than they care to let on.

[segnosaur]

It's pretty simple. They can choose not to sign the non-disclosure agreements.

As I pointed out in another post, there's probably no need for that. Scientists aren't prevented from discussing their findings in various academic forums. No information is completely "hidden". They just can't talk directly to the mainstream media.

Then raise money privately.

Not sure if that's a practical solution. In many cases, scientists work on subjects that may not have immediate economic benefits (even if it is in the public interest), so private money may not be practical.

[Moonlight Graham]

Breaking news, the government's salaries are paid for by you and me.

:lol: :lol:

awww man nice burn.

as for the topic, this muzzling is ridiculous, almost to point of being ridunkulous.

[segnosaur]

Why on Earth would a scientist be forbidden from talking about a 13,000 year old flood?

Well, one possibility is that someone (possibly being paranoid) was worried that the interviewers might attempt to bring up the subject of global warming, which of course is a politically touchy subject (since one of the effects of climate change might be an increase in sea levels.)

But the more likely answer is that they aren't specifically banned from talking to the media about a 13,000 year old flood. But since (from the government's point of view) they can't tell what topics will end up being politically sensitive and what ones won't be ahead of time, they put a blanket ban in place.

Do you at least understand that scientists are not prevented from discussing their results with other scientists, and can publish their results in peer-reviewed journals, and that your argument that this policy violates the idea that "Science only flourishes where this free exchange of information between scientists" is bunk?

[waldo]

excellent! A dedicated thread showcasing the political right/Conservative/Republican 'war-on-science'...

Bad science: Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause

In the case of global warming, this dissonance is especially traumatic for many conservatives, because they have based their whole worldview on the idea that unfettered capitalism — and the asphalt-paved, gas-guzzling consumer culture it has spawned — is synonymous with both personal fulfillment and human advancement. The global-warming hypothesis challenges that fundamental dogma, perhaps fatally.

The appropriate intellectual response to that challenge — finding a way to balance human consumption with responsible environmental stewardship — is complicated and difficult. It will require developing new technologies, balancing carbon-abatement programs against other (more cost-effective) life-saving projects such as disease-prevention, and — yes — possibly increasing the economic cost of carbon-fuel usage through some form of direct or indirect taxation. It is one of the most important debates of our time. Yet many conservatives have made themselves irrelevant in it by simply cupping their hands over their ears and screaming out imprecations against Al Gore... see MLW's Pliny!

Rants and slogans may help conservatives deal with the emotional problem of cognitive dissonance. But they aren’t the building blocks of a serious ideological movement. And the impulse toward denialism must be fought if conservatism is to prosper in a century when environmental issues will assume an ever greater profile on this increasingly hot, parched, crowded planet. Otherwise, the movement will come to be defined — and discredited — by its noisiest cranks and conspirators.

[PIK]

excellent! A dedicated thread showcasing the political right/Conservative/Republican 'war-on-science'...

CPC is more democratic then republican, no matter what your liberal masters have said.

[waldo]

Do you at least understand that scientists are not prevented from discussing their results with other scientists, and can publish their results in peer-reviewed journals, and that your argument that this policy violates the idea that "Science only flourishes where this free exchange of information between scientists" is bunk?

yours is a ridiculous premise... legitimate knowing mainstream media science writers are few and far between - for the most part they have recently simply parroted the loudest purveyors of denial disinformation, as funded by the likes of the Koch brothers. You would presume that the "what passes for lame science writers today", can simply tap into peer review journals... understand it and write appropriately? WTF!

in the past, direct lines of communication existed between such agencies as Environment Canada and mainstream media outlets... scientists were approached and could offer their opinions on climate science/events... Harper Conservatives certainly can't stand that kind of free-flow information, particularly when it may not line up with the Conservative party line. (see Stockwell Day's Barney the Dinosaur - hey?)

[ToadBrother]

Do you at least understand that scientists are not prevented from discussing their results with other scientists, and can publish their results in peer-reviewed journals, and that your argument that this policy violates the idea that "Science only flourishes where this free exchange of information between scientists" is bunk?

If they can publish, and such publications are available to the public (if they want to pay), what I see is a sort of half-way censorship, specifically stopping them talking to the public. Again, I think I, as a taxpayer, have an inherent right to hear what they have to say directly if they want to say it.

[waldo]

If they can publish, and such publications are available to the public (if they want to pay), what I see is a sort of half-way censorship, specifically stopping them talking to the public. Again, I think I, as a taxpayer, have an inherent right to hear what they have to say directly if they want to say it.

I expect you realize this... if joe-public had the inclination in the first place he would have difficulty in understanding even the clearest minimalistic abstracts (which certainly aren't written for completeness or, typically, non-scientific purview... one cannot expect the general public to have the 'smarts' to interpret scientific papers. Hence the need for key, knowledgeable, independent and unbiased mainstream "science" writers... those that can, at least, ask the right questions of scientists... those that can, at least, deliver factual information in a manner the general public can understand. Of course, part of this failing resides within the science community itself... and it's a recognized failing that scientists have been weak in presenting information for mass public consumption. That failing is starting to be addressed by the scientific community; however, having the Harper Conservatives throw up road blocks preventing the proper exchange of information between government scientists and the media is, obviously, the work of weak-minded Conservative luddites.

[segnosaur]

Do you at least understand that scientists are not prevented from discussing their results with other scientists, and can publish their results in peer-reviewed journals, and that your argument that this policy violates the idea that "Science only flourishes where this free exchange of information between scientists" is bunk?

If they can publish...

Ummmmm.. Yes they can. Once again, there is nothing in the original article which suggests that scientists are in any way banned from publishing their results in academic forums.

...and such publications are available to the public (if they want to pay)...

Yes, such publications are always a mater of public record. Many such journals are free on line. Others can be accessed at university libraries. Plus, any researcher (or science writer) will probably already have a budget for subscriptions to relevant journals.

...what I see is a sort of half-way censorship, specifically stopping them talking to the public.

Uhh... so? One of your previous points is that the conservative policy was going to harm science because it prevents the "free exchange of information". But your typical scientist is not going to use your average newspaper or TV broadcast as a source of information; they will go right to the original publications (which will be unaffected.)

Again, I think I, as a taxpayer, have an inherent right to hear what they have to say directly if they want to say it.

Perhaps. On the other hand, while its certainly possible that some "valuable" information might not be distributed in a timely fashion, its also possible that it might prevent marginal (and incorrect) information from being viewed as "government approved".

[waldo]

housekeeping

and the U.S. Republican war against science continues...

the dumbing down of Carly Fiorina - Apparently, you have to pretend to be ignorant of science to win a Republican primary these days

The

-- who is running in the Republican primary to take on incumbent Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer -- mocks Boxer for saying in 2007 that "one of the very important national security issues frankly is climate change."

After playing a clip of Boxer's statement, Fiorina faces the camera and responds, "Terrorism kills, and Barbara Boxer's worried about the weather."

No one doubts that Boxer made the comment. But we wanted to check the context of Boxer's remark and see if Fiorina was quoting it accurately. We examined three elements:

• How well-accepted is the idea of climate change as a national security threat?

Sufficiently well-established to have been been promoted by both the Pentagon and CIA.

A

Quadrennial Defense Review Report

issued by the Department of Defense in February 2010 states that "assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration." It concludes that "while climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world."

Meanwhile, on Sept. 25, 2009, the

CIA announced the launch of a Center on Climate Change and National Security

. According to a CIA press release announcing the launch, the center's charter "is not the science of climate change," but rather "the national security impact of phenomena such as desertification, rising sea levels, population shifts, and heightened competition for natural resources."

So while there is certainly room for disagreement about how big a national security threat climate change will ultimately be, Boxer is hardly advocating a fringe theory. The notion that climate change will be significant is being discussed at the Pentagon and the CIA.

whaaaa! Following up on this earlier post, more of the Republican war on science:

I've made reference, several times now, to the significance the U.S. Defense Department places on security and threats relative to climate change (the Quadrennial Defense Review)... as well as an earlier thread reference to the Annual Threat Assessment given to the U.S. Senate by the U.S. Director of National Intelligence... and the earlier reference to the CIA's positioning in regards U.S. national security impacts relative to climate change.

yup, all this strategic analysis, risk assessment and planning... all this concern... from spooks and the military. And yet, Republican nominee Carly Fiorina seems intent on continuing to attempt to denigrate her upcoming opponent's (Barbara Boxer's) like expressed heightened concerns.

what is it about Republicans that, in presuming to get elected, they feel a need to distance themselves from facts/science... to divorce themselves from past belief/comment:

Not long ago, Fiorina believed in climate change and supported efforts to deal with carbon pollution. On Fox News last year, Fiorina praised Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) for crafting bipartisan clean energy legislation to achieve “energy independence” and “addressing climate change as equally important goals.” Fiorina also campaigned for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in 2008 because he promised to “create a cap-and-trade system that will encourage the development of alternative energy sources.”

Fiorina has quickly dismissed her once-held climate change beliefs to satisfy the far right, science-denying wing of the conservative movement. She initially flipped, telling reporters that people need the “courage” to question climate change science. Then, she ran an ad mocking Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA) belief in climate change, with the narrator claiming that the world’s catastrophic changes in temperature are simply due to the “weather.” But now with Inhofe claiming Fiorina agrees fully with his belief that climate change is a “hoax” and that Congress must radically weaken the Clean Air Act, the metamorphosis of Fiorina into full right-wing sycophant is complete.

[segnosaur]

Do you at least understand that scientists are not prevented from discussing their results with other scientists, and can publish their results in peer-reviewed journals, and that your argument that this policy violates the idea that "Science only flourishes where this free exchange of information between scientists" is bunk?

yours is a ridiculous premise...

Ummm... no its not. From the looks of it you haven't even bothered to read and/or understand my posting.

...legitimate knowing mainstream media science writers are few and far between...

Which is, of course, completely irrelevant to the issue I was dealing with.

Toadbrother had made a very specific claim... that the conservative policy was somehow harming science by preventing communication within the scientific community itself. That does not appear to be the case. Scientists can still publish their work. And your average scientist is not going to be using the work of a "mainstream media science writer" as an original source; they will instead go to the original peer reviewed articles or conference proceedings.

in the past, direct lines of communication existed between such agencies as Environment Canada and mainstream media outlets... scientists were approached and could offer their opinions on climate science/events...

You keep harping on "climate science" as an area where scientists can and should speak... but I can think of other areas where more caution is warranted. For example, I'd hate to think of one lone anti-vax doctor to have their views seen as representing public policy when they are in the minority.

[waldo]

Toadbrother had made a very specific claim... that the conservative policy was somehow harming science by preventing communication within the scientific community itself. That does not appear to be the case. Scientists can still publish their work. And your average scientist is not going to be using the work of a "mainstream media science writer" as an original source; they will instead go to the original peer reviewed articles or conference proceedings.

did you even read the linked article. The perspective isn't from the standpoint of the scientist... the issue at hand is the access to government scientists by the media. Here, let me quote you the article title: "Tightened muzzle on scientists is 'Orwellian' - Documents reveal federal researchers, whose work is financed by taxpayers, need approval from Ottawa before speaking with media"

on edit: (a misplaced emphasis on scientific exchange (scientist-to-scientist) developed in a couple of earlier posts... again, that is not the premise of the linked article)

Edited September 13, 2010 by waldo

[ToadBrother]

You keep harping on "climate science" as an area where scientists can and should speak... but I can think of other areas where more caution is warranted. For example, I'd hate to think of one lone anti-vax doctor to have their views seen as representing public policy when they are in the minority.

A horrible example. No one in the research community took any of these claims seriously. The outrageous nature of the original "study" (it's hard to actually call it that) were long known within and outside the scientific community, but lawyers for families of the alleged "victims" had a vested interest in stoking the flames.

At any rate, we're not talking about advocates of a single study. Ultimately scientists do often communicate with the media to explain their work, and by limiting who they can talk to, it amounts to muzzling. If my tax dollars go to pay for research, my right to know what that research is outweighs a politician's right to make it hard to find. Considering that some of the studies, particularly with the revelations about the extent of bird deaths of the oil sands, or about toxicity, fly right in the face of certain politicians need to not have such embarrassing information released, I'd say that public interests are not at all served by this policy.

[segnosaur]

Toadbrother had made a very specific claim... that the conservative policy was somehow harming science by preventing communication within the scientific community itself. That does not appear to be the case. Scientists can still publish their work. And your average scientist is not going to be using the work of a "mainstream media science writer" as an original source; they will instead go to the original peer reviewed articles or conference proceedings.

did you even read the linked article.

Ummm.... yes I did.... but it appears that you have not.

Once again, the claim made by Toadbrother is that these rules would stop the exchange of scientific information; however, there is nothing in the article suggesting that scientists will be prevented from presenting their work in peer reviewed journals or other academic sources.

Heck, they even specifically mentioned one NRC scientist (Scott Dallimore) who had their work published in the journal Nature even with the rules limiting communication with "the media".

The perspective isn't from the standpoint of the scientist... the issue at hand is the access to government scientists by the media.

Which, of course, has nothing to do with the valid exchange of information between scientists in academic forums.

Here, let me quote you the article title: "Tightened muzzle on scientists is 'Orwellian' - Documents reveal federal researchers, whose work is financed by taxpayers, need approval from Ottawa before speaking with media"

Gee... what do you know... an article that uses sensationalist language.

on edit: (a misplaced emphasis on scientific exchange (scientist-to-scientist) developed in a couple of earlier posts... again, that is not the premise of the linked article)

Well, part of the problem is the fact that idiots respond without actually reading what the posting says. I've been quite clear in the fact that I'm dealing with a specific claim that the rules are interfering with the exchange of scientific information. I've stated that in every post. But instead of saying "You're right, its not interfering with the exchange of scientific information" I get a bunch of people claiming "my premise is wrong".

Here's a suggestion... Science can be hard. Before people here try demanding more access to "scientists", maybe you can actually illustrate at least a little basic comprehension by showing you can read and follow basic posts here.