Conservative War On Science

[capricorn]

Cap I'm sorry I have to disagree on this. Considering the CPC ran on a platform of transparency and accountability this is an unacceptable answer. They should be embracing the media to show how very transparent and accountable they are. As it stands their hiding from the media, and clamping down on their MP's only serves to further incite the media in to a bigger frenzy. In short this has been the least accountable and transparent government we've had in a very long time. The big bad media makes me this secretive isn't a good enough reason.

Yes, thinking more about it I can see that avoiding the media is a disservice to the public and calls into question their motives. On a personal level, I'm disappointed in the official opposition. I'd like to see more substance on the issues and less partisan games. This has probably coloured my view of the role of the media in today's politics.

[eyeball]

Yes, thinking more about it I can see that avoiding the media is a disservice to the public and calls into question their motives. On a personal level, I'm disappointed in the official opposition. I'd like to see more substance on the issues and less partisan games. This has probably coloured my view of the role of the media in today's politics.

Why isn't it colouring your view of the party you support? If the government is keeping the media in the dark it stands to reason the opposition has no more to work with than the media. You're still only blaming the messengers.

Edited September 24, 2010 by eyeball

[capricorn]

Why isn't it colouring your view of the party you support?

While I don't agree with all their decisions, overall I'm satisfied with their policy direction. That was also my feeling in the days I supported the Liberals.

If the government is keeping the media in the dark it stands to reason the opposition has no more to work with than the media. You're still only blaming the messengers.

IMO the media has been more effective in holding the government to account than the opposition, especially the Liberals. That's the basis for the view I expressed that the media is a more effective opposition than the opposition parties.

[Saipan]

Yes, thinking more about it I can see that avoiding the media is a disservice to the public and calls into question their motives.

Depends on the "media". Why supporting Liberal mouthpiece like CBC or Toronto Star?

As for the science, where is the global warm up??? Didn't we waited long enough? We want warm up now!

NO GLOBAL WARM UP, NO PEACE!

[waldo]

Harper Conservative government accused of manipulating science news

The federal government engages in "unacceptable political interference" in the communication of government science, says the head of a group that represents both government press officers and science journalists.

"Openness is being held ransom to media messages that serve the government's political agenda," wrote Kathryn O'Hara, president of the Canadian Science Writers' Association, in an opinion published online Wednesday in the international scientific journal Nature.

The article comes during Right to Know Week in Canada, a celebration of open information that "ironically … comes on the back of new evidence of unacceptable political interference in the public statements of federal government researchers," said O'Hara, who is also the CTV chair in science broadcast journalism at Carleton University.

Public loss

Scientists say it is the public that may lose out when government science news isn't communicated properly.

Prof. Normand Mousseau, a physics professor at the University of Montreal, said communication is a key part of science.

"If I make the science, I put it in a book and bury it, it's useless."

With government science, communication with the public is particularly important because it's usually more relevant than university research to people's everyday lives and concerns, and may drive policies that affect their lives directly, said Mousseau, former communications director for the Canadian Association of Physicists.

It's also publicly funded, said Paul Dufour, who has spent the past 30 years working in the field of science policy for both government and science agencies, including the now defunct Office of the National Science Adviser.

"Taxypayers are wanting to know what happens to their money that's going to all these agencies and departments that perform research, regulation, health, safety, defence, etc.," he said.

He added that it is natural for all governments to want to manage and control outgoing communications, but the extent varies from government to government. However, he said the Harper government has been interested in management and control of information from Day 1.

"So one should not be surprised that that holds true for information related to science like any other issue."

"This message manipulation shows a disregard for both the values and virtues of journalism and science," she said.

[waldo]

from the journal Nature... no less:

Canada must free scientists to talk to journalists

Strict controls on what federal researchers can reveal about their work is a disservice to science and the public

This week is Right to Know Week in Canada, intended to acknowledge and celebrate our freedom-of-information laws. Some 40 other countries have a Right to Know Day, but we Canadians get a whole week. And you know what? We need it.

Ironically, this celebration of open information comes on the back of new evidence of unacceptable political interference in the public statements of federal government researchers. In short, the information policies of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper are muzzling scientists in their dealings with the media.

What happened to the transparency and accountability promised when the government formed the first of two minority administrations in 2006? Its stated communication policy, posted on a federal website, directed civil servants to "Provide the public with timely, accurate, clear, objective and complete information about its policies, programs, services and initiatives." Yet today, that openness is being held ransom to media messages that serve the government's political agenda.

[ToadBrother]

from the journal Nature... no less:

Canada must free scientists to talk to journalists

Pah... those are scientists and elites, ivory tower academics. What do they know about anything?

[waldo]

Pah... those are scientists and elites, ivory tower academics. What do they know about anything?

but they are not, for the most part, Toronto elites!!! They can be learning peoples muchly!

[ToadBrother]

but they are not, for the most part, Toronto elites!!! They can be learning peoples muchly!

Scientists are clearly all Liberals and NDPers, some are even Greens! You can safely ignore anything a scientist has to say, same with mathematicians. I've known lots of those university types, and they're all dumb, stupid and detached. I wouldn't go to a scientist with any sensible question, and I sure wouldn't want those screwy guys say anything publicly without our hero and Dear Leader, Stephen Harper, making sure that it's kosher and can pass muster in Lethbridge, AB.

[Saipan]

Scientists are clearly all Liberals and NDPers, some are even Greens! You can safely ignore anything a scientist has to say

Which scientists?

Suzukistas?

And where is the global warm up?

[ToadBrother]

Which scientists?

Suzukistas?

And where is the global warm up?

Yeah, us clever Tories will make fun of some TV guy who hasn't done active research in a longer period of time than most of IQ points. Stupid elites, what do those scientists know anyways? Bunch of fast talking jargon spewing fatheads.

[TimG]

from the journal Nature... no less:

Nature magazine has long since abandoned any pretense of scientific objectivity and regularly engages in political advocacy. They have no more credibility than Greenpeace.

If you want to hear a rant about out of touch scientific elites I suggest this:

http://archives.cbc.ca/science_technology/biotechnology/clips/3762/

It is by David Suzuki. He sounds like a AGW sceptic. The only difference is he is complaining about political advocacy on the part of scientists researching genetics. It amusing how his attitude towards 'elites' changes when scientists push policies which he is ideologically opposed to.

My personal opinion is every defender of the current batch of 'scientific elites' is only defending them because this batch of elites happens to saying things that they personally support. If these elites said something they opposed they would turn in the 'anti-elite luddites' in microsecond. In fact, we see this behavior when it comes to GM foods or nuclear waste. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Edited September 30, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

My personal opinion is every defender of the current batch of 'scientific elites' is only defending them because this batch of elites happens to saying things that they personally support. If these elites said something they opposed they would turn in the 'anti-elites luddites' in microsecond. In fact, we see this behavoir when it comes to GM foods or nuclear waste.

Not me. I have no personal opinion at all on the cause or effects of CO2 on our climate at all. Might be real, might not be. Im fine with the way that the process has worked, and Im happy that theres scientists that are skeptical of AGW and working to disprove it as well. Its the best chance we have of getting answers despite its flaws.

[TimG]

Im fine with the way that the process has worked, and Im happy that theres scientists that are skeptical of AGW and working to disprove it as well. Its the best chance we have of getting answers despite its flaws.

The process has largely failed. The scientific establishment (led by journals like Nature) have taken the position that they must create the illusion of consensus in order to advance the IPCC political agenda. This leads to bad science being defended and good science being ignored all based on how the science affects the political battle. The end result is we cannot trust the science because we cannot know how much it has been twisted by the political agenda. Edited September 30, 2010 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

Nature magazine has long since abandoned any pretense of scientific objectivity and regularly engages in political advocacy. They have no more credibility than Greenpeace.

According to a guy who hasn't been in active research in decades? I'll wait and see what the majority of working scientists say, thanks. There's be no such outcry from anywhere else. I mean, I've heard of shooting the messenger, but proclaiming that Nature doesn't have scientific objectivity is absurdity at the extreme.

You clearly have your axes to grind, but I openly challenge you right now to provide any real evidence of what you say beyond a small band of malcontents. Come on, Tim. You're basically saying probably the most important scientific journal out there is in the business of fabrication and propping up of orthodoxies, and yet I'll wager your interest lies no further than the AGW debate. Nature frequently publishes articles that overturn orthodoxies (elsewhere on MLW there was talk about H. floriensis for instance, which certainly caused no small upheaval in the human origins department. For your claim to be the least bit valid, you would have demonstrate this "elitism" in all the various articles published in the journal, and not just in the field of research you have a problem with.

Edited September 30, 2010 by ToadBrother

[TimG]

I mean, I've heard of shooting the messenger, but proclaiming that Nature doesn't have scientific objectivity is absurdity at the extreme.

Any science magazine that uses the word 'denier' to denigrate those who question the 'consensus' view in an editorial has zero objectivity. It is ridiculous to claim they are objective given the evidence available.

But yes, you are right that I am only thinking of the climate change issue. The problem is if a magazine is so obviously biased in one field which I know a fair amount about then how can I take them seriously in other fields? Would you if you found they were biased to the point of dishonesty in a field you knew a lot about?

Edited September 30, 2010 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

Any science magazine that uses the word 'denier' to denigrate those who question the 'consensus' view in an editorial has zero objectivity. It is ridiculous to claim they are objective given the evidence available.

Yes, it has an editorial section, where, oddly enough, op-ed stuff appears. That's not really your claim, though, is it? I'm asking for evidence here Tim, not your being pissed off because Nature's editorial team, in an area reserved for opinion, has an opinion. Shocking, they also have been known to call Creationists buffoons. Does that bother you as well?

This is like bitching because the National Post has op-ed pieces supporting Conrad Black.

I'm not even sure you know what Nature is. You talk about it like its Scientific American or Astronomy Today. It's one of the major peer-reviewed journals, a quite a different beast.

Edited September 30, 2010 by ToadBrother

[TimG]

I'm asking for evidence here Tim, not your being pissed off because Nature's editorial team, in an area reserved for opinion, has an opinion.

In a science journal the biases of the editors affect what science is published.

This is like bitching because the National Post has op-ed pieces supporting Conrad Black.

Show me where goverments justify trillion dollar economic decisions by pointing to news items selected by NP editors and you might have a point.

I'm not even sure you know what Nature is. You talk about it like its Scientific American or Astronomy Today. It's one of the major peer-reviewed journals, a quite a different beast.

Actually, its status in the scientific community is the problem. It obvious bias puts pressure on scientists looking to boost their careers by getting published in nature. What scientist would bother exploring a skeptical angle of research if they know that whatever they come up with would be rejected by the editors? Since most papers submitted nature are rejected the biases of nature affect the types of papers that get submitted to the lesser 'second choice' journals. The fact that many of these lesser jounrnals have a similar bias makes the corruption of the scientific record even worse. Edited September 30, 2010 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

In a science journal the biases of the editors affect what science is published.

Show me where goverments justify trillion dollar economic decisions by pointing to news items selected by NP editors and you might have a point.

Actually, its status in the scientific community is the problem. It obvious bias puts pressure on scientists looking to boost their careers by getting published in nature. What scientist would bother exploring a skeptical angle of research if they know that whatever they come up with would be rejected by the editors? Since most papers submitted nature are rejected the biases of nature affect the types of papers that get submitted to the lesser 'second choice' journals.

I'm still waiting for the evidence here, Tim. You're spouting a lot of rhetoric, but if you want me to believe Nature no longer serves it's purpose, you have to show how exactly it is being detrimental in a large number of fields that it publishes articles for. So get to it, let's hear how cosmology, physics, biology, archeology, and all the rest are being undermined by the editorial positions of Nature.

You can save yourself more diatribes and just admit that you don't have any such evidence, but I suspect you won't, and will keep assuming that I'm going to gasbag rhetoric as somehow being the equivalent of actual evidence.

Edited September 30, 2010 by ToadBrother

[TimG]

You can save yourself more diatribes and just admit that you don't have any such evidence, but I suspect you won't, and will keep assuming that I'm going to gasbag rhetoric as somehow being the equivalent of actual evidence.

Evidence for what? My opinion? It is my opinion that is hardly something that needs proving. I can point you to the nature editorials which I find offensive and lead me to believe that nature is biased but proving bias is tough to do in the best of cases even when it is painfully obvious. If you want to believe that nature is not biased then no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise. If I asked you would also find it impossible to show that nature is unbiased.

That said here is an artical about bias in jounrnals:

http://www.economist.com/node/12376658

The same thing may be happening in scientific publishing, according to a new analysis. With so many scientific papers chasing so few pages in the most prestigious journals, the winners could be the ones most likely to oversell themselvesto trumpet dramatic or important results that later turn out to be false. This would produce a distorted picture of scientific knowledge, with less dramatic (but more accurate) results either relegated to obscure journals or left unpublished.

...

It starts with the nuts and bolts of scientific publishing. Hundreds of thousands of scientific researchers are hired, promoted and funded according not only to how much work they produce, but also to where it gets published. For many, the ultimate accolade is to appear in a journal like Nature or Science. Such publications boast that they are very selective, turning down the vast majority of papers that are submitted to them.

...

The assumption is that, as a result, such journals publish only the best scientific work. But Dr Ioannidis and his colleagues argue that the reputations of the journals are pumped up by an artificial scarcity of the kind that keeps diamonds expensive. And such a scarcity, they suggest, can make it more likely that the leading journals will publish dramatic, but what may ultimately turn out to be incorrect, research.

Edited September 30, 2010 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

Evidence for what? My opinion? It is my opinion that is hardly something that needs proving. I can point you to the nature editorials which I find offensive and lead me to believe that nature is biased but proving bias is tough to do in the best of cases even when it is painfully obvious. If you want to believe that nature is not biased then no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise. If I asked you would also find it impossible to show that nature is unbiased.

Translation: I'll huff and I'll puff... but not much comes out.

That said here is an artical about bias in jounrnals:

http://www.economist.com/node/12376658

I meant from, you know, actual scientists. Keep googling. Nothing like looking for evidence after you've made a claim.

Edited September 30, 2010 by ToadBrother

[The_Squid]

In a science journal the biases of the editors affect what science is published.

The only bias Nature has is towards good science. THey aren't fans of the bogus stuff... bad science put out by industry shills, those who believe science is an affront to God, etc.

That's exactly the kind of scientific publication that I want to read. The fact that they have an op-ed section written by the editors is great, whether I agree or not...

[TimG]

The only bias Nature has is towards good science.

Prove it. Show me evidence that Nature only selects 'good science' instead of selecting science that happens to promote the political ideology of its editors.

[dre]

The process has largely failed. The scientific establishment (led by journals like Nature) have taken the position that they must create the illusion of consensus in order to advance the IPCC political agenda. This leads to bad science being defended and good science being ignored all based on how the science affects the political battle. The end result is we cannot trust the science because we cannot know how much it has been twisted by the political agenda.

It is what it is. The scientific process has always been politicized and its finding polarizing, but its still by far and away our best chance understand the world around us. I dont believe its failed at all... its actually working like its supposed to.

[ToadBrother]

Prove it. Show me evidence that Nature only selects 'good science' instead of selecting science that happens to promote the political ideology of its editors.

And now we enter the realm of fallacious defense. The burden of proof is on you, my friend, not on me.

Your stock is sinking faster and faster. Spit and fallacy are not evidence, nor are they defenses. You've made a specific claim that would, in fact, effect far more than just climatology (which seems to be the one area of research you feel some need to invoke conspiracies about). Nature publishes a lot of articles in a lot of fields, and that would mean that entire lines of research in those fields would be questionable.

You seem unwilling to defend yourself here. I know why. You know why. I'm just wondering why you won't blink.

Edited September 30, 2010 by ToadBrother