Scientists Muzzled

[The_Squid]

it's par for the course... you see this sharkman nonsense played out regularly throughout denier spiced CC/GW threads - apparently, there is right-wing science, then there is left-wing science! Who knew! Who knew!

Ohhh.... he means Christian "scientists" who discovered creationism intelligent design???

Sharkman... creationism is NOT science... and these were not scientists. So there is a good reason that they were "ignored" by the scientific community. It's in the same category as UFO's and sasquatch. NO evidence.... NOT science....

[cybercoma]

Well, read it a few more times...

What did the scientific community not care about? I don't understand how the "scientific community" cares about anything, since it's not a person. Also, I haven't the slightest clue how in a double-blind peer-review process anyone knows the religion of the author they're reviewing. So, I'm not sure how specifically "Christian" scientists would be targeted. Your post doesn't make any sense to me, so that's why I asked if you could elaborate. Feel free to continue along the completely pompous route though.

[huh]

This pretty much sums up what people hear from around the country when their region tries to get some attention drawn to their local issues, like collapsing fisheries.

This is why growing numbers of disillusioned Canadians don't vote or seem to give a shit about their country by the way, I mean who can fault them when their country doesn't give a shit about them?

Well hey, just convince all of those people working in that industry in that area to stop doing so, hard to kill the fish when no one is there to do the work. O but surely it's only because the rest of us aren't listening, not because locals like to work for a living.

[Bonam]

However, scientists are something different. People with PhDs do research and are supposed to be contributing to "new" knowledge. There's something unsettling about the government controlling what new knowledge scientists can talk about and what they can't. A scientist ought to be able to discuss and present their research with impunity for the sake of intellectual advancement and academic discourse.

What about research that is done by private corporations? The amount of money spent on science, research, and development by private entities utterly dwarfs the amount spent by governments. And most of the resulting advances are kept thoroughly secret until such time as any useful results can be patented. The ultimate reason for any entity to fund research is to be able to benefit from that research.

Only a minority of scientists work at universities where the ideals about the free flow of information apply. And even there, there is competition between research groups, between universities, etc, and new knowledge is tightly guarded until such time as the heads of a given project think it is advantageous to release. I've personally worked on many research projects where the detailed results of the science in question were presented only to the agency that provided the funding, and not to the general scientific community.

My guess would be that at any given time, the scientific knowledge that is broadly available is probably about 2-5 years behind the actual state of the art of research by leading researchers in the field, and that's just in fields that aren't considered classified or national-security related. In those fields, publicly distributed scientific information can lag the real state of the art by decades (often with good reason).

Edited January 24, 2012 by Bonam

[cybercoma]

I don't see how R&D for private companies is pertinent here. We're talking about scientists working for the government. Unless the government is no longer a public institution, your point is irrelevant.

[Bonam]

I don't see how R&D for private companies is pertinent here. We're talking about scientists working for the government. Unless the government is no longer a public institution, your point is irrelevant.

The military is part of the government. Is information on their research publicly available?

My point is that most science that's done nowadays in the world is not publicly available. So I'm just confronting the notion that scientific information is expected to be immediately fully released. It's just not the case for most science.

[eyeball]

Well hey, just convince all of those people working in that industry in that area to stop doing so, hard to kill the fish when no one is there to do the work. O but surely it's only because the rest of us aren't listening, not because locals like to work for a living.

Living up to your name again huh?

[cybercoma]

The military is part of the government. Is information on their research publicly available?

My point is that most science that's done nowadays in the world is not publicly available. So I'm just confronting the notion that scientific information is expected to be immediately fully released. It's just not the case for most science.

Again, you're talking about R&D, which is something entirely different.

[jacee]

I imagine this is standard practice. The government wants to control the message and I can see why.

But we definately need to have rigid rules around what the government can keep from us. That information is our property and we own it.

As usual dre, you cut right to the heart of the matter.

Indeed, WE own the information. Harper truly has lost perspective on who he works for.

[TimG]

But we definately need to have rigid rules around what the government can keep from us. That information is our property and we own it.

I have stayed out of this dicussion but the pathetic hypocrisy of the lefty types in is thread is too much to take. One of the biggest revelations in the Climategate emails was how scientists actively conspired to keep data (not emails) from their critics. They lied to the information commissioners then they deleted emails to cover up their lies yet the same people whining about the restrictions placed by the Harper government defended the dishonesty of scientists and claimed sceptics had no right to the information they were asking for. Bloody pathetic.

Either you take the position that all publicly funded materials should be made available to everyone or you accept arbitrary restrictions based on what the people control the data want. This 'we want open access for us - but secrecy for everyone else' attitude is ridiculous and unsupportable.

Edited January 24, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

I have stayed out of this dicussion but the pathetic hypocrisy of the lefty types in is thread is too much to take. One of the biggest revelations in the Climategate emails was how scientists actively conspired to keep data (not emails) from their critics. They lied to the information commissioners then they deleted emails to cover up their lies yet the same people whining about the restrictions placed by the Harper government defended the dishonesty of scientists and claimed sceptics had no right to the information they were asking for. Bloody pathetic.

Either you take the position that all publicly funded materials should be made available to everyone or you accept arbitrary restrictions based on what the people control the data want. This 'we want open access for us - but secrecy for everyone else' attitude is ridiculous and unsupportable.

per norm, you've twisted this to pump your frenzy over old-news Hackergate. Even if your BS had any credence you're talking about a handful of scientists... if you care to flog your hobby-horse further, there are dedicated Hackergate threads... threads that have spoken directly to the ongoing FOI harassment crusade that deniers trumpeted against CRU.

this is not a discussion about access to government data, no matter how hard you try to twist to suit your agenda. This is a discussion about the systematic efforts by Harper Conservatives to deny media access to government scientists... to control the ability for government scientists to interact with media - to muzzle government scientists.

[TimG]

threads that have spoken directly to the ongoing FOI harassment crusade that deniers trumpeted against CRU.

Claims which are absolutely false but is pointless explaining the actual chronology of events to eco-fanatics who don't care about truth or facts.

threads This is a discussion about the systematic efforts by Harper Conservatives to deny media access to government scientists.

Yet no one has provided any compelling reason for why employees of the government should have unfettered access to the media. If anything, the example of climate science shows how scientists will regularly misrepresent the results of their research in order to attract media attention and the public would be better served by requiring scientists to limit themselves to journal publications.

[waldo]

Claims which are absolutely false but is pointless explaining the actual chronology of events to eco-fanatics who don't care about truth or facts.

the facts have been addressed, several times now, through the assortment of MLW Hackergate threads... as I said, if you care to resurrect your fevered hobby-horse obsession, renew the threads. Much to your ongoing distress, the real world has moved on past the nothingness of Hackergate. Take it outside (this thread).

Yet no one has provided any compelling reason for why employees of the government should have unfettered access to the media. If anything, the example of climate science shows how scientists will regularly misrepresent the results of their research in order to attract media attention and the public would be better served by requiring scientists to limit themselves to journal publications.

the principal focus is media access to government scientists... a past traditional outlet/avenue for media has been squashed by Harper Conservatives. It's all about controlling the message, don't ya know?

I've run you ragged over your (same) nonsense - as in the past, I am most prepared to present representative accounts of just how those formalized entities advocating CC/AGW denial regularly manipulate their "message" into the mainstream media.

if you care to once again make claims about climate scientists manipulating research, resurrect an appropriate MLW climate change related thread... sure you can!

[TimG]

the facts have been addressed, several times now, through the assortment

This is an example of you making crap up (otherwise known a lying) to create a false narrative. The irrefutable facts are that sceptics only resorted to FOIs because their polite requests for data were refused.

the principal focus is media access to government scientists... a past traditional outlet/avenue for media has been squashed by Harper Conservatives. It's all about controlling the message, don't ya know?

Yes - it is about controlling the message and why should employees of the government decide what that message is? No one is stopping scientists from publishing papers so you can't argue that the science is being suppressed.

[sharkman]

I have stayed out of this dicussion but the pathetic hypocrisy of the lefty types in is thread is too much to take. One of the biggest revelations in the Climategate emails was how scientists actively conspired to keep data (not emails) from their critics. They lied to the information commissioners then they deleted emails to cover up their lies yet the same people whining about the restrictions placed by the Harper government defended the dishonesty of scientists and claimed sceptics had no right to the information they were asking for. Bloody pathetic.

Either you take the position that all publicly funded materials should be made available to everyone or you accept arbitrary restrictions based on what the people control the data want. This 'we want open access for us - but secrecy for everyone else' attitude is ridiculous and unsupportable.

Very true.

The sad part is so many on the left see nothing at all wrong with this. You know what? There is nothing new under the sun, this type of thing has been going on since the flat earth theory was popular and the round earthers were scorned and persecuted.

[waldo]

This is an example of you making crap up (otherwise known a lying) to create a false narrative. The irrefutable facts are that sceptics only resorted to FOIs because their polite requests for data were refused.

polite requests! Yes, and now we're back to your McIntyre parroting act. I am fully prepared to take this up again with you in an appropriate thread... we've been down this path before. However, for relevance and perspective on how you've shyte on this thread, just how many scientists are we talking about here... in regards to your "polite requests" and follow-up FOIs? How many... name them. Of course, your answer will most readily reveal your, as you say, false narrative. The one where you and denialTown manipulate a situation involving a few individuals and turn that into an inditement against all climate scientists, against all climate science, proper. And why? Simply because it's a way for you to purposely cast doubt, uncertainty, misinformation, disinformation and outright lies. You can't refute the science behind CC/AGW... so you resort to attacking the scientists. It's what you do, it's what you're about.

Yes - it is about controlling the message and why should employees of the government decide what that message is? No one is stopping scientists from publishing papers so you can't argue that the science is being suppressed.

no - this is about media access to government scientists to allow media an avenue to properly present information to the general public. It is most unreasonable to presume that media representatives have the wherewithal, the resources, the means, to attempt to interpret published scientific papers. Of course, something like open access to government scientists is a threat to your climate change denial... something about the science! What could it be... what could it be?

[waldo]

The sad part is so many on the left see nothing at all wrong with this. You know what? There is nothing new under the sun, this type of thing has been going on since the flat earth theory was popular and the round earthers were scorned and persecuted.

hey now... don't you forget about Galileo... you know, today's self-styled climate change denier!

in any case, you are MIA concerning your earlier comments about "Christian scientists" - I note a couple of posters wanted you to expound on your support for creationism.

by the way, since you've chose to, per norm, channel this into a left/right dichotomy, do you also hold a position that there is left-wing science as distinct from right-wing science?

[TimG]

It is most unreasonable to presume that media representatives have the wherewithal, the resources, the means, to attempt to interpret published scientific papers.

Yet when sceptics jumped on the inconsistency between the public statements of climate scientists and the statements in the Climategate emails the defence offered was that 'it is all in the scientific literature'.

Basically, you a shameless hypocrite. If you really want to argue that govenment scientists should have free acces to the media then you must also acknowledge that Climategate proved that climate scientists misrepresented their findings in the media.

Edited January 24, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

no - this is about media access to government scientists to allow media an avenue to properly present information to the general public. It is most unreasonable to presume that media representatives have the wherewithal, the resources, the means, to attempt to interpret published scientific papers. Of course, something like open access to government scientists is a threat to your climate change denial... something about the science! What could it be... what could it be?

Yet when sceptics jumped on the inconsistency between the public statements of climate scientists and the statements in the Climategate emails the defence offered was that 'it is all in the scientific literature'.

again - your false narrative! Notwithstanding the overt generalization and vagueness within your statement, if one were to give it any credence (which it hasn't), again... how many scientists - name them? Show clearly and precisely that your false narrative purposely casts a broad sweeping tarnishing accusation against all climate scientists, against climate science proper.

Basically, you a shameless hypocrite. If you really want to argue that govenment scientists should have free acces to the media then you must also acknowledge that Climategate proved that climate scientists misrepresented their findings in the media.

setting aside debate on the foundation of your actual statement, see your false narrative... how many scientists - name them?

[sharkman]

hey now... don't you forget about Galileo... you know, today's self-styled climate change denier!

in any case, you are MIA concerning your earlier comments about "Christian scientists" - I note a couple of posters wanted you to expound on your support for creationism.

by the way, since you've chose to, per norm, channel this into a left/right dichotomy, do you also hold a position that there is left-wing science as distinct from right-wing science?

No, I did not channel this into a left/right debate.

But the response to my earlier post is a perfect illustration of how the scientists I mentioned have been treated. The response was scorn, to belittle, and character assassinate me. Intelligent Design scientists face much worse treatment for having the audacity to follow where the data leads. Note, ID is not creation science. But this is in the bigger science community in general not specifically the thread topic, so Cyber can excuse this as off topic, as if thread conversations don't wander.

But it is an interesting comparison to see some in the science community concerned about being 'muzzled' only now, when some of their brethern have been experiencing this treatment previously.

[cybercoma]

This is a discussion about the systematic efforts by Harper Conservatives to deny media access to government scientists... to control the ability for government scientists to interact with media - to muzzle government scientists.

Not just the media. The article gives the example of a scientist not even being allowed to present her findings at a conference. This is one of the ways the academic community shares knowledge--they present and share their research, answering any questions other delegates might have. This is clearly an effort to propagandise science by crafting the message and controlling what knowledge gets talked about, how it gets talked about, and where it gets talked about.

[cybercoma]

But it is an interesting comparison to see some in the science community concerned about being 'muzzled' only now, when some of their brethern have been experiencing this treatment previously.

Who was muzzled perviously? When were they muzzled? How were they muzzled? For what reasons do you believe they were muzzled? You've already said this and still haven't answered those questions. I see you've backed away from saying "Christian" scientists now, but you're still imprecise about what you're talking about.

Edited January 24, 2012 by cybercoma

[waldo]

No, I did not channel this into a left/right debate.[waldo: your statement singled out, "so many on the left"]

But the response to my earlier post is a perfect illustration of how the scientists I mentioned have been treated. The response was scorn, to belittle, and character assassinate me. Intelligent Design scientists face much worse treatment for having the audacity to follow where the data leads. Note, ID is not creation science. But this is in the bigger science community in general not specifically the thread topic, so Cyber can excuse this as off topic, as if thread conversations don't wander.[waldo: "ID is not creation science"... I guess it's only coincidental that, as I interpret, (most) ID advocates are Christians who believe their god is the designer. As you say, in terms of the greater science community, in general, as I've stated many times over, science is predicated upon skepticism... legitimate skepticism. At the scientific level, the "scorning" you describe, plays itself out within the scientific methodology. If legitimate refutation of presented findings/data occurs, the findings are supplanted or rejected within the scientific community (ala peer review/response). The word "scorning" doesn't fit within the methodology.]

But it is an interesting comparison to see some in the science community concerned about being 'muzzled' only now, when some of their brethern have been experiencing this treatment previously.[waldo: it's hard to comment on your generalities]

[eyeball]

Very true.

The sad part is so many on the left see nothing at all wrong with this. You know what? There is nothing new under the sun, this type of thing has been going on since the flat earth theory was popular and the round earthers were scorned and persecuted.

I'm a lefty and I've been saying there is something wrong about official secrecy, questionable science and the destructiveness these build into public policy for years around here. Especially with regards to fisheries.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is a reason why fishing communities are like canaries in a coal mine, they are excellent indicators of a number of key factors. If fishing communities are healthy and diverse it means the fish and the ecosystems that sustain them are too. It also means the marine or land use policies that impact these ecosystems are sound and sustainable. It means the political processes in which natural resources and ecosystems are managed, allocated and shared are transparent, honest and composed of people and science that have integrity.

Look around folks, there are canaries dying all around you so it's definitely time for something new under the sun.

The state uses cameras and gps to monitor my fishing activities and to verify the data I submit to ensure I'm conducting myself honestly and transparently. Have you seen the scorn and persecution I'm subjected to around here, especially by right-wingers, when I suggest others, especially government, be subjected to a similar regime of transparency, accountability, auditing and verification?

What was that about flat earthers?

[CANADIEN]

Intelligent Design scientists face much worse treatment for having the audacity to follow where the data leads.

Only problem is that data only leads in one direction, and that is towards evolution.

Edited January 24, 2012 by CANADIEN