Scientists Muzzled

[sharkman]

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

Some of it does, and some of it doesn't.

[eyeball]

Some of it does, and some of it doesn't.

Yes but doesn't this need to be quantified to mean anything?

For example...some 99% or more of it does while some 1% or less doesn't.

[dre]

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.

It SHOULD be publically available unless the government has a really good reason for keeping it secret (like your military research example).

My point is that most science that's done nowadays in the world is not publicly available.

Yup, we gave them an inch of secrecy and government took 1000 miles. Youre right... they are transparent about almost nothing these days, and there are billions of pages of classified and unreleased documents.

I would end almost all of this, and leave the government with a very strict set of rules on what they are allowed to not release. Disclosure should be the norm, and they should have to get a court order to keep our property from us.

I honestly dont know why they bother telling us ANYTHING.

[CANADIEN]

Some of it does, and some of it doesn't.

The only way facts (and that include data) do not lead to evolution is when people send it in the wrong direction. I still have not been made aware of even ONE research conducted in a SCIENTIFIC fashion that would convince me otherwise.

Edited January 25, 2012 by CANADIEN

[TimG]

Some of it does, and some of it doesn't.

Intelligent design/creationism is not science by definition because it seeks to find things that cannot be explained by science today, blames it on a diety and gives up. Science is about expanding our knowledge by trying to find explainations for things we cannot explain. The intelligent design does the opposite: it seeks to lock us into a state of ignorance by claiming that there is nothing more to know. Edited January 25, 2012 by TimG

[CANADIEN]

dup

Edited January 25, 2012 by CANADIEN

[sharkman]

Evolution occurs in nature. But it has not been proven as the origin of life. To say things like 99% of the data leads toward evolution when you are just picking a number you like out of a hat really does not prove anything.

To presume that the only instances when the facts does not lead to evolution is when the scientists send it in the wrong direction is arrogant.

I did not wish to pull this thread into yet another origin of life debate, all I said was that christian scientists have faced persecution for their work. Take it or leave it, it's just an opinion folks. Getting so worked up over a few words, if they are so obviously out to lunch, seems strange.

[waldo]

...all I said was that christian scientists have faced persecution for their work. Take it or leave it, it's just an opinion folks.

no - that's not what you said... what you did say was:

"Christian scientists have faced this kind of treatment for decades and the scientific community didn't care then so their hyper-sensitivity now seems political more than anything else"

and then you repeatedly used it as a presumptive rationale to support the Harper Conservative muzzling of government scientists. Of course, through all of that, even after several requests for clarification, you never qualified just what, 'kind of treatment of Christian scientists', you were equating to Harper Conservative government level sanctioned, directed and enforced, muzzling of government scientists. This was just another example of you trotting out an unsubstantiated premise; and when challenged on it, you simply back-peddle and state, "it's just an opinion folks".

[Bonam]

Evolution occurs in nature. But it has not been proven as the origin of life.

That's because evolution does not claim to be a theory that explains the origin of life. That's like faulting the theory of gravity for not explaining how magnets work. Different subject, which has its own theory.

Evolution explains how lifeforms change over long time scales due to a process of natural selection, not how the most basic lifeforms are first formed.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Bonam

[CANADIEN]

Evolution occurs in nature. But it has not been proven as the origin of life. To say things like 99% of the data leads toward evolution when you are just picking a number you like out of a hat really does not prove anything.

To presume that the only instances when the facts does not lead to evolution is when the scientists send it in the wrong direction is arrogant.

I did not wish to pull this thread into yet another origin of life debate, all I said was that christian scientists have faced persecution for their work. Take it or leave it, it's just an opinion folks. Getting so worked up over a few words, if they are so obviously out to lunch, seems strange.

When pseudo-scientists put forward non-scientific theories and claim it is science, when they claim controversies where there none, when they misrepresent what a scientifc theory is, when they reject well established science, the reaction they get is NOT persecution, no matter how much they cry otherwise.

[sharkman]

no - that's not what you said... what you did say was:

"Christian scientists have faced this kind of treatment for decades and the scientific community didn't care then so their hyper-sensitivity now seems political more than anything else"

and then you repeatedly used it as a presumptive rationale to support the Harper Conservative muzzling of government scientists. Of course, through all of that, even after several requests for clarification, you never qualified just what, 'kind of treatment of Christian scientists', you were equating to Harper Conservative government level sanctioned, directed and enforced, muzzling of government scientists. This was just another example of you trotting out an unsubstantiated premise; and when challenged on it, you simply back-peddle and state, "it's just an opinion folks".

I didn't back pedal, I simply summarized what I said. Interesting how you bring Harper into it though.

[sharkman]

That's because evolution does not claim to be a theory that explains the origin of life. That's like faulting the theory of gravity for not explaining how magnets work. Different subject, which has its own theory.

Evolution explains how lifeforms change over long time scales due to a process of natural selection, not how the most basic lifeforms are first formed.

I was perhaps over simplifying or poorly wording my thoughts. What I meant was that the exisitng theories for the origin of life can not be proven. They are simply theories. One such theory was that lightning strikes in mud somehow frankenstein-like created the first life. So the tried to re-create this in the lab but couldn't.

[jacee]

Evolution occurs in nature. But it has not been proven as the origin of life. To say things like 99% of the data leads toward evolution when you are just picking a number you like out of a hat really does not prove anything.

To presume that the only instances when the facts does not lead to evolution is when the scientists send it in the wrong direction is arrogant.

I did not wish to pull this thread into yet another origin of life debate, all I said was that christian scientists have faced persecution for their work. Take it or leave it, it's just an opinion folks. Getting so worked up over a few words, if they are so obviously out to lunch, seems strange.

It's irrelevant to the topic, which is about GOVERNMENT scientists being muzzled by the government, not Christian 'scientists' who can't find an. interested audience outside their circle of 'belief': Different issue, and I do wish you wouldn't derail this thread with it.

Official muzzling of science is a serious concern of corruption of research to serve a political purpose, using powers entrusted by Canadians to silence information paid for by Canadians.

We're in an era where science is increasingly controlled by those who have a stake in the results, whether it is politicians or private corporations.

Scary ... and extremely dangerous to the environment and thus our long term health and survival.

Governments and corporations have no interest in the long term thinking necessary to the survival of the human race, only short term profits and/or power. We truly need independent oversight of science reporting, accountable to the academic community and directly to Canadians.

Edited January 25, 2012 by jacee

[cybercoma]

Evolution occurs in nature. But it has not been proven as the origin of life. To say things like 99% of the data leads toward evolution when you are just picking a number you like out of a hat really does not prove anything.

To presume that the only instances when the facts does not lead to evolution is when the scientists send it in the wrong direction is arrogant.

I did not wish to pull this thread into yet another origin of life debate, all I said was that christian scientists have faced persecution for their work. Take it or leave it, it's just an opinion folks. Getting so worked up over a few words, if they are so obviously out to lunch, seems strange.

The origin of life is a different question from evolution. Clearly, all life evolved from simpler forms. How those simpler forms came to be is not completely conclusive. One thing is for certain though, God did not create everything as it is in the world today. Things evolved. If intelligent-design were true then God may have created single-cell organisms. However, that's a vastly different argument than ID theorists propose.

[eyeball]

It's irrelevant to the topic, which is about GOVERNMENT scientists being muzzled by the government, not Christian 'scientists' who can't find an. interested audience outside their circle of 'belief': Different issue, and I do wish you wouldn't derail this thread with it.

Official muzzling of science is a serious concern of corruption of research to serve a political purpose, using powers entrusted by Canadians to silence information paid for by Canadians.

It's not entirely irrelevant. The insertion or allowance for the super-natural in official policy has its modern recent precedent, through DFO as a matter of fact.

Recall the recent trumping of science by the super-natural in the case of the orca orphan in Nootka Sound a few years back. Scientists and experts were maintaining the whale should have been captured and placed in captivity due to the fact it had become habituated to boats to the point of being a danger to itself, the boats and people on board them. Local natives citing their beliefs in reincarnation pressed the case for letting nature take its course. It did and the whale died un-necessarily as a result.

In this case the trumping of science served a political purpose.

We're in an era where science is increasingly controlled by those who have a stake in the results, whether it is politicians or private corporations.

Scary ... and extremely dangerous to the environment and thus our long term health and survival.

Governments and corporations have no interest in the long term thinking necessary to the survival of the human race, only short term profits and/or power. We truly need independent oversight of science reporting, accountable to the academic community and directly to Canadians.

It is scary and while the case I just cited is an isolated one it does give an indication of how easy it is for science to be pushed aside by the super-natural when people's beliefs and emotions get into the mix.

I realize it's not the dark ages but at the same time I can't entirely discount the fact that so many people including those in power maintain a profound belief in super-natural things. That so many people can suspend their disbelief on the one hand must have an accumulative effect on diminishing the capacity or allowance for critical thinking on other things they're tasked with. Like understanding and dealing with reality for example.

It's no wonder to me that mainstream economic thinking still regards the environment of the real world as something that is external to the economy. This verges pretty close to the widespread pervasive belief that this world isn't as important as the one that is apparently waiting for us.

[cybercoma]

The news has gone international. BBC reports:

Speakers at a major science meeting being held in Canada said communication of vital research on health and environment issues is being suppressed.

But one Canadian government department approached by the BBC said it held the communication of science as a priority

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16861468

Harper's doubletalk is beginning to draw the attention of the international community.

[waldo]

Harper's doubletalk is beginning to draw the attention of the international community.

webcast from the recent AAAS panel discussion:

the very detailed AAAS press kit:

Session - Unmuzzling Government Scientists: How To Re-Open the Discourse

Across Canada, journalists are being denied access to publicly funded scientists and the research community is frustrated with the way government scientists are being muzzled. Some observe that it is part of a trend that has seen the Canadian government tighten control over how and when federal scientists interact with the media. As a result, media inquiries are delayed, and scientists are less present in coverage of research in Canada.

In 2008, Environment Canada ordered its scientists to refer all media queries to Ottawa, where communications officers and strategists would decide if the scientist could respond and help craft "approved media lines".

Stories written for the CBC, Postmedia news, the journal Nature and others have then revealed how these communication restrictions had spread to other government departments.

And the situation is somewhat similar in the United States. A recent article in the Columbia Journalism Review details how restrictive practices established by George W. Bush’s administration still hold under the current government.

This panel will be an occasion to better understand the friction between the media and the governments.

Are the tightened communication strategies symptomatic of a worldwide trend in public and private sectors? Are they justified?

How do obstructions in communications with scientists compromise science research progression and undermine democracy? And in the end, what can be done to improve the situation?

[olpfan1]

The news has gone international. BBC reports:

Harper's doubletalk is beginning to draw the attention of the international community.

LOL Harper cant muzzle BBC

let the spin begin

[waldo]

of course, Harper Conservative muzzling of scientists takes many forms:

Canada to lose its 'PEARL' of Arctic research

Canada's most northerly research station is ceasing year-round operation, a "draconian" move decried by scientists both nationally and internationally.

"Its closure shows a stunning lack of interest on the part of the Canadian government in long-term Arctic issues," atmospheric scientist Jim Drummond, at Dalhousie University, said of the loss of the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory.

"This loss comes at a highly significant time when Arctic conditions are changing rapidly: Witness the recent rapid loss of permafrost, the appearance of the first large Arctic ozone depletion last year and many other harbingers of significant Arctic change," the researchers said in a statement Tuesday.

"Without PEARL there will be no continuous active measurements in the High Arctic of many atmospheric quantities scientists believe greatly affect both our Arctic and the whole planet."

PEARL also has the most northerly Internet installation on the planet, was being used by Canadian astronomers working on the world's most northerly telescope, and has been piloting high-latitude-high-frequency communications in collaboration with the Canadian Space Agency.

Drummond said Canadians do not seem to realize how such science contributes to Arctic sovereignty.

"Having an occupied station 365 days a year, doing world-class science, participating at international conferences, putting papers into the international literature and being the go-to place when international groups want to come and do research in the Arctic — these things enhance Canada's sovereignty very considerably," he said. "And I don't think that's really understood."

The demise of PEARL will not only affect Canadian but global science programs.

"This will have a negative impact on our ability to detect changes in carbon emissions in the Arctic, and on our ability to validate high-latitude space-based measurements," said U.S. atmospheric scientist Paul Wennberg, at CalTech.

"The closure of PEARL will eliminate a unique set of High Arctic water vapour measurements that are essential to our global effort to better understand the atmospheric water cycle and its links to climate," said Matthias Schneider, of Germany's Karlsruhe Institute of Technology.

Biologist and acclaimed Arctic researcher John Smol, at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont., said it is a "real shame" to be closing PEARL as the Arctic is responding more quickly than any part of the planet to global warming.

"It's really the most sensitive part of the world," said Smol.

"Canada has a tremendous amount of real estate is the Arctic," he said. "About half our land mass is there and we are responsible for knowing what is happening there. And to do that, you need to monitor."

$1.5 million! That's it... Harper Conservatives just can't seem to find that $1.5 million funding to allow this most important, most significant research station to stay open and operate. But money for jets and prisons... no problemo! Shame!

High Arctic Research Station Forced To Close

Environment Minister Peter Kent:

"We certainly continue to support the concept of PEARL, but I certainly as minister of Environment Canada do not have a million and a half dollars in my back pocket," Kent said.

[lukin]

of course, Harper Conservative muzzling of scientists takes many forms:

Canada to lose its 'PEARL' of Arctic research

$1.5 million! That's it... Harper Conservatives just can't seem to find that $1.5 million funding to allow this most important, most significant research station to stay open and operate. But money for jets and prisons... no problemo! Shame!

High Arctic Research Station Forced To Close

PEARL is useless. Shut it down. Good riddance. A waste of tax payers dollars.

[waldo]

PEARL is useless. Shut it down. Good riddance. A waste of tax payers dollars.

certainly, you have no credibility here. Clearly, others do:

Dr. Andrew Weaver - Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis, Professor of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria

“This is yet another bad day for Canadian science. One of Canada's premier research labs is being shut down just when it is most needed. The Arctic environment is changing rapidly in response to global warming and ozone depletion. PEARL represents a major Canadian and International commitment to monitor this change. Its loss will have a devastating impact on our

understanding of Arctic change.”

Dr. Gloria Manney - Senior Research Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology & Adjunct Professor, Dept of Physics, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

“Measurements from the facility that is now in operation as the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL) near Eureka have been an important part of my research since the mid-­‐1990s, shortly after the facility began operations as the Arctic Stratospheric Ozone Observatory (AStrO). For work such as mine, which focuses on studies related to the ozone layer and chemical ozone destruction in the Arctic, the data from this facility are uniquely valuable. The location of PEARL is such that, during intensive winter measurement campaigns there, measurements are frequently taken inside the “stratospheric polar vortex”, a large-­‐scale band of winds encircling the polar regions within which ozone destruction takes place. Those measurements, including ozone and gases that play critical roles in destroying ozone, are, in my view, crucial not only for understanding and monitoring the processes involved in wintertime ozone destruction, but also for verifying the more global, but less precise and detailed, view of these processes we get from satellite measurements. Because of their unique features, the measurements from PEARL are being highlighted in several studies of the unprecedented Arctic ozone loss that took place in winter/spring 2011. I believe the lack of these comprehensive measurements during winter and early spring (including measurements during the polar night) from PEARL will be a grave loss to the research community. I sincerely hope that funding mechanisms can be found so that measurements from PEARL can be continued.”

Dr. Dick Pelletier - Director of the Centre for Global Change Science, Pricipal Investigator of the Polar Climate Stability Network, Scientific Director of SciNet, Department of Physics, University of Toronto

“The closure of the PEARL station is surely one of the most foolish decisions we could make insofar as the monitoring of our high latitude environment is concerned. The very significant investment in the instrumentation that has been installed there has fueled several years of data collection that has allowed Canada to begin to contribute meaningfully to the understanding of Arctic environmental conditions, especially concerning stratospheric ozone decline. To invest many millions of dollars in the development of state-of-the-art capability only to shut it down after a short period of operation makes sense neither scientifically nor economically.”

Dr. David Barber - Director, Centre for Earth Observation Science, CHR Faculty of Environment, Earth and Resources, University of Manitoba

“The PEARL laboratory is a critical part of Canada’s scientific infrastructure for the Arctic. Most people know about the dramatic reduction in sea ice in the north, the same for permafrost and the melting of our large glaciers. Many however are not as aware of the significant recent Arctic ozone depletion events and the fact that changes in the Arctic surface (either land or ocean) are directly coupled to processes which evolve through the entire atmosphere – starting at the boundary layer near the planet and all the way up through to the Stratosphere. Many people are also not as aware of the fact that changes in the Arctic climate are now affecting more southerly latitudes, including extreme weather and colder than usual conditions in Europe and southern north America. This short term lack of funding for this critical climate station is yet another example of why Canada needs a centralized Arctic strategy manifest through a new Canadian Arctic Institute. It is not so much a lack of funding which hinders Canada’s leadership in Arctic science but rather the coordinated use of these funds.”

Dr. James Drummond - Professor, Department of Physics & Atmospheric Science, Department of Physics & Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, and PEARL Principal Investigator.

“The PEARL observatory is one of only a very few located in the High Arctic. The loss of this station means that we will have a "black hole" over Northern Canada where the measurements should be. Canada makes sovereignty claims over this region of the Arctic and should be in the forefront of Arctic research. If it is a case of "use it or lose it", then we are definitely losing it. The rest of the world is watching how much Canada really cares about the Arctic. The answer is - not much.

There are many research programs that want to operate in the High Arctic. These range from Astronomy, through weather and pollution to permafrost and medicine. There is also strong interest in the region as a test-bed for a mission to Mars. All these programs are now being put back and the people working on them will have to find other work. Many of them will go abroad and are realistically unlikely to return.

One of my colleagues once told me that Canada had no science policy for the long-term but had a series of "bouts of enthusiasm" for various research topics. It seems that Canada no longer has much enthusiasm for this kind of Arctic research.

Climate change is moving very quickly in the Arctic. In many ways it will be the first place to show adverse effects. Temperature rises at PEARL have been recorded at five times the average for the planet. With PEARL closing we will be unable to watch these changes and learn what this means for the rest of Canada.”

John Streicker - Science Advisor, Northern Climate ExChange, Yukon Research Centre.

“Losing the PEARL station is a real loss to understanding the rapid changes, especially to climate, ozone and sea ice, being experienced in the High North. Changes to the Arctic have now become critical for Canada and the rest of the world. Unlike Las Vegas, what happens in the Arctic doesn't stay in the Arctic.

Last year, with the help of PEARL, we detected a hole in the Arctic ozone, similar in size to the Antarctic. This was a first, but the scientific community is concerned it will persist due to warming of the high Arctic stratosphere. Unfortunately with the loss of government funding for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, research facilities like PEARL will have to shut down.”

Dr. Kimberly Strong - Professor, Department of Physics, University of Toronto, and PEARL Scientist.

What are the potential impacts of this closure?

The closure of PEARL will have a negative impact in many areas. It will significantly diminish Canada's ability to make year-round measurements of the atmosphere in the Canadian High Arctic at a time when conditions in the Arctic are changing rapidly and the need for such measurements to help us understand long-term trends and atmospheric processes is growing.

It will limit Canada's participation in a number of international networks. PEARL instruments have been certified by several networks (Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change (NDACC), Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON), Multi-platform remote Sensing of Isotopologues for investigating the Cycle of Atmospheric water (MUSICA), and the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) and have been providing valuable Arctic datasets to each. These contributions will cease or be severely limited.

In addition to these networks, PEARL has enabled numerous national and international collaborations, as our datasets are in high demand, resulting in frequent requests to participate in collaborative projects. These collaborations will also come to an end. It will further Canada's growing reputation as an unreliable scientific partner, unable to maintain a state-of-the-art Arctic laboratory that has gained international recognition among atmospheric scientists, despite claims that we value the Arctic and claim sovereignty. It will demoralize our young scientists, particularly the graduate students and post-doctoral fellows who have received training at PEARL, and will reduce our ability to train the next generation of atmospheric scientists in Canada, particularly those that have expertise in Arctic issues. We are already losing some terrific young scientists to better opportunities in Europe and the USA. The lack of support for PEARL is sending them a sad message about the state of science in Canada.

What does the timing of this closure mean for our understanding of air quality, ozone, and climate changes?

The instruments at PEARL are capable of measuring a suite of products that are being contributed to data archives and being used to construct long-term time series, investigate atmospheric processes, test models, and validate satellite measurements. These data products include concentrations of trace gases, winds, precipitation, temperature, radiation, aerosols, and clouds.

Regarding air quality, PEARL is well located for measuring pollutants that are transported into the Arctic from southern latitudes by atmospheric circulation patterns. These pollutants include aerosols and such trace gases as carbon monoxide, ethane, and hydrogen cyanide. For example, we can trace enhancements of these gases back to forest fires as far away as Siberia. The closure of PEARL will bring these measurements to an end.

PEARL is ideally located for studying stratospheric ozone loss and recovery, as evidenced by our measurements of the record low ozone depletion in spring 2011. That discovery was made against the backdrop of 15 years of measurements; such long time series are essential both for deriving trends and identifying outliers. PEARL instruments currently measure ozone and a suite of chlorine, bromine, and nitrogen compounds that control the ozone budget, along with temperatures and clouds that are also important ingredients in ozone chemistry. Again, the closure of PEARL will end this measurement capability at a time when we need to know how effective the Montreal Protocol and its amendments will be at ensuring ozone recovery and when the links between climate change and ozone recovery remain uncertain.

Measurements of temperature, radiation, water vapour, and the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are all being made at PEARL. These are important indicators for climate change, but again, long-term records are needed for Arctic trend studies. These will not be acquired with the closure of PEARL.

[Guest Manny]

Sad day for Canada. Let's hope they find some way to fund it without direct support from the government. Hope the next government will be much wiser. But that decision rests in the hands of Canadian voters.

(As Manny has said before, with some regret, "We get the government we deserve".

[Wild Bill]

Sad day for Canada. Let's hope they find some way to fund it without direct support from the government. Hope the next government will be much wiser. But that decision rests in the hands of Canadian voters.

(As Manny has said before, with some regret, "We get the government we deserve".

This attitude from our government just illustrates one personality flaw with many conservatives. They are stodgy!

They tend not to be science buffs, because they think things are fine the way they are, whether its our present level of technology that is the status quo or if its horse and buggy time.

As per usual, our other choices are equally flawed. We have politicians supporting wind and solar power with huge sums of money long before these technologies are at the point of being self-sustaining, because they themselves simply are too ignorant of how the technology works! Or they think that big whacks of money will be guaranteed to "bootstrap" the technology to the point to where it WILL be cost-effective!

One of my favourite cartoons shows a manager with a flip chart, pointing to a box on a flow chart labeled "Engineering Breakthrough Here!"

It seems we just can't win!

[waldo]

This attitude from our government just illustrates one personality flaw with many conservatives.

yes, we've had lengthy MLW threads showcasing the anti-science predilection of conservatives, Harper Conservatives and U.S. Republicans alike.

[Wild Bill]

yes, we've had lengthy MLW threads showcasing the anti-science predilection of conservatives, Harper Conservatives and U.S. Republicans alike.

Well, it was Kennedy who got them to put a man on the Moon. Wasn't he a Democrat?