mentalfloss Posted May 15, 2012 Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 “Why should taxpayers have to pay for more than 10 reports promoting a carbon tax, something that the people of Canada have repeatedly rejected?” Baird said Monday in response to the Liberal Leader Bob Rae during question period. “It should agree with Canadians. It should agree with the government." Baird admits Tories cut funding to NRTEE scientists to silence opinions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted May 15, 2012 Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 It's becoming more and more clearer, this is NOT a Conservative party is 100% lead Alliance-thinking gang. ANYTHING that harms or affect the oil sand, Harper will go to war. Isn't there anyway, the oil sands could do their thing and yet NOT harm the environment or reduced it, so not to do too much harm to the Alberta and the rest of the country? The pictures I see on the news reminds of the Mad Max movies, is money more important than the environment and people's health? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mentalfloss Posted May 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 The idea that we can sustainably develop the oilsands and maintain environmental stewardship is not something this government believes. They may say they care about a good balance, but measures like these are clear evidence that this is not the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted May 15, 2012 Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 Science should "agree with the government"??? How more bare faced can you get than this? We'll soon see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted May 15, 2012 Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 Science should "agree with the government"??? How more bare faced can you get than this? We'll soon see. Yes that was a pretty horrible thing to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted May 15, 2012 Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 If the science body was independent, how could the govt kill it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mentalfloss Posted May 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 If the science body was independent, how could the govt kill it? Ask Kevin Page. He's going to be gone soon as well for revealing the $10 Billion F-35 bungle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted May 15, 2012 Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 Ask Kevin Page. He's going to be gone soon as well for revealing the $10 Billion F-35 bungle. That is a pathetic dodge. Try again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted May 15, 2012 Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 Science should "agree with the government"??? Since when was taxation classified as science? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mentalfloss Posted May 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 (edited) That is a pathetic dodge. Try again. It's pathetic that he's independent? Or that he disagrees with the government? Edited May 15, 2012 by mentalfloss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted May 15, 2012 Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 If the science body was independent, how could the govt kill it? Assume they get their funding from government, but their science is supposed to be honest, not ideologically based. From the article- "The NRTEE was created by Tory Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1988. It was intended to bring together leading academics, the environmental movement and industry to provide non-partisan research. It had strongly warned about the economic risks of not addressing climate change. It’s been given one year to wind up operations at a savings of about $5.5-million a year." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted May 15, 2012 Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 (edited) It's becoming more and more clearer, this is NOT a Conservative party is 100% lead Alliance-thinking gang. ANYTHING that harms or affect the oil sand, Harper will go to war. Isn't there anyway, the oil sands could do their thing and yet NOT harm the environment or reduced it, so not to do too much harm to the Alberta and the rest of the country? The pictures I see on the news reminds of the Mad Max movies, is money more important than the environment and people's health? The pic's I see. LOL MSM just loves guys like you, you would believe anything they tell you. Like the 1500 ducks killed at the ponds, the left went nuts, but not a word out of any of you when millions of birds and bats get killed by wind turbines. A buddy of mine was a surveyer at the tarsands and when he started you could see the glows of the brush fires that burned for months, when he left most were grinding it up. The oil sands them selves are doing what they can to get it right. And It is harper's job to protect out economy. Edited May 15, 2012 by PIK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mentalfloss Posted May 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 (edited) Without amendment or correction, John Baird’s warning that a carbon tax would kill your family is now preserved for eternity in Hansard. Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is making government more accountable, living within our means and focusing on the priorities which is what Canadians elected us to do. We are keeping taxes low. We are increasing funds to hospitals, health care and education. These are the priorities that Canadians have identified. Why should taxpayers have to pay for more than 10 reports promoting a carbon tax, something which the people of Canada have repeatedly rejected? That is a message the Liberal Party just will not accept. It should agree with Canadians. It should agree with the government to no discussion of a carbon tax that would kill and hurt Canadian families. Families in Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia, Colorado, California, Maryland, South Africa, India, Australia, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland perhaps receive this warning too late. The carbon tax: history’s greatest monster Edited May 15, 2012 by mentalfloss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted May 15, 2012 Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 Assume they get their funding from government, but their science is supposed to be honest, not ideologically based. From the article- "The NRTEE was created by Tory Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1988. It was intended to bring together leading academics, the environmental movement and industry to provide non-partisan research. It had strongly warned about the economic risks of not addressing climate change. It’s been given one year to wind up operations at a savings of about $5.5-million a year." If they get funding from the govt, then they are not independent. The OP title is delibertaely misleading and motivated by ideology. An independent body would be free to pursue whatever science they wish without constraint. I doubt that such an isntitution exists anywhere in corporate, govt or academia. Somebody somewhere always pays and that payer always has a direction and an agenda that is reflected in funding decisions. So all science has an 'ideological ' base. By far the most common one is capitalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted May 15, 2012 Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 If they get funding from the govt, then they are not independent. The OP title is delibertaely misleading and motivated by ideology. An independent body would be free to pursue whatever science they wish without constraint. I doubt that such an isntitution exists anywhere in corporate, govt or academia. Somebody somewhere always pays and that payer always has a direction and an agenda that is reflected in funding decisions. So all science has an 'ideological ' base. By far the most common one is capitalism. Note key phrase, "non-partisan research". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted May 15, 2012 Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 killing research committees based upon not liking their findings is very bad governance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted May 15, 2012 Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 (edited) Note key phrase, "non-partisan research". Doesn't exist in our universe, or very very rarely.Unless you are independrently wealthy and accept no donations, 'nonpartisan research ' is an oxymoron. Pretty much all research has a patron. Edited May 15, 2012 by fellowtraveller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mentalfloss Posted May 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 (edited) They are independent inasmuch as we would characterize the auditor general or parliamentary budget officer as independent. Those entities are government (taxpayer) funded and are also considered bi-partisan and independent. killing research committees based upon not liking their findings is very bad governance. As per Harper, no less. Edited May 15, 2012 by mentalfloss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 15, 2012 Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 They are independent inasmuch as we would characterize the auditor general or parliamentary budget officer as independent. Those entities are government (taxpayer) funded and are also considered bi-partisan and independent. Quite so. "Arms length" is the phrase that comes to mind. Given that everybody needs to be paid to live, even priests, are we going to set the bar so that there is no such thing as 'independent' ? Effectively, making paid advocates and researchers the same thing ? My doctor and the advertising agency both are paid to tell me their take on McDonald's food but I woule like a way to distinguish between their respective motivations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted May 15, 2012 Report Share Posted May 15, 2012 Doesn't exist in our universe, or very very rarely. Unless you are independrently wealthy and accept no donations, 'nonpartisan research ' is an oxymoron. Pretty much all research has a patron. Having a patron, or source of funding does not mean the truth has to be slanted one way or another to suit the patrons bias. Some people actually want to know the real truth about a particular function. Otherwise, even if the answer is contrary to what they wish it to be, they would be wasting a lot of time and money going after something that's been deliberately falsified. I think the majority of intelligent people would be fairly pissed off if that happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mentalfloss Posted May 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) Looks like NRTEE has been busy waiting to release these final reports as their last hurrah. Both pretty damning in their determination of economic cost due to environmental laziness on the part of the government. Not thinking green will hurt Canadian businesses internationally Delays In Carbon Rules Mean Canada Is Locking In Emissions Edited May 16, 2012 by mentalfloss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted May 16, 2012 Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 It's becoming more and more clearer, this is NOT a Conservative party is 100% lead Alliance-thinking gang. ANYTHING that harms or affect the oil sand, Harper will go to war. Isn't there anyway, the oil sands could do their thing and yet NOT harm the environment or reduced it, so not to do too much harm to the Alberta and the rest of the country? The pictures I see on the news reminds of the Mad Max movies, is money more important than the environment and people's health? Remember one thing, Harper is only concerned about one thing and one thing only...Alberta Now would be a good time to revisit what Harper wrote in his Firewall Manifesto... http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes2004/leadersparties/leaders/pdf/firewall.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted May 16, 2012 Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 Having a patron, or source of funding does not mean the truth has to be slanted one way or another to suit the patrons bias. Some people actually want to know the real truth about a particular function. Otherwise, even if the answer is contrary to what they wish it to be, they would be wasting a lot of time and money going after something that's been deliberately falsified. I think the majority of intelligent people would be fairly pissed off if that happened. Incorrect and illogical. Every patron of science has an agenda, none of them allow the work they fund to simply drift about without direction. The people who pay also retain the right to control the money and assess the value of results, if any, from the research. Are you suggesting that the govt is instructing its scientists to come up with wrong answers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 16, 2012 Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 Are you suggesting that the govt is instructing its scientists to come up with wrong answers? Instructing them to shut-up if their answers suggest the government's policies are wrong amounts to the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mentalfloss Posted May 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 Instructing them to shut-up if their answers suggest the government's policies are wrong amounts to the same thing. Wasn't there a Nature report confirming scientists were being muzzled? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.