Harper continues to embarrass Canada by muzzling scientists

[cybercoma]

ROTFLMAO

I posted a link that looked into some 13000 journal articles. If anything the exaggerations in there are probably the tiny fraction of a percent that are trying to deny climate change.

[ReeferMadness]

It's really simple. Want to make public statements on your own work? Go to work for yourself. Want to work for the government? STFU and do what you're told. Government employees don't speak about their work publicly, and they don't speak for the government, UNLESS that is specifically the job they've been assigned.

If you can't handle that, seriously, just leave. Obviously, you're not cut out for government work.

At this point, it seems like we need to introduce the concept of democracy. If you're unclear on the concept, that's understandable. We've seen so little of it in Canada lately. Here's how it works.

The scientists are not the employees of Stephen Harper or the Conservative Party. They are employees of the government and the government is supposed to represent the views of all Canadians. I would like it if the research that my dollars are funding would not be wrapped up and thrown away like yesterday's fish.

If Harper were less of a hypocrite and more inclined to provide the open, accountable government he promised, he would be encouraging scientists to share their findings with the citizens who paid for it.

[gunrutz]

your lack of displayed knowledge/understanding within GW/CC related threads speaks to any assessment you might have concerning presumptions on "exaggerations" made by government of Canada scientists. Don't hesitate to highlight examples - sure you can!

the many, many examples of Harper Conservative interference, intrusion, stifling, etc., are quite detailed - I've not read any challenge to the veracity of the details provided. If you have such countering understanding, you should step beyond your personal convincing level and provide support/citation for your questioning the accuracy of, as you say, "media reports".

this has little to no bearing on confidentiality agreements. This has nothing to do with the fundamental interference by Harper Conservatives in the knowledge transfer of science to the media... and, in turn, to the general public. I keep reading this prattle concerning confidentiality agreements! In the public vein, in relation to taxpayers supporting government initiatives, what type of science knowledge transfer to media/public could be so fundamentally requiring the need for absolute Harper Conservative imposed confidentially?

http://www.arcus.org/files/search/sea-ice-outlook/2013/06/images/summary/sio_june_fig1_final.png

Well maybe you cant count this as an exageration, hey, the canadian ice services prediction was only off by 1.3 million square kilometers, the uk office missed it by 1.7million.

[waldo]

http://www.arcus.org/files/search/sea-ice-outlook/2013/06/images/summary/sio_june_fig1_final.png

Well maybe you cant count this as an exageration, hey, the canadian ice services prediction was only off by 1.3 million square kilometers, the uk office missed it by 1.7million.

are you still smarting over having your claim of an Arctic Sea Ice recovery trend shown for its nonsense?

even before looking at the details of your link, a report on the end of 'melting season' isn't in yet... not sure what September focused prediction comparison you'd be making. Dropping the June report provides what comparative capability to measure a prediction? In any case, nice to read you include a yearly weather related predictor as an example that rises to your level of "scientific exaggeration".

in any case, that ARCUS organization is U.S. based and out of its dozens of voting and associate members, I see only 4 Canadian references (universities and university organization)... which have nothing to do with Environment Canada or any Canadian government organization. I thought this topic was about the Harper Conservative efforts to stifle the free-flow of information from Canadian government scientists to media/public??? What did you think this topic was about? If you're going to quote me, where I specifically speak to a request for examples of the types of exaggerations, "made by government of Canada scientists", the least you could do is respond in kind Of course, the underlying inference is to show some examples of exaggerations..... particularly ones that would be HarperConservative stifling worthy! Please try again.

[GostHacked]

Scientists and researchers say X is bad for you.

Later on you get,

Scientists and researchers say that X is actually GOOD for you.

Flip flip flip flop.

Also if you are a scientist looking at something that may influence national policy then you have the obligation and a duty to speak up.

[Bitsy]

If people don’t like working for the gov’t and agreeing to confidentiality they shouldn’t work for the gov’t. They should quit and work somewhere where they can talk about classified information.

I didn’t realize that climate change research was considered “classified information”. I thought “classified information” referred to national security issues not the climate.

[eyeball]

I thought “classified information” referred to national security issues not the climate.

Now it also refers to political security issues.

[guyser]

Now it also refers to political security issues.

I like that term, sums it up succinctly.

Reporter: What security concerns do you mean Mr Prime Minister?

Prime M: To be secure enough to have a job

[cybercoma]

Scientists and researchers say X is bad for you.

Later on you get,

Scientists and researchers say that X is actually GOOD for you.

Flip flip flip flop.

Also if you are a scientist looking at something that may influence national policy then you have the obligation and a duty to speak up.

That's not true. You have the media reporting scientific findings saying, "X is good for you." The scientific journal article, however, says, "X shows promise under conditions X, Y, and Z, but this study is limited by P, Q, and R."