G Huxley Posted October 16, 2013 Report Posted October 16, 2013 (edited) I talked to a lady whose son studies ice core samples from the arctic, but lost his job because the Canadian government a year ago banned government backed studies of ice core samples. So the only way to get information on ice core samples is to get them from other countries. For the semanticy nitpickers: I didn't say the government banned all studies on ice cores. Merely that it banned government funded studies of ice cores as is in the government is no longer funding any studies on ice cores. Edited October 16, 2013 by G Huxley Quote
The_Squid Posted October 16, 2013 Report Posted October 16, 2013 They "banned" it? So if I want to go study ice cores, I will be arrested? Ticketed? How did they ban it? Quote
Bryan Posted October 16, 2013 Report Posted October 16, 2013 I don't know about ice cores specifically, but this government has actually increased funding for arctic studies substantially, and the current programs extend well into the 2018/2019 fiscal year. http://www.science.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=078AA8A0-1 Quote
Bonam Posted October 16, 2013 Report Posted October 16, 2013 I talked to a lady whose son studies ice core samples from the arctic, but lost his job because the Canadian government a year ago banned government backed studies of ice core samples. So the only way to get information on ice core samples is to get them from other countries. A misrepresentation of facts if I ever heard one. The government may have ceased public funding for a particular research project which lost out in funding priorities to other research projects (whether for legitimate scientific reasons or ideological reasons), but that is a far far cry from "banning" certain research. I guarantee you if that lady's son raised private money to study those ice core samples, or paid for his research expenses out of pocket, he would not be prevented from continuing his research. Unless the ice cores were being extracted from a sensitive ecological area. For example, the drilling of ice core samples in certain areas can contaminate subsurface lakes that have been isolated from the surface for millions of years, and drilling into them is banned in some areas. Quote
Shady Posted October 16, 2013 Report Posted October 16, 2013 If only there was an inquisition against hyperbole! LOL! Quote
waldo Posted October 16, 2013 Report Posted October 16, 2013 I don't know about ice cores specifically, but this government has actually increased funding for arctic studies substantially, and the current programs extend well into the 2018/2019 fiscal year. http://www.science.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=078AA8A0-1 oh my! Given your past MLW history of GW/CC denial posts, how do you 'stomach' those references to "climate change research"? Quote
waldo Posted October 16, 2013 Report Posted October 16, 2013 A misrepresentation of facts if I ever heard one. The government may have ceased public funding for a particular research project which lost out in funding priorities to other research projects (whether for legitimate scientific reasons or ideological reasons), but that is a far far cry from "banning" certain research. I guarantee you if that lady's son raised private money to study those ice core samples, or paid for his research expenses out of pocket, he would not be prevented from continuing his research. whether factual, or not... apparently you missed the wording within the OP: "banned government backed studies" Quote
Bonam Posted October 16, 2013 Report Posted October 16, 2013 whether factual, or not... apparently you missed the wording within the OP: "banned government backed studies" The statement is still wrong. The studies weren't "banned", they were merely defunded. Scientific projects come up for renewal of funding every year or every few years, and research priorities change. There is an absolute ton of science that people would like to do if funding was limitless, but it's not. Quote
waldo Posted October 16, 2013 Report Posted October 16, 2013 The statement is still wrong. The studies weren't "banned", they were merely defunded. Scientific projects come up for renewal of funding every year or every few years, and research priorities change. There is an absolute ton of science that people would like to do if funding was limitless, but it's not. research priorities change? Ya, under Harper Conservatives they sure have! It seems research with industrial tries/application potentials take priority today. The much touted CHARS, supposedly, has $200 million+ budgeted towards facility capital costs and research... and yet... Harper Conservatives, somehow, couldn't come up with $1.5 million to keep PEARL open/running. Notwithstanding the vital research being lost with PEARL's closure, as I'm aware, it was the northernmost research facility of any country..... vital data will no longer be collected! Instead, the wisdom of Harper Conservatives... with that industrial slant, see CHARS positioned 1300 kilometers south of the PEARL centre! as for your "lost out on funding" talking point, ya... for sure! The guy running PEARL (James Drummond), the guy who holds the Canada Research Chair in Physics and Atmospheric Science... said that in applying for grants (for renewed PEARL funding), he and his fellow scientists were advised to emphasize the industrial benefits of their research! Yes, clearly... research priorities change! 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. Quote
waldo Posted October 16, 2013 Report Posted October 16, 2013 lost out in funding priorities and research priorities change. yup, $1.5 million dollars worth of Harper Conservative funding re-prioritization that went against keeping the PEARL centre open/running.... cause, Harper Conservatives change... priorities! 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. Quote
dre Posted October 16, 2013 Report Posted October 16, 2013 The statement is still wrong. The studies weren't "banned", they were merely defunded. Scientific projects come up for renewal of funding every year or every few years, and research priorities change. There is an absolute ton of science that people would like to do if funding was limitless, but it's not. This is almost AWesque splitting of hairs. If the government stops funding all ice core studies then yes... they are banning government funded ice core studies. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted October 16, 2013 Report Posted October 16, 2013 This is almost AWesque splitting of hairs. Come on man, that's a low blow. If the government stops funding all ice core studies then yes... they are banning government funded ice core studies. No, they are merely choosing not to fund them in this funding cycle. My research project on space debris mitigation didn't get funded last year after having been funded the year before. Does that mean the US government has banned research on space debris mitigation? That Barack Obama has a vested interest in keeping Low Earth Orbit cluttered with dangerous objects that threaten the peaceful use of space? No. It just means they funded something else last year. Quote
dre Posted October 16, 2013 Report Posted October 16, 2013 Come on man, that's a low blow. No, they are merely choosing not to fund them in this funding cycle. My research project on space debris mitigation didn't get funded last year after having been funded the year before. Does that mean the US government has banned research on space debris mitigation? That Barack Obama has a vested interest in keeping Low Earth Orbit cluttered with dangerous objects that threaten the peaceful use of space? No. It just means they funded something else last year. No it means they have effectively banned government funded space debris exploration until/unless they start funding it again. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
waldo Posted October 16, 2013 Report Posted October 16, 2013 No, they are merely choosing not to fund them in this funding cycle. get real! If one applies your statement directly to the PEARL station and research shutdown... you wouldn't see all the equipment being removed, as it has been and is being. You wouldn't see all the scientists scattered into the wind... you wouldn't see other countries raising concerns on how the void will be met... you wouldn't see PEARL effectively 'mothballed' with no active presence/research. There will be no "next funding cycle" for PEARL! Quote
Bonam Posted October 16, 2013 Report Posted October 16, 2013 get real! If one applies your statement directly to the PEARL station and research shutdown... I've seen my share of research labs be shut down. It sucks, especially if they are doing good research. But it happens, and unless there is some additional evidence, I am inclined to believe it is part of the regular ebb and flow of funding, rather than some nefarious agenda. Quote
Bonam Posted October 16, 2013 Report Posted October 16, 2013 No it means they have effectively banned government funded space debris exploration until/unless they start funding it again. Banning something has very specific meaning... that it has been explicitly outlawed, usually because it is considered wrong, immoral, incorrect, problematic, etc. For example, the use of chemical weapons is banned by some international law. On the other hand, the UN is unable to fully fund all of its efforts to help children in the third world get access to clean water and nutritious food. That doesn't mean the UN has banned the survival of children, just because they were unable to fund it. The use of the word "ban" when referring to something that simply wasn't funded, rather than explicitly outlawed, is a propaganda trick, nothing more. I'm pretty sure that this is a distinction that you, at least, can comprehend. Words have meaning. Quote
Bonam Posted October 16, 2013 Report Posted October 16, 2013 he and his fellow scientists were advised to emphasize the industrial benefits of their research! Yes, clearly... research priorities change! That certainly has been true in almost every grant proposal I've ever written or read. The purpose of many/most government agencies that fund scientific research is to fund research that has industrial/commercial applications. There is a small pot of money for "pure science" research with no anticipated applications, but merely the quest for knowledge. I certainly agree with you that continuing that kind of research is important. Nevertheless, you must realize that the majority of research funding being directed to applied research, rather than pure science research, is the norm rather than the exception. Quote
waldo Posted October 16, 2013 Report Posted October 16, 2013 Words have meaning. yes, clearly... as in weasel words - yours! Quote
waldo Posted October 16, 2013 Report Posted October 16, 2013 That certainly has been true in almost every grant proposal I've ever written or read. The purpose of many/most government agencies that fund scientific research is to fund research that has industrial/commercial applications. There is a small pot of money for "pure science" research with no anticipated applications, but merely the quest for knowledge. I certainly agree with you that continuing that kind of research is important. Nevertheless, you must realize that the majority of research funding being directed to applied research, rather than pure science research, is the norm rather than the exception. no - Harper Conservatives have made a purposeful effort to shift priorities away from pure research to 'industrial/commercial' application. Quote
Jimmy Wilson Posted October 16, 2013 Report Posted October 16, 2013 The statement is still wrong. The studies weren't "banned", they were merely defunded. Scientific projects come up for renewal of funding every year or every few years, and research priorities change. There is an absolute ton of science that people would like to do if funding was limitless, but it's not. The studies were defunded because the findings of said studies would fly in the face of the agenda of the corporate legislative enablers sitting on the government benches in Ottawa... Quote "Neo-conservativism,I think,is really the aggrandizement of selfishness.It's about me,only me,and after that,me.It's about only investing in things that produce a huge profit for yourself.It's NOT about society as a whole and it tends to be very insensitive to those people,who for one reason or another,have fallen beneath the poverty line and it's engaged in presumptions that these people are all poor because they are lazy.Neo-conservatives believe that fundamentally..." Senator Hugh Segal
waldo Posted October 16, 2013 Report Posted October 16, 2013 I've seen my share of research labs be shut down. It sucks, especially if they are doing good research. But it happens, and unless there is some additional evidence, I am inclined to believe it is part of the regular ebb and flow of funding, rather than some nefarious agenda. cutting ozone, soot and pollution monitoring? How nefarious is that? shutting down the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences? How nefarious is that? shutting down the National Roundtable for the Environment and Economy (NRTEE)? How nefarious is that? cutting ocean-pollution monitoring positions/funding? How nefarious is that? Bill C-38 that effectively cut funding to, dismantled, or weakened such bodies/legislation as: The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act; The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency; Canadian Environmental Protection Act; Fisheries Act; Navigable Waters Protection Act; etc.? How nefarious is that? cutting funding for the Experimental Lakes Area? How nefarious is that? and about muzzling scientists... where, for example, Environment Canada personnel contact with media is now at an all-time low, 80% below what had been the prior typical level of engagement? How nefarious is that? Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted October 16, 2013 Report Posted October 16, 2013 Banning something has very specific meaning... that it has been explicitly outlawed, usually because it is considered wrong, immoral, incorrect, problematic, etc. I agree. Ceasing research and banning research are two different things. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
waldo Posted October 16, 2013 Report Posted October 16, 2013 I agree. Ceasing research and banning research are two different things. ceasing research??? Such delicate wording so as not to offend sensitive ears! It's an effective ban... within government circles... if funding/support is pulled with no presumption of it ever being established again (ala Bonam's fanciful "next funding cycle")! Quote
Bonam Posted October 16, 2013 Report Posted October 16, 2013 (edited) How nefarious is that? I don't know. How nefarious is it? Most of the cuts described above, if you read the articles, represent a few % cuts to the general budgets of the departments that operate them, such as Environment Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, etc. Cutting department budgets by a few % in times of economic deficit is to be expected, and quite unfortunately, scientific research, which the public views as "non-essential" (unlike welfare checks) often is hit pretty hard. When Environment Canada takes a few % budget cut, that means some research will be affected. Whatever that research happens to be, someone will be laid off, some research will stop being done, and whatever that research was, someone will be upset, and it will appear in the news. When it comes to environmental research some people are heavily emotionally invested in that and so it gets more press. Personally, I was a lot more upset when funding for a few space missions I was excited about was cut. I'd be the first to agree that we should be funding more scientific research. If it was up to me, all that research that's been cut would be funded, and we'd fund like 10x as much other research too, and stop wasting money in other areas which take up far bigger chunks of our budget than science does. I'm a scientist and strongly believe that spending money on research is probably one of the best possible uses of government money. However, in this thread I'm trying to present a realistic perspective amid the hysteria. The vast majority of the public doesn't give a rat's ass about science, and neither do their elected representatives. Cuts are to be expected when budgets are tight, and the links above don't show me anything that is out of line with general funding cuts. Edited October 16, 2013 by Bonam Quote
G Huxley Posted October 16, 2013 Author Report Posted October 16, 2013 I didn't say the government banned all studies on ice cores. Merely that it banned government funded studies of ice cores as is in the government is no longer funding any studies on ice cores. Quote
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.