Canada's Inquisition against science continues.

[G Huxley]

A one-of-a-kind archive of ancient Canadian ice cores, collected over 40 years by federal scientists as evidence of climate change and pollution trends, is scheduled for "shutdown" within months because of "strategic budget compressions" at Natural Resources Canada, Postmedia News has learned.

The plan to put the ice archive on ice, and the "radical downsizing" of an associated Geological Survey of Canada research lab, are revealed in a message issued to fellow scientists last week by federal glaciologist Christian Zdanowicz, who has appealed to universities or other scientific bodies to consider taking over management of the targeted research resource. The GSC ice-core collection consists of hundreds of metres of cylindrical shafts of ice gathered from High Arctic glaciers and frozen mountaintops, including Canada's highest peak, Mount Logan, as well as Ellesmere, Baffin and Devon islands.

"Before we proceed with destroying the collection," says Zdanowicz's email missive, "we wish to ensure that the core holdings be made available to researchers with an interest in using them for climate and atmospheric studies."

But a senior Natural Resources Canada official strongly disputes Zdanowicz's interpretation of the collection's fate, insisting that it will neither be destroyed nor given away. David Scott, manager of the GSC's northern research branch, acknowledged that the department facing "hard choices" and limited resources is ending its use of the ice cores for the kind of climate-focused research conducted during the last several decades.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/http/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x310913 Edited October 16, 2013 by Charles Anthony
fixed quotes

[Bryan]

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.

Yes, but they are expanding funding for arctic research in general, just not focussed on ice cores specifically. It's a reallocation of funding priorities, not a cut or a ban.

[waldo]

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.

like I said, weasel words! Those cuts are not general... those cuts are targeted - most targeted, particularly doing away with NRTEE and CFCAS... and, of course, PEARL. Interesting how you can be so dismissive when the Harper Conservative re-prioritization sees significant funding made available for the shift away from pure research toward industrial/commercial applications... when the amount of funding required to keep NRTEE, CFCAS, PEARL open/running was, in relative terms, "minimal" as compared to the Harper Conservative re-prioritization. Somehow you can be so dismissive in the face of international raised concerns over the loss of key monitoring operations... monitoring that will not be managed/accommodated by the Harper Conservative re-prioritization. And, of course, somehow you managed to bypass my reference to the omnibus bill C-38 - how convenient for you... how dismissive of you!

[waldo]

Yes, but they are expanding funding for arctic research in general, just not focussed on ice cores specifically. It's a reallocation of funding priorities, not a cut or a ban.

Bryan, here, let me try again... you appear to have missed my earlier post. Certainly you wouldn't have just ignored it, right?

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"?

[Moonlight Graham]

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")!

They stopped the research. They ceased the research. The completely cut the research. All means the same thing, and is different than a ban on it (which is a very specific action).

Edited October 16, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[waldo]

They stopped the research. They ceased the research. The completely cut the research. All means the same thing, and is different than a ban on it (which is a very specific action).

you're playing with words, rather than actually adding anything of substance... again, an "effective ban" if funding/support is removed... with the resulting impact on infrastructure/materials/data/personnel... with no intent (ever) to reestablish the gutted research and all its embodiments.

[GostHacked]

you're playing with words, rather than actually adding anything of substance... again, an "effective ban" if funding/support is removed... with the resulting impact on infrastructure/materials/data/personnel... with no intent (ever) to reestablish the gutted research and all its embodiments.

Sometimes words matter. If you are applying the wrong term to the situation, you are not accurately describing the situation. That can lead to mistakes and complete misinformation down the road.

If funding is stopped for a certain project it is not a 'ban'. I will nitpick on this, because using this word 'ban' to describe this means the rest of your argument is not accurate either.

Could a private enterprise do ice core research? If so, then there is no ban.

[waldo]

Could a private enterprise do ice core research? If so, then there is no ban.

and, once again, your comprehension difficulty gets the better of you! The MLW member specifically spoke of "government". Your comprehension fail is the same one Bonam initially made; one I highlighted and corrected.

considering your wealth of MLW posts raising concerns over pollution, and in light of several Harper Conservative moves to screw with existing atmospheric/ocean pollution monitoring operations, one would think you'd have more to bring to this thread than your comprehension failure over government vs. private funding!

[Moonlight Graham]

you're playing with words, rather than actually adding anything of substance... again, an "effective ban" if funding/support is removed... with the resulting impact on infrastructure/materials/data/personnel... with no intent (ever) to reestablish the gutted research and all its embodiments.

I'm not playing with words, I'm using accurate words. Now, an "effective ban" could also be used as an accurate description (since it's likely the gov is trying to do what they can to ban the research without actually doing so), it may look like a ban in deeds but is not officially an outright "ban" because that denotes an official policy laid out very specifically.

It would be the same if the gov defunded and stopped ie: the space program. They didn't ban the space program, they stopped it. If the gov came out and specifically said "we don't believe in having a space program because it's a waste of money and we won't allow it to start up again" then that would be a ban.

[Bonam]

Your comprehension fail is the same one Bonam initially made

There is no comprehension fail. Ban is the wrong word, period. It implies something that did not happen.

Oh no the USA banned 89 million people from working!

40 million Americans are banned from having healthcare!

The stock market banned me from becoming a billionaire today!

The clouds banned it from being sunny today!

Waldo banned words from being used with their correct meanings!

Edited October 16, 2013 by Bonam

[Moonlight Graham]

Could a private enterprise do ice core research? If so, then there is no ban.

That's not true, the gov could ban government ice core research but not ban private research. In this case though, they've done neither, but as waldo says, it would be arguable to say it's an "effective ban" on government research. But it's not an outright "ban".

Edited October 16, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[waldo]

Now, an "effective ban" could also be used as an accurate description (since it's likely the gov is trying to do what they can to ban the research without actually doing so), it may look like a ban in deeds but is not officially an outright "ban" because that denotes an official policy laid out very specifically.

agreed... I believe my first response had me impress on the OPs words with my purposeful use of "effective" - an effective ban.

[GostHacked]

and, once again, your comprehension difficulty gets the better of you! The MLW member specifically spoke of "government". Your comprehension fail is the same one Bonam initially made; one I highlighted and corrected.

I asked a simple question, and I get all this in return?

A ban would mean NO one could even do any testing. That means both private and government projects. This was a program that funding was cancelled for. That is the distinction Bonam made. I agree with this little bit of nitpicking.

A ban is something completely different.

considering your wealth of MLW posts raising concerns over pollution, and in light of several Harper Conservative moves to screw with existing atmospheric/ocean pollution monitoring operations, one would think you'd have more to bring to this thread than your comprehension failure over government vs. private funding!

Pollution is much bigger issue than CO2. And much more immediate.

oh my! Given your past MLW history of GW/CC denial posts, how do you 'stomach' those references to "climate change research"?

Climate change research to me is valid. It's the results and agenda this crowd seems to have that irk people. Climate change is real, and was always real. But in order to bring it to light and be in the public eye, there needed to be a system of making money off this new 'crisis'. Bilking countries for billions and making some people very rich.

I can even place bets on the weather. You knew that right?

So I ask again, is it a ban if private enterprise can continue doing the same work? It's not a hard answer.

[GostHacked]

That's not true, the gov could ban government ice core research but not ban private research. In this case though, they've done neither, but as waldo says, it would be arguable to say it's an "effective ban" on government research. But it's not an outright "ban".

Well that makes sense to me. Agreed.

[waldo]

There is no comprehension fail.

effectively, your fail is an effective fail... an effective comprehension fail. In your effective world, removing all effective manner of funding/support/infrastructure/people/etc... with no attempt to ever bring forward the research again (in your fanciful/farcical "next funding cycle")., effectively, does not equate to an "effective ban"... in your effective world!

[waldo]

I asked a simple question, and I get all this in return?

A ban would mean NO one could even do any testing. That means both private and government projects. This was a program that funding was cancelled for. That is the distinction Bonam made. I agree with this little bit of nitpicking.

A ban is something completely different.

you're simply doubling down on your comprehension fail. Perhaps you should actually read the OP again... read the OP's reference to a "government ban"! Then ask yourself why you interjected with your out-of-context private enterprise reference!

[waldo]

Pollution is much bigger issue than CO2. And much more immediate.

no - your repeated ongoing emphasis on toxic pollution is not a much bigger issue than CO²... it is not. In any case, the pollution monitoring references made in this thread are broader than just CO²... did you actually read any of the posts in this thread before jumping in?

[waldo]

Climate change is real, and was always real. But in order to bring it to light and be in the public eye, there needed to be a system of making money off this new 'crisis'. Bilking countries for billions and making some people very rich.

I can even place bets on the weather. You knew that right?

your hypocritical commentary never ceases to amaze. At some point I trust you may finally answer the same question I keep throwing back at you... the same question that has you forever questioning the science related to CO² emissions, to atmospheric monitoring, etc.; the same physical science, some of the same organizations,... even some of the same personnel... that you so trust when emphasizing toxic pollution, has you unable to rationalize your mistrust/denial as relates to CO²! Go figure.

bets on the weather? Has what to do with what? Enlighten me!

[GostHacked]

your hypocritical commentary never ceases to amaze. At some point I trust you may finally answer the same question I keep throwing back at you... the same question that has you forever questioning the science related to CO² emissions, to atmospheric monitoring, etc.; the same physical science, some of the same organizations,... even some of the same personnel... that you so trust when emphasizing toxic pollution, has you unable to rationalize your mistrust/denial as relates to CO²! Go figure.

bets on the weather? Has what to do with what? Enlighten me!

It's like sports betting. You can bet the weather will be one way or another. And if you can manipulate the weather, you can make a lot of money!

But that is off topic to this really, sorry for bringing it up.

[G Huxley]

A couple more good articles:

http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/content/harpers-war-science

http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/2013/05/20/the-canadian-war-on-science-a-long-unexaggerated-devastating-chronological-indictment/

[eyeball]

In the meantime...

Since Stephen Harper’s Conservatives won power, faith-based charities, primarily Christian, have enjoyed a surge in funding from CIDA, according to a study.

[Bob Macadoo]

I think one of the things we're missing in all this AWesque banter is there used to be a time that gov't funded research for research's sake and private capital funded enterprise for profiteering. Now corporations get to sit on their stockpiles while tax money pays for what should be an accounting line on their ledger. Now you have people already starting to believe that's the way it's always been so why fight it.

[PIK]

I read that 90% of scienctists say the are muzzled. But then on the radio, they say out of 15000 questionaires about it were sent out,but only 4000 were returned. Looks like the media is playing with numbers again.

[waldo]

I read that 90% of scienctists say the are muzzled. But then on the radio, they say out of 15000 questionaires about it were sent out,but only 4000 were returned. Looks like the media is playing with numbers again.

oh nooooos, PIK... not the crazed media, again! I would expect what you've read is within a referenced context to the recent Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) survey. As with any survey, any poll... any election for that matter, inherently, results reflect upon respondents/voters.

are you finally coming around and willing to formally state that your guy, your Harper Conservatives last election results reflected upon the (crazed) media playing with numbers again? Is that what you're saying here, PIK?

[On Guard for Thee]

Perhaps the other 11,000 were burned, like they used to do with books.