Conservatism and Behavior

[Mighty AC]

So im curious, can you tell us specifically what has been contaminated that the provinces have been powerless to stop as a result of the changes in the federal legislation?

Much of the damage associated with the removal of protections, elimination of scientific research, advisers and council will take time to be felt. Despite the fact that the Harper government was literally burning science books, the impact of a lack of knowledge and reporting capacity does not impact Canadians over night. However, the decimation of environmental protections and scientific knowledge was mainly done to lubricate the pipeline building and tanker transport process. Even though the risky new dilbit pipes haven't even been constructed, some of the reckless cuts have already led to increased environmental damage.

The Harper government closed a Kitsilano Coast Guard station which led to a slow response to a heavy oil spill and increased environmental damage. The government and coast guard tried to claim that budget cuts and closures did not impact the response; however, that was later confirmed to be a lie. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/coast-guard-budget-cuts-roil-the-water-in-bc-oil-spill-controversy/article23893361/ Drastic cuts by the Harper government have put the west coast in harm's way.

Over the past three years, front-line staff in B.C. have been cut by 25 per cent. “And,” he added, “there will no longer be a single Coast Guard employee in Canada’s biggest port.”

Additionally, cuts at Environment Canada mean fewer left to clean up oil-spill mess. The Harperites have closed all Western Environmental Emergencies Program offices, which hampers environmental disaster responses, especially oil spills.

"The staff in the Environmental Emergencies Program co-ordinate the cleanup of spills that occur within federal jurisdictions including waterways, first nations and federal buildings," Galloway wrote. "They also provide technical advice when incidents occur elsewhere and collectively respond to more than 1,000 significant spills every year."

The Environmental Emergencies Program regional offices in six Canadian cities, including Vancouver, were closed.

The Alberta department in Edmonton was closed as well, which is dangerous considering the province has had almost 30,000 crude oil spills in total and over 30,000 involving all piped substances. http://globalnews.ca/news/571494/introduction-37-years-of-oil-spills-in-alberta/

[poochy]

That's what i thought, there isn't any, tell us exactly, how many coast guard stations should there be? One for how many miles of coastline? The idea that you point to one spill, where the response might have been delayed, because one specific station was closed, is a bit ridiculous, shit happens, we cant have coast guard stations every 10 miles just in case. MAYBE closing that station had a significant negative effect on that cleanup, but that's just bad luck, btw, it was a minor spill, not even worth mentioning outside of the poor people on the bc coast who saw oil on their beaches. By contrast look up what the east coast endured with the Arrow or the Kurdistan, was there a coast guard station exactly where one needed to be to take care of those problems? Yea, no, but the unimaginable horror of an oil spill seems to be a left coast centric problem, as long as the east coast keeps bringing in the oil that we all use.

As has been mentioned, Alberta has its own environmental regulations, as do all of the provinces, some of the provinces have more stringent regulations than the feds do.

Edited June 12, 2015 by poochy

[dre]

that lefties

[Mighty AC]

That's what i thought, there isn't any, tell us exactly, how many coast guard stations should there be? One for how many miles of coastline? The idea that you point to one spill, where the response might have been delayed, because one specific station was closed, is a bit ridiculous, shit happens, we cant have coast guard stations every 10 miles just in case. MAYBE closing that station had a significant negative effect on that cleanup, but that's just bad luck, btw, it was a minor spill, not even worth mentioning outside of the poor people on the bc coast who saw oil on their beaches. By contrast look up what the east coast endured with the Arrow or the Kurdistan, was there a coast guard station exactly where one needed to be to take care of those problems? Yea, no, but the unimaginable horror of an oil spill seems to be a left coast centric problem, as long as the east coast keeps bringing in the oil that we all use.

As has been mentioned, Alberta has its own environmental regulations, as do all of the provinces, some of the provinces have more stringent regulations than the feds do.

So I point to a direct example of a problem already worsened by Harper environmental cuts in the short amount of time since they've been made and it doesn't count? I've also pointed out that the busiest port in Canada no longer has a single coast guard officer. Plus, the Environmental Emergencies program, that actually has survey oil spills to direct an emergency response strategy, no longer has offices in Alberta or BC.

Those are the most immediate, bone headed, problems caused by this ridiculous government, but a long term lack of knowledge and research created by Harper's war on science will be a greater problem.

Real life doesn't work like CPC interviews. You can't simply repeat sound bites and ignore reality.

[cybercoma]

Real life doesn't work like CPC interviews. You can't simply repeat sound bites and ignore reality.

Well, they can and they do. This is what happens when you have people who don't believe in the validity of observational science. They want to play games with deconstructionist theory that says as soon as we communicate ideas we're creating "narratives." Those narratives are inherently "biased," so the people who ignore science's validity claim that the science itself is invalid or just an opinion or open to interpretation or up for debate or a matter of politics or whatever you want to call it. When you deal with radical skeptics who believe there is no such thing as knowledge at all, nothing you said matters. The science doesn't matter. All that matters is ideology and winning. The winners get to do whatever they want because there's no such thing as valid knowledge or science. Yet, they fail to concede that point when the suggestion arises that they would then have to accept anything their opponents do when they win. Suddenly, science and knowledge are real and can be valid. It's no longer about narratives and the impossibility of knowledge. Watch for this in people's arguments on this forum. It's hilarious how often it comes up. It's almost Pavlovian. Submit scientifically validated evidence that contradicts someone's argument here and they'll go into a long rant about why the science is invalid or make ad hominems about the scientists themselves or create strawmen arguments that they think discredit the scientific evidence. But mostly, it always comes down to how there is no knowledge and everything is just constructed narratives so has no argumentative validity. They can't lose their arguments because they then turn to the tactic that there is no such thing as a valid argument to begin with so everything is fair game. Then it's suddenly, "let's just agree to disagree."

[Bryan]

Well, they can and they do. This is what happens when you have people who don't believe in the validity of observational science. They want to play games with deconstructionist theory that says as soon as we communicate ideas we're creating "narratives." Those narratives are inherently "biased," so the people who ignore science's validity claim that the science itself is invalid or just an opinion or open to interpretation or up for debate or a matter of politics or whatever you want to call it. When you deal with radical skeptics who believe there is no such thing as knowledge at all, nothing you said matters. The science doesn't matter. All that matters is ideology and winning. The winners get to do whatever they want because there's no such thing as valid knowledge or science. Yet, they fail to concede that point when the suggestion arises that they would then have to accept anything their opponents do when they win. Suddenly, science and knowledge are real and can be valid. It's no longer about narratives and the impossibility of knowledge. Watch for this in people's arguments on this forum. It's hilarious how often it comes up. It's almost Pavlovian. Submit scientifically validated evidence that contradicts someone's argument here and they'll go into a long rant about why the science is invalid or make ad hominems about the scientists themselves or create strawmen arguments that they think discredit the scientific evidence. But mostly, it always comes down to how there is no knowledge and everything is just constructed narratives so has no argumentative validity. They can't lose their arguments because they then turn to the tactic that there is no such thing as a valid argument to begin with so everything is fair game. Then it's suddenly, "let's just agree to disagree."

That's a fun story for a movie, but it in no way reflects real life.

[poochy]

That's a fun story for a movie, but it in no way reflects real life.

Indeed, but his perceptions are the correct perceptions.

O, and i have actually worked on environmental impact assessments, what would i know.

Edited June 13, 2015 by poochy

[Mighty AC]

All that matters is ideology and winning. The winners get to do whatever they want because there's no such thing as valid knowledge or science.

Well said; that is the CPC philosophy in a nutshell. To some extent I can understand Harper's unethical approach to leadership and 'anything for power' mantra. What I don't understand is why adult fanboys would spend their time on a sleepy little forum acting as CPC apologists. I guess that's just what fanatics do. As with irrational followers of sports teams, the war (we are right) mentality trumps evidence and reason.

[Argus]

Well said; that is the CPC philosophy in a nutshell. To some extent I can understand Harper's unethical approach to leadership and 'anything for power' mantra.

Would you care to contrast this with the philosophy of Trudeau and Mulcair? Neither one, from what I've seen, tolerates the slightest disagreement within their parties. Neither seems much inclined to care what their caucus thinks, as opposed to what THEY think. And both seem willing to alter their public stance on a variety of things if it might bring them higher poll numbers.

[Mighty AC]

Would you care to contrast this with the philosophy of Trudeau and Mulcair? Neither one, from what I've seen, tolerates the slightest disagreement within their parties. Neither seems much inclined to care what their caucus thinks, as opposed to what THEY think. And both seem willing to alter their public stance on a variety of things if it might bring them higher poll numbers.

I have yet to see Trudeau or Mulcair eliminate scientific evidence, research, advisers and reporting capabilities. I don't see them denying or obfuscating evidence and the consensus of experts. I do actually see Trudeau and Mulcair speak to the media and directly to voters while answering unscripted questions. I also believe they will attend the leaders debate.

[Argus]

I have yet to see Trudeau or Mulcair eliminate scientific evidence, research, advisers and reporting capabilities. I don't see them denying or obfuscating evidence and the consensus of experts. I do actually see Trudeau and Mulcair speak to the media and directly to voters while answering unscripted questions. I also believe they will attend the leaders debate.

Trudeau does not answer unscripted questions without getting into trouble. And neither of them are in government so get to pick and choose what scientific advisers they listen to and what evidence they support or ignore.

[On Guard for Thee]

I have yet to see Trudeau or Mulcair eliminate scientific evidence, research, advisers and reporting capabilities. I don't see them denying or obfuscating evidence and the consensus of experts. I do actually see Trudeau and Mulcair speak to the media and directly to voters while answering unscripted questions. I also believe they will attend the leaders debate.

I listened to a TV scrum with JT yesterday and he said quite clearly when the subject came up that he would beef up the scientific community were Harper had gutted it, and also that he would allow scientists to speak directly to the taxpayers who actually pay for their research.

[Mighty AC]

Trudeau does not answer unscripted questions without getting into trouble. And neither of them are in government so get to pick and choose what scientific advisers they listen to and what evidence they support or ignore.

On one side we have two potential PMs that claim they will support and respect science, research and evidence, then on the other we have Harper that has proven he will not. Do you really support the concept of ideology before evidence?

Edited June 17, 2015 by Mighty AC

[Mighty AC]

My mistake for saying two leaders support science, when there are three. Though Ms. May and the Green party have no hope of forming a government they do have sensible attitudes about science and evidence. May introduced a bill today that would make muzzling government scientists illegal.

The bill would make all publicly funded scientific research publicly accessible by law.

Ms. May stated: “My bill will ensure that no prime minister can ever bury government science again. While this problem is not new, the Harper years have seen a shocking burial of evidence into places where Canadians will never see it. The work our scientists do is too important to be hidden from view, simply because it is inconvenient to the Prime Minister’s agenda. The challenges we face require an open and transparent engagement with the facts.”

http://elizabethmaymp.ca/elizabeth-may-introduces-open-science-private-members-bill/

Three leaders support honest, transparent access to scientific information and Stephen Harper would rather bury information that doesn't gel with his unreasonable, oil sector backed, ideology.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Mighty AC

[Argus]

I listened to a TV scrum with JT yesterday and he said quite clearly when the subject came up that he would beef up the scientific community were Harper had gutted it, and also that he would allow scientists to speak directly to the taxpayers who actually pay for their research.

His own bloody caucus isn't consulted on anything he does! They're not even informed before the media! Do you really think this guy is going to allow government employees to say things to the media which go against his government's policy? Not a chance in hell.

[Argus]

On one side we have two potential PMs that claim they will support and respect science, research and evidence, then on the other we have Harper that has proven he will not. Do you really support the concept of ideology before evidence?

I think those two 'potential PMs' you're talking about are both ideologues, and I think they're saying whatever they think will resonate with people. It doesn't mean they'll do it once in power. Harper was going to have more open government, too, until he was the government.

[On Guard for Thee]

His own bloody caucus isn't consulted on anything he does! They're not even informed before the media! Do you really think this guy is going to allow government employees to say things to the media which go against his government's policy? Not a chance in hell.

I think you may have Harper and JT mixed up here. No one from Harpers camp says ANYTHING that isn't a highly scripted talking point. Which is why they look so robotic, and frankly, moronic.

[Mighty AC]

I think those two 'potential PMs' you're talking about are both ideologues, and I think they're saying whatever they think will resonate with people. It doesn't mean they'll do it once in power. Harper was going to have more open government, too, until he was the government.

Harper certainly did play us all for fools...so we cast aside the cheating, liar and move on. The opposition party leaders are all talking about implementing rules to prevent the kind of secretive, closed door governments run by Harper. It's important to keep striving for better, accessible, transparent government, Harper is just a waste of our time.

[Argus]

I think you may have Harper and JT mixed up here. No one from Harpers camp says ANYTHING that isn't a highly scripted talking point. Which is why they look so robotic, and frankly, moronic.

And once again, it's okay when the Liberals do it, but horrible when the Tories do. The Liberals have always been like that. That's how they won so many elections, by staying strictly disciplined and in step. Nobody says anything without approval. As for the NDP. They don't even allow you to run for office if you aren't 100% lined up with the great leader's opinions and views.

[Argus]

Harper certainly did play us all for fools...so we cast aside the cheating, liar and move on. The opposition party leaders are all talking about implementing rules to prevent the kind of secretive, closed door governments run by Harper. It's important to keep striving for better, accessible, transparent government, Harper is just a waste of our time.

Not all of us are willing to see the country driven into bankruptcy so you can read the emails of every clerk in every government department.

[cybercoma]

Not all of us are willing to see the country driven into bankruptcy so you can read the emails of every clerk in every government department.

Jesus, this is ironic from the guy who's been supporting expanded surveillance under the argument "if you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about."

[eyeball]

He wasn't expecting his prescription would be applied against people like him.

[Canada_First]

Harper certainly did play us all for fools...so we cast aside the cheating, liar and move on. The opposition party leaders are all talking about implementing rules to prevent the kind of secretive, closed door governments run by Harper. It's important to keep striving for better, accessible, transparent government, Harper is just a waste of our time.

Why do you automatically assume that the NDP will run Canada better than Harper? He could be much worse.

[Mighty AC]

Why do you automatically assume that the NDP will run Canada better than Harper? He could be much worse.

The same could be said about an incompetent employee. There is a risk that the replacement for a lying, cheating, stealing worker could be worse, but that hardly warrants keeping the one proven to be a problem.

We should continually strive for better government and the current one has proven to be problematic. Time to move on.

[Argus]

The same could be said about an incompetent employee.

Except Harper is not incompetent. You just don't like him.