Well where are the scientists?

[Guest]

No where in this thread have I provided a link...no idea what you're ranting on about...

My mistake. Was referring to the link in the OP by PIK. However, you can see ample evidence of muzzling now.

[msj]

This type of OP is exactly why I don't post very often on this forum anymore and rarely post anything serious.

Comparing a policy that came into effect on May 11, 2016 to one that came into effect in 2006 and was in full force up to May 11, 2016 is pretty dishonest.

Reeks of cherry picking timeline and data and also reeks of lack of adequate sample data after the policy changed etc etc.

What's to discuss?

For the intelligent: nothing, because the data is inadequate.

But that doesn't stop the media and the useful twits from spreading this political crap.

Edited September 1, 2016 by msj

[Smoke]

Oooookaaaay!....so when do you think we'll start seeing all the science that's been "muzzled"? If not the last year that young Trudeau has been in power, what do you think is a reasonable timeline?

[Smoke]

However, you can see ample evidence of muzzling now.

So left wingers screaming and protesting the dictator Harper is now evidence of "muzzling". Try again...

[drummindiver]

Clearly no science was muzzled. If scientists had. then been unmuzzled, we would have seen a plethora of published articles, yet diamelah cannot provide one. Literally, not one.

[dialamah]

Oooookaaaay!....so when do you think we'll start seeing all the science that's been "muzzled"? If not the last year that young Trudeau has been in power, what do you think is a reasonable timeline?

Muzzled / gagged - not able to speak freely. Under Harper, scientists were not able to speak freely as evidenced above. They had to apply for permission, wait for permission and possibly follow scripts. Sometimes permission did not come or came too late.

Unmuzzled / gag removed: Able to speak freely. They no longer have to seek permission, wait for permission or follow an approved script. They do have to advise the gov, if they will be speaking publically. They cannot, however, comment on policy.

Maybe a daily life example will help. Scene is son who wants to take the car for the night:

Son: Can I use the car tonite?

Dad 'Harper': "Where are you going? What route are you taking? Who will be with you? When will you be back?" (Recieves answers). "I don't like that plan. I want you to go this other place, take a different route and take different people and be home an hour before curfew. If you don't do it my way, you can stay home."

Son: "I'm taking the car out tonite.

Dad 'Trudeau': "Ok. Make sure you are back by curfew".

Edited September 1, 2016 by dialamah

[drummindiver]

Muzzled / gagged - not able to speak freely. Under Harper, scientists were not able to speak freely as evidenced above. They had to apply for permission, wait for permission and possibly follow scripts. Sometimes permission did not come or came too late.

Unmuzzled / gag removed: Able to speak freely. They no longer have to seek permission, wait for permission or follow an approved script. They do have to advise the gov, if they will be speaking publically. They cannot, however, comment on policy.

Maybe a daily life example will help. Scene is son who wants to take the car for the night:

Son: Can I use the car tonite?

Dad 'Harper': "Where are you going? What route are you taking? Who will be with you? When will you be back?" (Recieves answers). "I don't like that plan. I want you to go this other place, take a different route and take different people and be home an hour before curfew. If you don't do it my way, you can stay home."

Son: "I'm taking the car out tonite.m

Dad 'Trudeau': "Ok. Make sure you are back by curfew".

Why not just link one actual reference instead of personal a enecdotes and axioms?

[dialamah]

Why not just link one actual reference instead of personal a enecdotes and axioms?

I have, but some people can't tell the difference between "muzzled" and "not muzzled" in this context. Thought a very simple explanation might help.

[msj]

Oooookaaaay!....so when do you think we'll start seeing all the science that's been "muzzled"? If not the last year that young Trudeau has been in power, what do you think is a reasonable timeline?

Let's see - the changes have been in effect for less than 4 months so I doubt we have any useful information as of September, 2016.

I will guess sometime in later 2018 or perhaps 2019 to have enough time to deal with data collection and to ensure enough time has passed so that the new rules are understood and being used properly.

At the very least it would be nice to get out of the summer holiday season since I expect that even scientists take vacations.

Once again, the stupidity on display by the media by trying to raise this issue at this point in time is truly astounding and can only be explained by politics.

[dre]

So left wingers screaming and protesting the dictator Harper is now evidence of "muzzling". Try again...

No but there IS evidence...

• In 2010, Natural Resources Canada scientist Scott Dallimore was not allowed to talk about research into a flood in northern Canada 13,000 years ago without getting pre-approval from political staff in the office of then-Natural Resources minister Christian Paradis. Postmedia News said requests were only approved after reporters' deadlines had already passed.
• In 2011, Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientist Kristina Miller was blocked from speaking to the media about her research suggesting viral infections may be linked to higher salmon mortality.
• Environment Canada's media office granted no interviews after a team published a paper in 2011 concluding that a 2 degree C increase in global temperatures may be unavoidable by 2100.
• Postmedia science reporter Margaret Munro requested data from radiation monitors run by Health Canada following the earthquake and nuclear plant problems in Japan. Munro said Health Canada would not approve an interview with one of its experts responsible for the detectors.

[poochy]

Hey remember those 10 years when the conservatives muzzled our scientists and we didn't hear a thing about global warming?

literally, nothing.

So, where are they, how come they aren't out there telling us about the things? Those mean old liberals won't let them? Nah, it's the specter of conservative days gone past that is somehow still stopping them!

What a joke, it's incredible how easily some of you delude yourselves.

Edited September 1, 2016 by poochy

[Guest]

So left wingers screaming and protesting the dictator Harper is now evidence of "muzzling". Try again...

Did you read the links I posted or are you just going to close your eyes, plug your ears and make up your own story?

[PIK]

Harper was trying to protect our economy and I have no problem with him telling them to shut up about it. We are cutting our own throats over this stupid CC. No matter what we do, will have no effect while china is opening up coal fired plants every day or week. The PM's job is to protect us not destroy our economy because it is a feel good policy.

[dialamah]

Harper was trying to protect our economy and I have no problem with him telling them to shut up about it. We are cutting our own throats over this stupid CC. No matter what we do, will have no effect while china is opening up coal fired plants every day or week. The PM's job is to protect us not destroy our economy because it is a feel good policy.

Really? It's ok with you if government censors people?

[msj]

But dear leader was doing it for our own good!

How ...paternalistic.

[TimG]

Really? It's ok with you if government censors people?

Hell no. But in this case we are talking about employees of the government of Canada who have no right to be use their position to grandstand about whatever issue they focus on. As long as these scientists were able to publish in the peer reviewed literature there is no reason to be concerned about them not being able to hype their findings in the media to enhance their professional stature.

[dialamah]

Hell no. But in this case we are talking about employees of the government of Canada who have no right to be use their position to grandstand about whatever issue they focus on. As long as these scientists were able to publish in the peer reviewed literature there is no reason to be concerned about them not being able to hype their findings in the media to enhance their professional stature.

What if the media calls them up to say "Hey, we want information about this science." Why shouldn't the media be able to *ask* for scientific information without the government saying aye or nay? Seriously, who in their right mind would support government censorship of scientists, or anyone?

[TimG]

Why shouldn't the media be able to *ask* for scientific information without the government saying aye or nay?

Because they are employees of the government and no employee of any organization has any right to talk to the media without approval from their bosses. They certainly don't have the right to exaggerate the significance of their findings in order to promote their own personal stature at the expense of the organization that pays their salaries. Edited September 3, 2016 by TimG

[dialamah]

Because they are employees of the government and no employee of any organization has any right to talk to the media without approval from their bosses. They certainly don't have the right to exaggerate the significance of their findings in order to promote their own personal stature at the expense of the organization that pays their salaries.

No. They are scientists, and this is the government answerable to it's citizens - not a corporation answering to shareholders. The government should neither influence research, nor attempt to prevent its publication. To do so is censorship. Phillip Morris may feel justified in preventing their scientists from publishing research results indicating that smoking causes lung cancer. But I sure as hell do not expect or condone my government using the same tactics to suppress information on climate change, or any other research. If you saw that happening in any other country, under any other conservative regime, you'd recognize it for exactly what it is.

Give your head a shake, man. Geez.

Edited September 3, 2016 by dialamah

[TimG]

They are scientists, and this is the government answerable to it's citizens - not a corporation answering to shareholders.

Wrong. Every employee of the government is required to follow the policies of the current government when communicating with the media. To have anything else is asking for chaos.

The government should neither influence research, nor attempt to prevent its publication.

And the government did not prevent scientists from publishing their results in peer reviewed journals. The only thing the government did is prevent them from hyping their findings to the media. It is not censorship to control the media interactions for all employees of the government.

Why do you insist on misrepresenting that government did?

Claiming that it was censorship when the papers were still published is simply ridiculous.

Edited September 3, 2016 by TimG

[poochy]

You cant dig your way out of a hole, but they do keep trying.

Edited September 3, 2016 by poochy