Slashdot Mirror
Muzzled Canadian Scientists Can Now Speak Freely With Public (thestar.com)
Layzej writes: Over the last 10 years, policies were put in place to prevent Canadian scientists from freely discussing taxpayer-funded science with the public. "media relations contacts" were enlisted to monitor and record interactions with the press. Interviews and often the questions to be asked were vetted ahead of time, and responses given by scientists frequently monitored or prohibited. Nature, one of the world's top science journals, called the policy a "Byzantine approach to the press, prioritizing message control and showing little understanding of the importance of the free flow of scientific knowledge."
The new government in Canada is lifting these restrictions. Scientists at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans were told Thursday they can now speak to the media. In a statement on Friday afternoon, Navdeep Bains, Canada's new minister of innovation, science and economic development said "Our government values science and will treat scientists with respect. This is why government scientists and experts will be able to speak freely about their work to the media and the public."
The new government in Canada is lifting these restrictions. Scientists at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans were told Thursday they can now speak to the media. In a statement on Friday afternoon, Navdeep Bains, Canada's new minister of innovation, science and economic development said "Our government values science and will treat scientists with respect. This is why government scientists and experts will be able to speak freely about their work to the media and the public."
Here in the frozen Tundra was a real life example.
Scientists must really be on to something if they aren't allowed to talk about it.
Oh... Canada.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
What information was muzzled during the last 10 years?
Not only were scientists muzzled, the media wasn't allowed to question the government either. Any kind of press was carefully preplanned, scripted and designed with the best interests of the Conservative party in mind.
I strongly disagree with the Conservative Party of Canada. Don't forget, these aren't the "Progressive Conservatives" that won votes on policy, these are the hard right Reformers who campaign on fear and divisiveness.
In related news, a flood of new scientific data was released on the subject of maple syrup.
In related news, a flood of new scientific data was released on the subject of maple syrup.
This is more or less the main thing I voted against Harper over. Yes, he was terrible in many ways but this was the most blatantly anti-public-interest. Unfortunately according to former members of the NRC, rebuilding what Harper dismantled could take decades.
... it was long overdue. I'm not a fan of the Liberals but this is a good 1st step in the right direction.
Thank you must also be given to the voters who finally were able to rally and kick out the Conservatives.
Too often we do not feel our votes make a difference but it did make one here.
Now the only question to us is, how far will these changes go? We'll see over time.
"Government doesn't work - it CAN'T WORK!"
"What about all those countries where it mostly does and, um, all of human history, eh?"
"Oh really? Sheesh! Listen - I'll just do a little governing here, and governing there - and BAM - doesn't work anymore. See - governing ruins everything!"
"Doesn't that just mean YOU ruin everything?"
"Wait - wait - I'll prove it some more. Give me more time and I'll REALLY prove it!"
cross-bred consultant class (the hired-gun public-manipulation trolls that infest politics in both nations).
Politicians ALWAYS want to be in control and hate being sand-bagged. Their staff members and supporters ALWAYS want to "control the message". In the immediate post-911 period, with Bush riding very high in US politics (which tends to happen in the US to any president of any party early in a war) the Democrats ran a poll and found that they had no possibility of getting the White House in the 2004 cycle and their teams started looking for new political themes to chip-away at that support. One of the things they found was in an area their base was already alerted to, making it doubly useful: NASA had a global warming researcher who had a reputation for sandbagging his bosses, and those bosses (being typical political animals) had responded in typical fashion; they'd ordered him to stop talking to the press without first clearing it with them (so they would not keep getting blind-sided by activist-journalists hitting them "out of the blue" with Hansen quotes). There was nothing in the demands placed on Hansen that had not been placed on other government employees in the past by politicians above them, but this time it was turned into political theater. Hansen gave something like a hundred unauthorized interviews insisting he was being muzzled (a curiously inconsistent mix of action and claim) and Democrats in the press hyped this as proof that the Bush admin was "anti-science", which became a political theme deployed in the 2004 cycle. The only thing unusual in the entire setup was that it was, with a press assist, turned into a political meme. It was an orchestrated stunt that took advantage of the raging conrol-freak inside EVERY politician.
In the past several decades, the permanent political consultant class (both Republican and Democrat) in Washington DC have spread-out and discovered they could sell their political manipulation skills in other countries with elections. As a result, both Republican and Democrat consultants, advisers, messaging experts, etc have gone to work in elections countries like the UK as a way to keep busy and keep making money during lulls in the US political seasons; they're like pro athletes who play in different leagues in different seasons. With Canada sharing a border with the US and a heavy political/cultural cross-pollination there was no question that this scenario would be repeated there. There will be more of the same in the future.
Sadly, one of the reasons political propaganda survives is that it works. Members of the general public, without regard to political affiliation, do not pay attention to details and have a short attention span on political matters, so they are easily manipulated by political theater - which all politicians do.
For you Democrats who want to deny this and pretend the "anti-science" Bush admin was unique and "muzzled" James Hansen, I offer a tad of counter-evidence in two points:
1. Please list all the press interviews Hansen gave while he was supposedly being muzzled, and then provide a list of the news outlets who could not get an interview with him during that time. Hint: the first list will be a bit over a hundred and the latter list will be empty - but you should do the exercise to learn how completely manipulated you were.
2. Please list all the names of the survivors of the 2012 Benghazi raid. You cannot, because even many Republicans in congress have been unable to see the list or even interview them ..... because the Obama administration put gag orders in place; the messaging people in the current admin did not want people who work under them speaking to the press and providing a counter-narrative to what the admin was pushing (that there had been a spontaneous protest about a You Tube video that had "gotten out of hand", as opposed to a pre-planned terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11/2001). Like I said: this is bi
Who would've thunk it?
Well, maybe we'll find out now, since anyone who researched this area in Canada in the last 10 years has been forced to keep quiet.
Where do you get the impression that "scientists" don't respect the public? Where do you get the idea that "scientists" are a monolithic entity with a shared viewpoint on the American public?
PS: As a non-scientist member of the American public, I have no respect for the American public. (As the saying goes, a person is smart... people are stupid).
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
Um, no it has nothing to do with this. Canadian scientists were muzzled by the Conservative government in large part because what they would've otherwise said would have gone against the political agenda of the Conservative party. Let's just say that the vast majority of their policies were grounded in idiotic convictions rather than analysis. Conservatives also seem to hate science as a general rule, because God's word is all you need.
This is just the start of the undoing of the dark ages. It'll take years to restore everything, assuming the Liberals actually do try to restore everything. This first move was by far the easiest and is universally approved.
... from speaking with the public exactly? Were all scientists that might have showed inclination about speaking on the matter put under house arrest for the past 6 years or something, and all internet and phone communications monitored? I find numerous mention of so-called strict rules in the past, and while I don't dispute their existence, I can't find any info at all on exactly how those rules were enforced.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Someone who respects the public (or individuals among the public, if you like that better) would let us live our lives as we choose. They wouldn't support the government meddling in every choice we might make. The wouldn't support the government bullying us. They wouldn't hype and fear-monger about tiny risks to try to scare us into funding their studies.
Here's a thought. Use your own brain to figure out what is and isn't misinformation.
Muzzling a certain form of information because it might cause you (or others) to form an opinion you don't like is not a solution.
yeah because disobeying your employer has always been a brilliant career move....
Another dumb libertarian who believes that science should bow down to his one track idea - that government is bad. Despite all the evidence to the contrary.
I'm not a fan of the Liberals but this is a good 1st step in the right direction. Thank you must also be given to the voters who finally were able to rally and kick out the Conservatives.Rozapk
You missed "tax-payer funded" science. Clearly if they are in the public sector, they have to do what their bosses tell them or risk losing their job. Or losing the funding for their project.
Same thing happened in the US under George W Bush. NASA scientists were forbidden to talk to the media except through spin-doctors, as he wanted to censor them saying that Global Warming was indeed real.
A friend of my wife was personally effected by all of this. She researches epidemics and was going to present a paper [the details of which I will not specify]. However, all appearances at conferences for any reason had to be cleared by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO). As there was an election taking place, the PMO couldn't be bothered reviewing anything, they were too busy with important stuff (you know, not epidemics). So she didn't get to go.
I can't imagine a more dystopian fiction. At least in 1984 they had a reason to spy on everyone, it was part of their basic philosophy. But in this case, the only reason for any of this was Harper's deathly fear of bad press. So everyone had to follow the Party Line, including people who's only affiliation with the party was getting funding from the government.
And, in the end, *that* was what led to their downfall. The constant repression of information and dissent, especially within his own party, was eventually too much for anyone to take. The mechanism they put in place to protect the PM from the planet was ultimately the very device that destroyed them.
This is not a "conservative" problem. Conservatives have been excellent communicators overall. Hell, Churchill *lived* for the debate, and I strongly suspect he deliberately let people talk about anything just so he could off a clever quip in response. This was an anomaly. Let's hope it does not happen again.
Agreed. I am fed up with government implementing the fanatical ideological concept of absolute private property on people who just want to go about their business in peace and not interfere with others. If there are 100 acres of land and a small corner is unused, government should not meddle in my choice to set up a house there, waving a piece of paper claiming a "right" to someone to have exclusive use of that land.
Certain things are rightly commonly owned in some way or another, such as health services, highways and the air we breathe. Other things are best owned by individuals, such as toothbrushes and second hand bookshops. Yet other things have their good points and their bad points in public and private ownership, such as communications companies.
Same thing happened in the US under George W Bush. NASA scientists were forbidden to talk to the media except through spin-doctors, as he wanted to censor them saying that Global Warming was indeed real.
Is that why NASA stated that 2005 was the warmest on record? Why 2004 was announced as the 4th warmest? Why NASA scientists were talking about global warming at 2003 conferences? Would you like a few thousand more instances where NASA scientists spoke up about global warming and claimed it was real and happening throughout the Bush Administration?
Partisan hack BasilBrush spotted...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Canada was recently rated as the "most free" nation on Earth. This is also the country that dragged Mark Steyn into court for having the temerity to "insult Islam".
Who says that a scientist has to talk to the media just to talk to the public?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
If your neighbor likes it to play loud music at four in the morning in your frontyard, you should let him live as he chooses. If the company up the river likes to dump their waste into your water supply, because this saves money and thus means higher bonusses for the bosses, you should let the managment live as it chooses. If the mob down the road likes to shot you down, because you wouldn't pay them to take care of your nice looking business, you should let them live as they choose.
I don't see how the employer would necessarily know if the public is not told through any kind of official channels.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
You like making up stories to incite people to hate their neighbors, don't you?
I just cite real events. It has happened that people were playing loud music in the frontyard of their neigbors at four in the morning. It has happened that companies were dumping their waste in the local water supply. It has happened that a mob killed a business owner after the owner refusing to pay the protection money.
I am proud to say as a Canadian we finally got rid of mini-me Bush wannabe Harper. Back to being tolerant Canada.
There is clearly a problem with religious extremism among some Islamists, Jews, and Christians. That said, care has to be taken to not lump the extremists and troublemakers into the same pot as everyone else. In my opinion Harper was an Islamophobe and bigot(and I say this as someone from a Christian family that isn't religious himself) His obsession with Islamist did real damage to our international street cred as a tolerant society for all (including Muslims).
Because of his personal British background he also attempted to align himself with only English speaking nations. (see five eyes). In many respects he stood against Canada's traditional multicultural values and position as peacemaker not police enforcer.
Whether you come from England, Syriza, Israel, China... as long as you obey the laws of our country like everyone else, all are welcome in Canada. All are equally Canadian. It is something all Canadians, no matter what culture come from and celebrate, should be proud of and to strive for. A place in the world where xenophobia, intolerance and hate is the exception not the rule.
Because enlightened progressives always choose only the evidence that supports their ideology, rejecting all other.
While you're at it, Canada, let her resume her research in Baffin Island.
She was fired because of the complaints of some thin-skinned lowlings who don't have what it takes to work with someone like her.
If you have to scold her, if you have to tell her to chill out, do so. But don't shut down scientific research just because of stupid personal problems.
--- Sueños del Sur - a webcomic about four young siblings
Sounds like something a Klan member might say. The Klan uses different slurs against different groups, but otherwise the message is about the same.
It's an illegal fire hazard to stack up that much straw in here sir.
To put it in a way that your warped political view can conceive of:
The Harper Regime told tax payer funded scientists that they could not discuss the results of their tax payer funded studies with ... tax payers.
Because the government wants their agenda pushed through despite little things like "facts". Sort of a power grab.
Now does it make sense? You and your "gummint == bad" crowd should be all over this as it's a clearly non-partisan issue.
I have to wonder if the muzzling will begin again, once the scientists start disagreeing with a liberal party policy? If, for example, it turns out that gun control doesn't actually do anything to stop crime - and that enforcement of it, much like with drugs, is basically wasted money - will the liberal party go, "Oh... I guess we were wrong about that"?
It's all sunshine and roses right now, but the scientists aren't actually saying anything that goes against the liberal party ideology at the moment. The real test of them putting their money where their mouth is, would be when they continue to support open discourse and dialogue even when it disagrees with what the party believes.
Implementation might be a whole other story. I've yet to see it pointed out anywhere that for the last decade, the people who have been enforcing this stupidity were by and large not Conservative politicians, but management within the government. Those people are still there. The people with morals and backbone are gone or got pushed into positions where they dislike for Conservative policies wouldn't be an issue (i.e. where they'd have no power).
It's a step in the right direction, but I'd still be treading carefully.
Log in or piss off.
As a Canadian born and raised, I'd have to agree.
Harper was clearly trying to align Canada with Christianity and from a nationalist standpoint the anglo-sphere end of things (i.e. his personal background rather than represent all Canadians). This is the same xenophobic nationalist racist BS that some Conservatives in the US push and now even some conservatives under Cameron in the UK. (while they simultaneously complain about Islamic extremists that try the same BS)
I'm not religious but my mom is. She's a Christian but she's not a fanatic that tries to muddle religion and state. She doesn't want to define Canada as a Christian only nation and crap like that. She supports tolerance for all religions and all peoples (including Blacks, Jews, Muslims, Indians, etc.l.... our neighbours and friends). She doesn't like homosexuality and gay marriage but even then it doesn't stop her for voting for parties that support gay marriage! In short, she tolerates even if she doesn't always agree.
I love my mom because she's my mom but I also love my mom because she's like this. We all have a vision of how the world should be. Things we don't like others. The difference between the fanatic and the good person, is the good person tolerates the quirks of other human beings. They don't oppress them. (with the caveat they also don't attempt to oppress other either)
Canada wasn't always tolerant. Natives Indians really suffered at the hands our intolerant forefathers. It took a long time before we learned to be tolerant. I was fortunate to be one of the first generations to grow up in a tolerant Canada. I want don't want our country to go back to persecuted minorities for nationalistic, racial, and religious reasons. There is enough of that going on in the world today.
While much of the rest of the world is closing its doors in, we should be a beacon of light and refuge to all by open our doors even further. Everyone should be welcome in Canada.
Yeah, yeah. Something bad happened to someone once, and therefore you should be suspicious of people who are not like you and hire us to bully them and protect you from them. If you don't, something bad will happen to you.
You're on the right side, aren't you? You're one of us, aren't you? If you're not with us, you're with them.
There is plenty of science against liberals mindset. Gun control don't work, women are not the only target of domestic violence, gender is not a social construct, the pay gap is a myth, natives chief are crooks, you can't get economic growth by using less energy, etc.
It's funny for liberals to be praised for transparency, because: 1) they opposed natives execs to disclose their income, and 2) they successfully barred Harper to impose economic transparency for unions...
I have to wonder if the muzzling will begin again, once the scientists start disagreeing with a liberal party policy? If, for example, it turns out that gun control doesn't actually do anything to stop crime - and that enforcement of it, much like with drugs, is basically wasted money - will the liberal party go, "Oh... I guess we were wrong about that"?
It's all sunshine and roses right now, but the scientists aren't actually saying anything that goes against the liberal party ideology at the moment. The real test of them putting their money where their mouth is, would be when they continue to support open discourse and dialogue even when it disagrees with what the party believes.
Whoa up there Tex! Put your gun back in your holster you are talkin' to the sheriff 'a Rock Ridge.
Firstly gun control has nothing to do with crime prevention. What you are suggesting is in essence removing the all license plates from cars when you really think about what you are saying here. In Canada we simply require that a license to purchase firearms is required the same way a drivers license is required to drive cars. You commit a crime with a gun and you lose your license to carry them plain and simple. A common sense policy, something which the religious right wing dolts who are scared by the politically motivated NRA firearms industry lobby in the good 'ol US of A just don't seem to be able comprehend.
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
oddly enough they trot out the line that the right is the party of fear - yet every single part of their platform is based on fear, ever single tenet - not one tenet of the left's platform is not based on fear. the hypocrisy is delightful.
the nra is all for restricting rights to own firearms when it comes to felons. they're against being treated the same as potential felons or putting their personal information at greater risk and being subject to greater monitoring or, in some cases, being open targets should the government attempt to disarm the populace. the right to bear arms shall not be infringed and that includes registration. registration is an unreasonable burden, adds additional costs, creates a database ripe for abuse, and is one more barrier to owning a firearm. you kooks to the north can do what you want but leave my rights alone, thanks. we don't tell you how to live your life, get out of mine.
I don't think anyone was preventing them conversing at the bus stop. Does that mean stopping them talking to the public on mass via the press isn't a problem?
Ignorant cunt.
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work...
You're a useful idiot. What you don't realise is that libertarianism is a philosophy intended to help the corporations oppress you. It's not for your benefit. But you're so stupid, you believe their stories.
Respect isn't about "evidence". People have a right to make their own choices, even if "evidence" says they'd be better off as serfs or slaves or obedient subjects or whatever other plan you have for them.
How does that justify slurring religious people?
People say Conservative meaning "blinkered bigoted idiot". There are many like that, but there's another meaning, roughly "wants minimum necessary interference in economic and/or personal affairs" which is not obviously stupid, whether you agree it is optimal or not.
What you don't realise is that libertarianism is a philosophy intended to help the corporations oppress you.
Oh no! What can I possibly do to protect myself from them? Wait... I can just choose not to buy their products.
Hmm. Should I choose for myself or elect a government overlord to choose for me in return for my money and my obedience? It's hard to decide. Can you tell me more about these corporate bogeymen?
We're none of those things. You're a paranoid.
You have no choice where there's a monopoly or a cartel. Which is the ultimate endpoint if there's not a government to stop it.
What if "evidence" showed that we'd be better off? Should people be made into serfs or subjects if "evidence" showed it was helpful? Or shouldn't they?
You have no choice where there's a monopoly or a cartel.
I could still choose to keep my money in my pocket and do without whatever they're selling.
When a guy chooses not to pay for what government is "offering", the government sends armed men to his house to violently force him to pay.
Which is the ultimate endpoint if there's not a government to stop it.
That's an argument for a very small, very limited government -- just big enough to prevent total monopolies. Much, much less government that we currently have.
no critical thinking
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
You can live your life however you choose, as long as you don't affect me.
You can choose your religion...
Technically, you don't need a license to buy a muzzle-loader or an antique.
Btw, there is no way in Canada you will never "carry" a firearm. A correct analogy with car would be that your car need to be stored locked, if not in a disabled state, separate from fuel. When you want to drive your sport car, you can only use it between your home and the approved race track, with the proper paperwork, using only on the shortest route. If you want to sell that car, you first need to ask the Government do transfer it to the new owner (transfer which can be refused). Moreover, the Government can decide overnight that your car model is prohibited, and confiscate it without monetary compensation.
And they want to rename the Calgary Intl Airport after this coldwar loving secretive friend of America. Harper's policies were all anti-democracy. Glad he's gone.
Tell the tax collectors that.
For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.
The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25
(range .16 to .33).
https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/w...
You're saying that like scientists posting results and doing work is something new. They existed before Harper muzzled them, you know that, right? They didn't conform to ideologies either. Yet, there's exactly one government that decided they had to be controlled and their ability to talk restricted. One.
Shamelessly cut and paste from WP.
James Hansen - head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies 1981-2013
In 2007, Hansen alleged that in 2005 NASA administrators had attempted to influence his public statements about the causes of climate change.[107][108] Hansen said that NASA public relations staff were ordered to review his public statements and interviews after a December 2005 lecture at the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. NASA responded that its policies are similar to those of any other federal agency in requiring employees to coordinate all statements with the public affairs office without exception.[109] Two years after Hansen and other agency employees described a pattern of distortion and suppression of climate science by political appointees, the agency’s inspector general confirmed that such activities had taken place, with the NASA Office of Public Affairs having "reduced, marginalized or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public".[110]
In June 2006, Hansen appeared on 60 Minutes stating that the George W. Bush White House had edited climate-related press releases reported by federal agencies to make global warming seem less threatening.[69] He also stated that he was unable to speak freely without the backlash of other government officials, and that he had not experienced that level of restrictions on communicating with the public during his career.[69]
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Sounds like something a Tory member might say. The Tories uses different slurs against different groups, but otherwise the message is about the same.
FTFY
Young Trudeau seems in the spirit of Canadian values of tolerance and political moderation but he doesn't seem particularly bright. Nevertheless I voted for him because I would have voted for Greens, NDP, the Bloc, or the Rhinos if it meant getting rid of Harper.
You have to go way way back, to when Canada was still a collection of colonies, to find this degree of incompetence in our leadership. Harper was obviously a puppet of American neo-conservatives (like Cameron in the UK). Despite Harper's loss, it's become apparent we too now have to contend with some of our own mystic far right extremists at home.
I'm old enough to remember when Conservatives were about more worldly matters. I liked Harris regionally. Joe Clark nationally. And even though they were mystics I still liked Reagan, Bush Sr, the Iron Lady in the UK.
Since then though. its been nothing but downhill for conservatism. "Conservatives" are slowly losing their marbles to religious extremism. It's obvious by their erratic behavior "conservatism" for many is becoming a synonym for their religious views rather than reason. They are inch-by-inch turning themselves into Jewish and Christian versions of the Taliban.
Canada did its part to reverse this trend by getting rid of Harper. UK needs to ditch Cameron. The US needs real change not empty promises of change. Ditch the earth-is-6000- year old crazies. (Bernie Sanders would be a good choice IMO but not sure if US is ready yet for an essentially secular President)
Israel needs to get rid of warmonger "Bibi" and the rest ultra nationalist racist mystic knuckleheads in their government. Arab dominated nations need to get rid of pretty much every leader. Seeing as sticking to Islamic leaders hasn't worked out so hot how about picking someone that doesn't believing in Allah for a change?
Although religion is obviously cultism based on myths, people that are religious should have the freedom to practice their religion. They should allowed to vote. They should have full equal rights (including allowed to hold political office) However when those that are religious... actually try to muddle their religion with matters of state... they should be kept as far away from holding political power as possible. (where they pose a danger both to themselves and others)
Brainless prick - you said forbidden to speak. Then you post an article talking about just such conversations happening. Forbidden? Hardly. Get a brain you dolt.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You can't even fucking read. I said:
"NASA scientists were forbidden to talk to the media except through spin-doctors"
Which is EXACTLY what happened to Hansen. Regardless of whether he went on to disobey.
Ignorant cunt.
Take _any_ institution that has employees, or limit it to say, IBM or NASA. Any media queries to each of those comes through a media relations department. The Canadian government doesn't really have one at the scientific levels so the responsibility is for supervisors at those levels to play the role. Was it "muzzling" for a person to need to let their supervisors (and on up the chain) know that they would be speaking to media? No. Simple reason: the publication of what those persons say, is taken to represent the opinion of the institutions they work in. Don't the leaders and senior leaders of that institution have a right to know about the activity then?
Try this: go to IBM and try to get a media statement from one of their scientists, just a one-on-one, no supervisors involved. Do the same for NASA. It's not going to happen.
Yeah, the Canadian scientists were not muzzled. This must have been a symptom for another issue they had with the government.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
I read what you wrote. And it's wrong. Hansen spoke anyway, and per your own article he was "talked to" AFTER the his interviews and publications. And he bore no repercussions. Was there even a warning as Hansen (a proven, documented liar) claimed? If there was - then show the proof. Show the memos requiring him to only speak through spin-doctors, of the threat of losing his job.
Just because you suck on the knob of Hansen et. al. do not assume that others will be blinded by their scientific jism in your eye...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I could still choose to keep my money in my pocket and do without whatever they're selling.
So starve to death or regress to hunter/gatherer. No everything is an optional luxury. And even if it were, your utopia is cutting down on things we can buy now, because of the monopolies and cartels. That's a bad thing not a good one.
You certainly won't be modern man driving around. No roads. And good luck keeping your property when there's no police to call in.
That's an argument for a very small, very limited government -- just big enough to prevent total monopolies.
Press a libertarian and they always reconsider. They realise that actually they DO need government. They're just small minded cry-babies who want the government to do only the things they need, and fuck what everyone else needs.
Do you understand the concept of public goods? Externalities?
The fact that everybody doing what they want leads to conflict and you need someone to act as a regulator?
Anyhow next trip you can join me, you may fancy going up to Somalia (I stop at Somaliland as I really like functioning governments)
Thats easy....try " If you talk to the media your employment will be terminated forthwith..."
Standard public "Service" doctrine. And a huge bogeyman if the main area of your research is with a government agency or Government Funded.
And the reason you cant find anything on how it was enforced is that that employment contracts are "Private" agreements and not available for public scrutiny.
Wake up and smell the reality of a government aiming for total domination. The next step was to find a scapegoat to blame everything "bad" on. Sound familiar?
So starve to death or regress to hunter/gatherer.
Because a corporation could totally have a monopoly on food sales. You'd have to be truly paranoid to believe something that ridiculous.
Press a libertarian and they always reconsider. They realise that actually they DO need government.
Strawman defeated. Congrats.
Smart people can have a conversation about how much government to have. Apparently you can't because the only answers you can imagine are "maximum government, always, in all things" vs. "none at all".
There are loads of ways of getting information into public knowledge without using the media. Word of mouth works suprisingly well.
But my point is that given that the only "enforcement" possible was duress, the scientists must have been complicit in these restrictions, and they ultimately must have been convinced that the public didn't really need to know anyways. Really, if the science really mattered, they'd publish anyways, and just start looking for another job. Also, when the employer fired them, the public would know what the reason was, since they had published, and the employer might face a PR backlash from the general public if they believed the matter to be important enough.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
When Harper's government shut down scientific libraries and threw them in the dumpster there were some irreplaceable things lost. To bad he'll never get charged with that crime.
I own stock in a very few companies directly, so that I can participate in the company votes. In most companies, the bulk of the stock is held by mutual funds or retirement funds or whatever, that have little interest in corporate governance and will pretty well rubber-stamp the board. The net result is that I have no real influence over corporate governance, and if a few million of my close personal friends decided to chip in we'd still have no real influence.
On the other hand, I vote for certain government offices, which have control over most of the rest of government. My vote or donation is not significant due to the sheer number of potential voters, but if I get a few million friends together we can have some very solid influence.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Yeah, a political guy thought his job (and the jobs of his underlings) was to make the President look good. Like I said - this is bi-partisan. Just look at all the jerks in the Obama admin who forgot they were working at the taxpayers' expense and think their jobs are to make Obama look good.
Here's some of the faux-gagging of Hansen:
2006 CBS hansen, while supposedly gagged rants to "60 minutes"
2007 PBS theoretically gagged and persecuted interview.
Jan 2006 NYT interview by the supposedly gagged man with the most-read paper on the planet.
2006 WaPo The supposedly gagged man gives a panel discussion on what he supposedly cannot say without being waterboarded and it's published in one the nation's most-read papers
People really need to stop being manipulated by propaganda meisters like Hansen and his friends. There are TONS of articles in the web based on interviews and talks the man made while he was supposedly wearing a dick-cheney-administered ball-gag. The man is on record admitting that the famous global warming hearings in the Senate in 1988 were political theater - they were scheduled for a hot day and the Democrats made sure to kill the AC in the hearing room so everybody would be hot and sweating in all the pictures and video. YOU HAVE BEEN MANIPULATED, possibly for your entire life by this man and his political allies.
... and all internet and phone communications monitored?
Funny you should ask. Yes. Yes they were. Every phone call they made was logged. Every web site they visited was logged. Every email they sent was captured and stored. So were all of yours. Harper's government used equipment Cisco designed for the NSA, eagerly installed by Bell and Shaw and Rogers in datacenters across the entire country.
Are you starting to see the problem here?