I could take a random bolded word out of your posts and it would mean just as little as what you've attempted here.
*yawn*
Government kills independent science body
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
I could take a random bolded word out of your posts and it would mean just as little as what you've attempted here.
*yawn*
Flossy doesn't understand the real implications of the word 'could' .
Maybe to get their funding back up to schedule, the NRT could buy a winning lottery ticket and voila, problem solved.
If you really want something in this life, you have to work for it. Now, quiet, they’re about to announce the lottery numbers!
Homer J Simpson
Your entire position is based on some fluffy ideals that are founded entirely on opinion and the NRT's (personal) belief that they have any kind of value.
You have provided nothing to argue other than the fact that you believe they are 'independent' when they are nothing of the sort
What's to argue? A moot publicly funded agency is getting the axe. We should keep funding moot agencies?
You mean how sustainable development of the oilsands will turn us into Greece? rofl
Yeah, sure. Keep drinking the kool-aid flossy.
Get back to me when you have an argument and not these sensationalist fallacies upon which you rely.
The Round Table has always operated independently of Government. In the past, there have been many NGOs funded by government that are Arm's Length operations.
This government has changed that. It is bribging everything within the government tent - compound would probably be a better term. Funding for everything is dependent on political affiliation and utility.
The economic forecast of the NRTEE is in line with the Global forecast of the Stern Report. That report estimated a cost of 1% of world GDP to deal with climate changing, increasing to 5% if it was left to century's end. That, of course, is not palatable to this government. It wants only to know what costs without compensating benefits. In this case, benefits that far exceed costs.
Tomorrow is of no consequence to a Cabinet, several of whose members are expecting the rapture to arrive before "tomorrow" does.
The value of the NRTEE is inestimable. It fills all the purposes that Mental Floss indicated. Those are not replaceable without far greater costs downloaded to other jurisdictions and the cost of collating the findings.
This government has changed that. It is bribging everything within the government tent - compound would probably be a better term. Funding for everything is dependent on political affiliation and utility.
The economic forecast of the NRTEE is in line with the Global forecast of the Stern Report. That report estimated a cost of 1% of world GDP to deal with climate changing, increasing to 5% if it was left to century's end. That, of course, is not palatable to this government. It wants only to know what costs without compensating benefits. In this case, benefits that far exceed costs.
Tomorrow is of no consequence to a Cabinet, several of whose members are expecting the rapture to arrive before "tomorrow" does.
The value of the NRTEE is inestimable. It fills all the purposes that Mental Floss indicated. Those are not replaceable without far greater costs downloaded to other jurisdictions and the cost of collating the findings.
Hay guyz, let's not forget the independent watchdogs that showed McKay left out $10 Billion on the F-35 bungle.
They were funded by us, so they must not really be independent. :roll:
They were funded by us, so they must not really be independent. :roll:
Excellent!!
Why should taxpayers throw money at a group working against Canada's economic health, against the policies of the elected government, and against the clearly expressed wishes of the Canadian public?? (Remember Dion and the Green Tax?)
Why should taxpayers throw money at a group working against Canada's economic health, against the policies of the elected government, and against the clearly expressed wishes of the Canadian public?? (Remember Dion and the Green Tax?)
.. And there have been many NGOs that have been cut because they served no tangible purpose.
This is one of them.
Welcome to the wonderful world of politics.
The Stern Report? Is that the same 'climate expert' that submitted the hockey stick graph that was refuted based on the reality that his results could be replicated by graphing red noise (That'd be a measure of randomness in case you are unaware)
Carpe Diem I say
Apparently it is estimable... Zero seems to be the consensus
So is stupidity... Doesn't mean that I have to buy into it
Frozen out
Media interactions with government scientists have undergone a reversal across North America during the past six years. In the United States, President Barack Obama's administration has directed federal science agencies to develop integrity policies with clear guidelines for scientists who are approached by journalists.
In December, agencies including the US National Science Foundation (NSF) and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued guidelines that promote openness with the press. For instance, NOAA and NSF-funded scientists and staff are free to speak to journalists without first seeking the approval of a public-affairs officer. The NSF's policy states that researchers are free to express their personal views as long as they make clear that they are not speaking on behalf of the agency. And scientists also have right of review over agency publications and press releases that claim to represent their expert opinions. Such policies may not be implemented successfully in all cases, but they show that attitudes have evolved encouragingly since 2006, when charges that then-president George W. Bush's administration had silenced US government researchers made front-page news.
Over the same period, Canada has moved in the opposite direction. Since Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative Party won power in 2006, there has been a gradual tightening of media protocols for federal scientists and other government workers. Researchers who once would have felt comfortable responding freely and promptly to journalists are now required to direct inquiries to a media-relations office, which demands written questions in advance, and might not permit scientists to speak. Canadian journalists have documented several instances in which prominent researchers have been prevented from discussing published, peer-reviewed literature. Policy directives and e-mails obtained from the government through freedom of information reveal a confused and Byzantine approach to the press, prioritizing message control and showing little understanding of the importance of the free flow of scientific knowledge.
The Harper government's poor record on openness has been raised by this publication before (see K. O'Hara Nature 467, 501; 2010), and Nature's news reporters, who have an obvious interest in access to scientific information and expert opinion, have experienced directly the cumbersome approval process that stalls or prevents meaningful contact with Canada's publicly funded scientists. Little has changed in the past two years: rather than address the matter, the Canadian government seems inclined to stick with its restrictive course and ride out all objections.
That position is coming under increasing pressure as a result of the scientific-integrity policies taking shape across the border. The clarity of the US guidelines undercuts the Canadian government's assertion that its own media policies are adequate and have simply been misunderstood. If the Harper government truly embraces public access to publicly funded scientific expertise, then it should do what the Canadian Science Writers' Association and several other organizations have called for in a letter sent to the prime minister on 16 February: “implement a policy of timely and transparent communication” like those used by NOAA and the NSF.
The letter coincided with a symposium, 'Unmuzzling Government Scientists: How to Re-open the Debate', which was held last week at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Vancouver, Canada. With the country taking centre stage as the meeting's host, the Harper government found its media policies in the international spotlight. Scientists and other visitors from around the globe discovered, to their surprise, that Canada's generally positive foreign reputation as a progressive, scientific nation masks some startlingly poor behaviour. The way forward is clear: it is time for the Canadian government to set its scientists free.
Frozen out : Nature : Nature Publishing Group
Media interactions with government scientists have undergone a reversal across North America during the past six years. In the United States, President Barack Obama's administration has directed federal science agencies to develop integrity policies with clear guidelines for scientists who are approached by journalists.
In December, agencies including the US National Science Foundation (NSF) and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued guidelines that promote openness with the press. For instance, NOAA and NSF-funded scientists and staff are free to speak to journalists without first seeking the approval of a public-affairs officer. The NSF's policy states that researchers are free to express their personal views as long as they make clear that they are not speaking on behalf of the agency. And scientists also have right of review over agency publications and press releases that claim to represent their expert opinions. Such policies may not be implemented successfully in all cases, but they show that attitudes have evolved encouragingly since 2006, when charges that then-president George W. Bush's administration had silenced US government researchers made front-page news.
Over the same period, Canada has moved in the opposite direction. Since Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative Party won power in 2006, there has been a gradual tightening of media protocols for federal scientists and other government workers. Researchers who once would have felt comfortable responding freely and promptly to journalists are now required to direct inquiries to a media-relations office, which demands written questions in advance, and might not permit scientists to speak. Canadian journalists have documented several instances in which prominent researchers have been prevented from discussing published, peer-reviewed literature. Policy directives and e-mails obtained from the government through freedom of information reveal a confused and Byzantine approach to the press, prioritizing message control and showing little understanding of the importance of the free flow of scientific knowledge.
The Harper government's poor record on openness has been raised by this publication before (see K. O'Hara Nature 467, 501; 2010), and Nature's news reporters, who have an obvious interest in access to scientific information and expert opinion, have experienced directly the cumbersome approval process that stalls or prevents meaningful contact with Canada's publicly funded scientists. Little has changed in the past two years: rather than address the matter, the Canadian government seems inclined to stick with its restrictive course and ride out all objections.
That position is coming under increasing pressure as a result of the scientific-integrity policies taking shape across the border. The clarity of the US guidelines undercuts the Canadian government's assertion that its own media policies are adequate and have simply been misunderstood. If the Harper government truly embraces public access to publicly funded scientific expertise, then it should do what the Canadian Science Writers' Association and several other organizations have called for in a letter sent to the prime minister on 16 February: “implement a policy of timely and transparent communication” like those used by NOAA and the NSF.
The letter coincided with a symposium, 'Unmuzzling Government Scientists: How to Re-open the Debate', which was held last week at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Vancouver, Canada. With the country taking centre stage as the meeting's host, the Harper government found its media policies in the international spotlight. Scientists and other visitors from around the globe discovered, to their surprise, that Canada's generally positive foreign reputation as a progressive, scientific nation masks some startlingly poor behaviour. The way forward is clear: it is time for the Canadian government to set its scientists free.
Frozen out : Nature : Nature Publishing Group
It's so wonderful we live in a country where the government can make up any crazy version of reality it likes and try and force us to follow along.
I'm just waiting to be told by the Conservatives what religion to follow, who to vote for(via robocall), what foods to eat, what I can watch for entertainment etc...
What happened to freedom in this country?
I'm just waiting to be told by the Conservatives what religion to follow, who to vote for(via robocall), what foods to eat, what I can watch for entertainment etc...
What happened to freedom in this country?
