Canadians will pay for Harper's approach to environment: former Tory

[Niflmir]

When all the Occupiers have been employed by one panel or another, devoted to promoting the AGW theory, then there will be enough.

That stretching things a bit don't you think?

There are reputable sources on the net as well as disreputable. Is CanLII a reputable source for case law? As apposed to Law & Order reruns on YouTube?

You'd have to establish he's encompassing the whole in his statement.

CanLII is certainly reputable. Would I believe that it is a drop in replacement for a lawyer or a law professor or a judge? Can CanLII tell you everything you need to know about the law? No.

But that is what our environment minister has chosen to do. In lieu of advisors, he will just use the internet.

Of course I am stretching things. The internet is a source of entertainment first and a source of facts second, and I am here to entertain myself. Despite my hyperbole, we still have an environment minister who thinks that the internet is the best source of advice to frame his decisions.

 

[petros]

CanLII is certainly reputable. Would I believe that it is a drop in replacement for a lawyer or a law professor or a judge? Can CanLII tell you everything you need to know about the law? No.

But that is what our environment minister has chosen to do. In lieu of advisors, he will just use the internet.

I'd still hire the lawyer. They know how to emotionally manipulate the opinions or facts to get a response from their target.. The round table was pretty good at manipulating emotions weren't they?

 

[Niflmir]

I'd still hire the lawyer. They know how to emotionally manipulate the opinions or facts to get a response from their target.. The round table was pretty good at manipulating emotions weren't they?

Don't know, don't care. It has nothing to do with the fact that the internet is not a reliable source for an MP to base decisions.

The extraordinary thing about Kent's suggestion is that it can be attacked on its own lack of merits. Going to the internet for advice is just a completely ludicrous idea for a cabinet minister. Writing legislation and regulations is not like writing an eighth grade essay.

How can anyone trust such a minister?

 

[CDNBear]

CanLII is certainly reputable. Would I believe that it is a drop in replacement for a lawyer or a law professor or a judge? Can CanLII tell you everything you need to know about the law? No.

I agree, but one could mount an adequate defence using that source.

The AGW movement points to the IPCC consistently, if it if fair for them to do so, than the same respect should be given all. Even a politician, from the other end of the spectrum.

But that is what our environment minister has chosen to do. In lieu of advisors, he will just use the internet.

That's not true.

Of course I am stretching things. The internet is a source of entertainment first and a source of facts second, and I am here to entertain myself. Despite my hyperbole, we still have an environment minister who thinks that the internet is the best source of advice to frame his decisions.

Politics is not immune from hyperbole either.

The round table was pretty good at manipulating emotions weren't they?

Emotional appeals sell.

See the overwhelming hyperbole from the Usual AGW Suspects.

 

[petros]

Don't know, don't care. It has nothing to do with the fact that the internet is not a reliable source for an MP to base decisions.



How can anyone trust such a minister?

Trust? Isn't that emotionally driven?

 

[Tonington]

The simple fact is that tacit knowledge is worth something. Someone who reads something on the internet without knowing the context of the subject can't very well be expected to have the same depth of knowledge to provide valuable assessments of risk, or to provide thorough reviews of the subject. That really is the point. The round table was a panel of experts from economists to biologists, to chemists and engineers. Since we're using the law analogy here alot, let's compare this panel to a court case, because in both cases it's the evidence that matters.

Court's value expert opinion when it comes to interpreting the evidence. Policy that affects the livelihoods and well being of the public should have no less a rigorous system for delivering expert advice on subjects that matter.

What this really boils down to is controlling messages. The panel was independent and did not have to worry about the politics of their advice. If the government asks for advice from civil servants, it can censure that information in any way they like.

 

[Niflmir]

Trust? Isn't that emotionally driven?

Yes, my trust in the fact that the water I bought from the store is not hydrogen peroxide is based upon my emotional connection to the cashier. Although we never exchange more words than, "Bonnetje?", "No thanks," somehow we have built up a emotional connection that I need in order to be able to eat without worrying that it has been poisoned.

 

[CDNBear]

The simple fact is that tacit knowledge is worth something. Someone who reads something on the internet without knowing the context of the subject can't very well be expected to have the same depth of knowledge to provide valuable assessments of risk, or to provide thorough reviews of the subject. That really is the point. The round table was a panel of experts from economists to biologists, to chemists and engineers. Since we're using the law analogy here alot, let's compare this panel to a court case, because in both cases it's the evidence that matters.

Fair enough.

Do you have some evidence that the Minister in question doesn't know the context of reputable data available on the net?

Court's value expert opinion when it comes to interpreting the evidence. Policy that affects the livelihoods and well being of the public should have no less a rigorous system for delivering expert advice on subjects that matter.

I agree.

Is there evidence that in the entire expanse of Ottawa, there is no other venue for vetting intel on climate?

What this really boils down to is controlling messages. The panel was independent and did not have to worry about the politics of their advice. If the government asks for advice from civil servants, it can censure that information in any way they like.

Now that there is ample evidence to support!

 

[Niflmir]

What this really boils down to is controlling messages. The panel was independent and did not have to worry about the politics of their advice. If the government asks for advice from civil servants, it can censure that information in any way they like.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. Anyone can go out and cherry pick information. Even if Kent was a nobel prize winning ecologist (environmentalist? whatever...) nobody should trust he and he alone.

 

[CDNBear]

I think you hit the nail on the head here. Anyone can go out and cherry pick information. Even if Kent was a nobel prize winning ecologist (environmentalist? whatever...) nobody should trust he and he alone.

That's a fair statement.

No one should trust single agenda sources of any kind though.

 

[Walter]

What this really boils down to is controlling messages. The panel was independent and did not have to worry about the politics of their advice.

Where did the money come from that paid the salaries of the "independent" panel?

 

[taxslave]

Presumably the minister has access to experts already on the government payroll to advise him. He does not need yet another panel of tax suckers to repeat the message. There is something to be said for a minister to interact directly with experts rather than have a filtered version fed to him/her.

 

[Tonington]

Fair enough.

Do you have some evidence that the Minister in question doesn't know the context of reputable data available on the net?
I agree.

The key part of what you quoted was "tacit" knowledge. Tacit being the knowledge someone gets by working on something. You would have tacit knowledge of welding and metal fabrication, as well as military skills. A scientist has tacit knowledge in the discipline in which they work. An economist has tacit knowledge of the discipline they work in.

Peter Kent is a politician, and formerly worked in the field of journalism. I can't even begin to count the number of times a journalist has gotten the story wrong. Though good journalists will do what? Go to sources that can explain the finer details.

Is there evidence that in the entire expanse of Ottawa, there is no other venue for vetting intel on climate?

No, but the roundtable wasn't a climate info clearing house. They advised on sustainable development. A climatologist shouldn't be giving advice on economic matters. It's an arena that requires multiple disciplines, and as such was composed of experts from multiple disciplines, including business leaders.

Of course we can find civil servants in many departments with capable expertise. But government departments have specific focuses. More to the point, I haven't yet seen any evidence that this model of fact-finding was flawed, or that it could be done more efficiently by taking civil servants and placing them on a similar roundtable as a replacement.

Presumably the minister has access to experts already on the government payroll to advise him. He does not need yet another panel of tax suckers to repeat the message. There is something to be said for a minister to interact directly with experts rather than have a filtered version fed to him/her.

So who fills the gap left behind when those civil servants are put onto another task? With all the cuts to DFO, EC, CFIA, etc etc.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Added to that is that government scientists are under 'gag' orders. Teh Round Table could make its views public.

 

[taxslave]

The key part of what you quoted was "tacit" knowledge. Tacit being the knowledge someone gets by working on something. You would have tacit knowledge of welding and metal fabrication, as well as military skills. A scientist has tacit knowledge in the discipline in which they work. An economist has tacit knowledge of the discipline they work in.

Peter Kent is a politician, and formerly worked in the field of journalism. I can't even begin to count the number of times a journalist has gotten the story wrong. Though good journalists will do what? Go to sources that can explain the finer details.



No, but the roundtable wasn't a climate info clearing house. They advised on sustainable development. A climatologist shouldn't be giving advice on economic matters. It's an arena that requires multiple disciplines, and as such was composed of experts from multiple disciplines, including business leaders.

Of course we can find civil servants in many departments with capable expertise. But government departments have specific focuses. More to the point, I haven't yet seen any evidence that this model of fact-finding was flawed, or that it could be done more efficiently by taking civil servants and placing them on a similar roundtable as a replacement.



So who fills the gap left behind when those civil servants are put onto another task? With all the cuts to DFO, EC, CFIA, etc etc.

That depends to a large extent on where the cuts are being made. Are they cutting the experts(people like you) or the vast legions of mindless bureaucrats that sit around inventing ways to squander money.
My bet is that we wind up with fewer experts and more bureaucrats because that is just the way government operates unfortunately.

 

[gerryh]

If that "round table" is so damn important in the big scheme of things...... then let them find financing for their "oh so important" work else where.

 

[taxslave]

I've been in on "roundtable discussions before. Big joke. Those of us that didn't agree with the dog and pony show the government of the time was pushing were ignored. Some of us even had a government influenced assault on our businesses by the various ministries we had to deal with.