[DrCaleb]

martin14 martin14:

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/why-conservatives-think-the-public-service-is-liberal/

$1:

Ignatieff has repeatedly chided Prime Minister Stephen Harper for treating bureaucrats and independent watchdogs like partisan enemies of the Conservative government.

Yet Ignatieff’s staffing choices have contributed to the Tories’ perception that the bureaucracy is full of closet and not-so-secret Liberals.

The Tories were irate when Kevin Chan, executive assistant to the country’s top civil servant, quit his post last year to join Ignatieff’s team. They fretted that Chan, who had been privy to secret discussions on the budget and other sensitive matters, would share his inside knowledge with the Liberals.

So . . one. Out of how many hundreds of thousands of civil servants?

How many people in the Reform Party said anything mildly racist - yet all were labelled as such?

[martin14]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

So . . one. Out of how many hundreds of thousands of civil servants?

The article mentioned several others, I guess you missed that.

Not much of a rebuttal Doc.

Besides, there wouldn't be much arguing if the civil serpents and the government
were getting along.

There is a reason for this.

[DrCaleb]

martin14 martin14:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

So . . one. Out of how many hundreds of thousands of civil servants?

The article mentioned several others, I guess you missed that.

Not much of a rebuttal Doc.

Not much of an argument, so a strong rebuttal isn't needed. So, three . . .five. . .ten . . . out of how many hundreds of thousands? That really changes the demographics!

Besides, science isn't about politics, it's about facts. And that's what Harper has been suppressing, not the politics of the scientists. And as Zip points out, an economists views on Scientists are about as noteworthy as a Mexican igloo. No one knows how it got there, but you know it's not going to matter in the near future.

As the article alludes to, Science gives facts. "Here is a trend", or "here is what will happen", or "here is what is likely to be the outcome of a decision". The politicians are the ones who must deal with that reality, and Harper refuses to. As the Prime Minister of Canada, he needs to plan for the future of all - not just his politically aligned Canadians. By not having an independent guide to outcomes, he has no idea how policy should be shaped for a given result and he's condemning Canada to a pretty bleak future.

Using Kajiji ads as a measure of unemployment stats . . . anyone? If that's how he'll shape our future given the lack of real data, we are all screwed. Whether a given scientist votes NDP or CPC or LPC or Bloc is irrelevant in the long term.

[Thanos]

Unless the scientists are all robots it's not safe to believe that they're all 100% objective. There's not much credibility in believing that they're all lying or mind-controlled by George Soros, the way that the right-wing kooks keep pushing that they all are. At the same time it's difficult not to get exasperated with them when jerks like James Hansen or Bill McKibben get on their pulpits and say with a straight face "we basically have to shut down all fossil-fuel derived economic activity in Western civilization or we're all going to die". Is a scientist even still a scientist at that point, or are they just another member of a fringe that's as odious as the other fringe they're opposed to?

[Zipperfish]

martin14 martin14:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

So . . one. Out of how many hundreds of thousands of civil servants?

The article mentioned several others, I guess you missed that.

Not much of a rebuttal Doc.

Besides, there wouldn't be much arguing if the civil serpents and the government
were getting along.

There is a reason for this.

Everyone knows that the incoming party replacese the top tier of the civil service when they get in. In the US, they go down three or four tiers, usually. Replacing everyone is dumb. That's what Bremner did when he got into Iraq (civil service and the army). Often recognized as his biggest mistake.

edit: actually i believe he just disbanded the army altogether.

[Zipperfish]

martin14 martin14:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

entire civil service with party apparatchiks every time a new government got in would be very good though.

No, but leaving only the Liberal apparatchicks doesn't help either.

Most civil servants put aside their political beliefs for work. They swear an oath to serve the Crown. That means they do the bidding of the people of Canada as represented by their Minister.

But I think there is a problem with too many lifers in the civil service. A lot of miserable people wearing the golden handcuffs (too many years of pensionable service to make it worth leaving). More cross-breeding would be good.

Not sure how to do that. They could reduce pension bemnefits, but they'd have to up the pay.

[martin14]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Besides, science isn't about politics, it's about facts.

But politics is not about science.

It's about science and economics and jobs and moving things forward and getting re-elected.

I understand the friction created by scientists who cry about this that and the
other, then cry again when the government does something different.

If we were ruled only by science, they would have us all living in caves, because they know nothing about economics, and the jobs, taxes and stability that goes with it.

$1:

Science gives facts. "Here is a trend", or "here is what will happen", or "here is what is likely to be the outcome of a decision". The politicians are the ones who must deal with that reality,

Science doesn't care about jobs and taxes lost, or votes.

But people do.

[DrCaleb]

martin14 martin14:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Besides, science isn't about politics, it's about facts.

But politics is not about science.

That's why there has always been two layers; the science side that looks at problems or systems and give data about possible future events or outcome; and the politicians, whose job it is to use that information to form policy that will do what it best for the most people. Whether that involves fisheries or lumber production, it's been the pervue of the elected officials to determine policy.

martin14 martin14:

It's about science and economics and jobs and moving things forward and getting re-elected.

Scientists aren't elected. Politicians are. What happens when Politicians defund science and make up data to form policy? Are you going to re-elect that kind of forward thinker?

martin14 martin14:

I understand the friction created by scientists who cry about this that and the
other, then cry again when the government does something different.

Do you also understand why they make certain recommendations? It's not about their own biases, it's because the numbers say something. I just posted a number of articles where Woodland Caribou habitat is essentially gone, the Caribou can no longer retreat to the mountains and have calves safe from predators who couldn't make it through the deep snow. Wolves now can easily travel down the cutlines made for oil exploration and predate on calves, and there is nowhere for the Caribou to retreat.

And 25 years ago, Scientists with Natural Resources Canada said that was exactly what their studies showed would happen if the area were open to oil exploration - that we'd lose a valuable and unique species. And the Government of Alberta ignored them and did it anyway.

It's nothing to do with politics, it's science.

martin14 martin14:

If we were ruled only by science, they would have us all living in caves, because they know nothing about economics, and the jobs, taxes and stability that goes with it.

Ummmm, you really should reevaluate that statement. Economics comes from the study of math, it is a science. And Science is the reason we have things like dry homes, heat, light . . . it's politics that keeps in in the dark ages. Politicians aren't willing to make the hard decisions that will make big and positive differences in society, because they are afraid of not being re-elected. Scientists aren't elected, so they can make the recommendations free of the bias that politicians have in that respect.

martin14 martin14:

$1:

Science gives facts. "Here is a trend", or "here is what will happen", or "here is what is likely to be the outcome of a decision". The politicians are the ones who must deal with that reality,

Science doesn't care about jobs and taxes lost, or votes.

But people do.

Correction, politicians care about taxes and votes. People don't care about politicians, as you can see every election day. Take away things science gives us, like cars and roads and clean water and wi-fi, and see how much people care about it. Look back to the East coast blackout of 2003 and see how much people care about science, and look to the lessons learnt about the causes of that blackout and it's a perfect example of politicians dragging their heels when scientists and engineers make recommendations in the public interest.

[DrCaleb]

$1:

Alas, while journalists compete with each other to break news, Canadian scientists face a much more powerful opponent to the timely dissemination of their hard work: their own bosses.

As the briefing idea lurched toward its mind-numbing fate — it was spiked by the sixth (!) of nine (!!) layers of government approval that were apparently needed to produce an accompanying communications plan — and as the ice melt continued to shatter records, scientists with the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) stepped up with briefings and press releases that generated worldwide coverage. Not surprisingly, the coverage was “missing the Canadian details,” one internal email lamented.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/ ... ists-speak

[DrCaleb]

$1:

Canadian gov't suppressed info on polar ice melt

Canada’s Conservative-led government has tried to keep Canadians from finding out just how rapidly the Arctic ice is melting by suppressing the findings of its own scientists, as well as forbidding them from talking about global climate change.

In 2012, government scientists working for the Canadian Ice Service, the agency whose mission is “to provide the most accurate and timely information about ice in Canada’s navigable waters,“ reported that the Arctic ice had shrunk to the lowest point ever recorded.

Because of the worldwide interest in the condition of the polar ice caps, the scientists wanted to hold a “strictly factual” technical briefing for the media to let Canadians and others know that ice had disappeared from the Northwest Passage as well as other areas, according to an article on the canada.com website.

Before they could do this, it had to run through a gauntlet of nine levels of approval by various officials. It never made it through the process. According to the released documents, when it reached the sixth layer, known as “ministerial services,” the briefing was cancelled.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/poli ... cle/398488

[DrCaleb]

$1:

Remove the muzzle from government scientists
Politicians are twisting and hiding science that reveals flaws in their policies.

By: David Schindler Published on Fri Sep 20 2013

Most scientists are by nature introverts, happiest in the field or the laboratory, willing to talk about their work if asked but not inclined to be self-promoters. But on Monday, they demonstrated in public in several Canadian cities to protest the muzzling of government scientists and the de-emphasis of government environmental science.

That scientists would take the time and effort to demonstrate publicly should be deeply disturbing to Canadians. It indicates some dramatic and important changes in the purpose of government science departments.

In the 1960s and 1970s, government scientists were encouraged to speak publicly about their work. The resulting science-based policies were the envy of scientists and policy-makers around the world. Canada was the first country to regulate phosphorus in sewage and detergents, leading to the recovery of many lakes from algal blooms. Much of the science behind that decision was done by government scientists. It was welcomed by policy-makers eager to anchor their policies in solid science. Canada also led global efforts to decrease emissions of ozone-depleting chemicals, resulting in the Montreal Protocol.

A decade later, the transparency in government science began showing the first signs of weakening. Scientists were no longer encouraged to speak publicly on their work, but they were not prevented from doing so. They were warned to avoid directly criticizing government policies, even environmentally harmful ones. Rebukes were mild for a scientist who challenged his political masters. At worst, a scolding letter was “put on your file.”

Such tightening of public communication was one reason I left government science for academia. In ensuing years, control over science and scientists has been slowly tightened by politicians and bureaucrats under both Conservative and Liberal governments, who feared that science would challenge their ideology and their policies.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commenta ... tists.html

[andyt]

There is no science that can tell politicians how to rule. Politics is about making tradeoffs to keep most people happy most of the time. Scientists would not be good at this, we see how few scientists are politicians. Scientists who think they can run things based just on science are delusional. It would lead to something like Nazi Germany, which used "science" to justify the holocaust, or similar.

What we need tho is a more scientifically literate population. Especially true in the US, with all the creationists etc, but Canada also could do with better science instruction in school. That and allowing govt scientists to disseminate the results of their study, so people are informed, would then better help to shape public policy.

But take the cariboo study - the results of the earlier study could have been trumpeted far and wide, and the exploration would still have been done. This isn't just the politicians fault, but that most of us think mostly about what's best for us in the short term. Who cares about a bunch of cariboo when I need a new pickup that my oil related job buys me.

[Zipperfish]

The guy in the article was from the University of Calgary--so right their in the Tom Flanagan school of economy--and was invited to spend some time at Environment Canada. That's a rpoblem right there--why are you bringing in political appratchiks into the civil service?

And his contention that scientists shouldn't be able to speak out against government policy in the media? Well duh! That's never been an issue. The issue is scientsits not being able to publish papers in journals that have bugger all to do with gummint policy. They can't attend conferences. They can't tlka to other scientists. IN many cases they can't even talk to colleagues in their own departments.