2012-03-02 02:51:01PMO Pest Control
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.204.110

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Harper_Control_Scientists.html

I haven't thrown in much. How do you add multiple authors? Thought I would just make a little something to start us.

2012-03-02 03:20:09
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I thin you have to be an admin to add multiple authors (up to 4 total).  If you give me the names, I can add them.

2012-03-02 03:49:07Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.204.110

Alex S and Albatross

2012-03-02 04:18:50
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Is that Alex C or Andy S?  The latter I presume, as he's Canadian. 

Andy S and Alby added.

2012-03-02 05:36:07comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

Woops haha Andy S

That would be confusing!

2012-03-02 06:30:45
Andy S

skucea@telus...
209.121.15.232

Here, I have built on Robert's draft, the only way I know, by copying it and making it my own.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/PMOPestAS.html

But I can't change the authors, not having the magic powers.

2012-03-02 06:43:29
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

Science in retreat
Nature (2008)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7181/full/451866a.html

Frozen Out
Nature (2012)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7387/full/483006a.html

Canada must free scientists to talk to journalists
Nature (2010)
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100929/full/467501a.html

Three editorials from Nature criticizing the Harper government


Andy S you can edit the current copy I started  (you're added)

PS I copied over your edits to mine because Dana gave us all access on mine

2012-03-02 06:49:12
Andy S

skucea@telus...
209.121.15.232

Robert: I don't think I can edit it, not being first author. Anyway, I'd like you and Alby to check out my additions and see if you agree with them.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/PMOPestAS.html

2012-03-02 06:54:16
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

Good fnds Robert, I found this press release from PIPSC concerning the muzzling of DR. Kristi Miller's research on Salmon.

I wonder if we should also inlcude the deniers misleading the senate committe and Tom Harris misleading students?  Mike de Souza just published something on this. As has the Guardian.

2012-03-02 07:05:18comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

perhaps we should discuss also the senate testimony... but the carleton profs i'm not too sure about as people do have academic freedom... maybe a quick mention.

I added in some ice core stuff

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110915/full/news.2011.538.html

2012-03-02 07:06:53comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

Wasnt there a guy doing tar sands research who the government disagreed with and mocked his work...

2012-03-02 07:10:35
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

I also stumbled on a hit list.  More about him firing the Canada's National Science Advisor position is here. And let us not forget that the Harper government has refused to extend funding for CFCAS.

"For all intents and purposes, Harper has abolished science in Canada.

When the chief of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission suggested that one shouldn't run nuclear plants without necessary safety equipment, she was fired.

When a biologist discovered that the Conservatives were deregulating meat inspection and blew the whistle, he was fired.

When a panel of scientists wrote a report on the health dangers of asbestos, the report was shelved.

When a scientist in Ottawa wrote a novel about climate change, the Environment ministry told him he would not be allowed speak about his book at the National Press Club.

But this is not simply a problem of disagreeing with the science - Harper doesn't want to even hear the science. At the start of 2008 the Harper government abolished Canada's National Science Advisor position.

On what far away planet that serves as home to Harper's common sense is it prudent to ignore and abolish the office of Canada's National Science Advisor.

Stephen Harper believes the world is flat, and just so long as he believes it hard enough (and fires enough people), it is so."

2012-03-02 07:11:32
Andy S

skucea@telus...
209.121.15.232

I think if we include the Carleton stuff, we'll be distracting the focus away from Harper's control freakery. The carleton affair is so bad, it needs a post to itself.

 The ice cores article Robert found is worth including.

2012-03-02 07:11:59
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

Robert that was probably Dr. Dave Schindler from UofA?

2012-03-02 07:14:00
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

OK, I agree the Carleton stuff is not relevant-- at least not to Harper's war on science.

Thanks for the write up Andy!

Glad you remembered the ice core stuff Robert, I forgot about that even though Iemailed it to martin Sharp at the time.

I'm heading out this afternoon but will have more time tonight (hopefully).

2012-03-02 07:14:02
Andy S

skucea@telus...
209.121.15.232

Robert: Wasnt there a guy doing tar sands research who the government disagreed with and mocked his work

Was that David Schindler? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/10/15/f-david-schindler.html


2012-03-02 07:14:34comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2010/09/20/federal-scientists-rules-media.html

This is a good article

Perhaps a list of organizations that have condemned this practice

2012-03-02 07:16:22comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

ya it was schindler... we should include that and all of albys comments... this is getting out of hand... we could have a series on harpers attack on science.

2012-03-02 07:25:47
climatesight
Kate
climatesight@live...
130.179.67.17

Here's a webcast of a AAAS session that's very relevant: http://hosting.desire2learncapture.com/StellarJay/4/watch/28.aspx

2012-03-02 07:33:32
Andy S

skucea@telus...
209.121.15.232

That is a good link Robert (7:14 AM) and we should include it.

We need for one of us to make a definitive version. Since Robert started this, I'm happy for that to be him. But if Robert and Alby are busy, I'll do it.

Default compiler is Robert unless I hear otherwise.

2012-03-02 07:35:39
Andy S

skucea@telus...
209.121.15.232

Kait: do you want to be a co-author too?

2012-03-02 07:57:21
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Andy - you should be able to edit Robert's post, as you're co-author on it.  I'll add Kate too.

2012-03-02 08:04:22comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

Andy if you scroll to te bottom you should be able to edit it?

2012-03-02 08:17:24
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I like how the post is shaping up so far, by the way.  Funny video, then shifting to seriousness.  Looking good.

2012-03-02 08:22:03
Andy S

skucea@telus...
209.121.15.232

On my list of blogs in "author admin" all I see is the version that I built, which is now obsolete. Maybe that is stopping me. I can't delete it, either.  

And I don't see any means of editing Robert's current version, by scrolling down or whatever. Maybe I lack the magic powers needed.

2012-03-02 08:31:50comment
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
138.130.140.206

All three authors of this article are Canadian scientists.

Robert Way is the only one giving his real name and this could look bad in this circumstance so should Robert be the only author?

And the note say “Robert Way is a Canadian scientist and his evaluation of the Harper government is shared by the three (is there more?) other Canadian scientists on the SkS team and the whole SkS team".

2012-03-02 09:00:26
Andy S

skucea@telus...
209.121.15.232

My real name is publically available on the Team List. My last name is unusual enough that I can't hide from Google.

Kate shouldn't appear as a co-author unless she gives the OK. Her full name is not hard to find.

Albatross is the only mystery man.

Given that this is a touchy subject, I wouldn't blame anyone embarking on a science career in Canada for not wanting to have their real name attached to this.

2012-03-02 09:18:38comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

Well it is what it is. I already have my potential phd supervisors and funding lined up so harper can't steal that away from me... might result in me not getting NSERC in the future but that'd be a bonus anyways...

For me no one necessarily has to say we are 3 canadian scientists... they can find out about us after the fact if they want to but we don't need this to be publicized as 3 scientists attack harper... just 3 authors at SKS writing an article.

2012-03-02 09:26:41
Andy S

skucea@telus...
209.121.15.232

I think it's important to point out that we are Canadians criticizing our own government. Important but not necessary, so I'm flexible if others disagree. The "scientists" isn't necessary either, but this issue is about science in Canada so it's relevant.

2012-03-02 09:33:36
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
24.213.18.68

Andy, I have upgraded your status to Full Author.  Try Robert's link now (you may have to first log out of SkS and then re-log back in):

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Harper_Control_Scientists.html

2012-03-02 11:01:56
rustneversleeps
George Morrison
george.morrison2@sympatico...
99.231.160.94
Leading journal demands Harper set Canada’s scientists free http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/leading-journal-demands-harper-set-canadas-scientists-free/article2355740/ One of the world's leading scientific journals has criticized the federal government for policies that limit its scientists from speaking publicly about their research. The journal, Nature, says in an editorial in this week's issue that it is time for the Canadian government to set its scientists free. It notes that Canada and the United States have undergone role reversals in the past six years, with the U.S. adopting more open practices since the end of George W. Bush's presidency while Canada has been going in the opposite direction. The editorial says that since taking power in 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government has tightened the media protocols applied to federal government scientists and employees.
2012-03-02 17:17:21
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
109.150.152.138

At Skeptical Science we consider the findings of science to be an indispensable part of the foundation upon which public policy should be based. Sadly, the Harper Government evidently sees science as an obstacle to its wider political agenda.  This stance is especially unfortunate given Canada's former reputation as the home of many brilliant world-class scientists.

Canada has produced these Nobel Prize winners:

Ralph M. Steinman, Physiology or Medicine, 2011
Willard S. Boyle, Physics, 2009
Robert Mundell, Economics, 1999
Myron Scholes, Economics, 1997
William Vickrey, Economics, 1996
Bertram N. Brockhouse, Physics, 1994
Michael Smith, Chemistry, 1993
Rudolph A. Marcus, Chemistry, 1992
Richard E. Taylor, Physics, 1990
Sidney Altman, Chemistry, 1989
John C. Polányi, Chemistry, 1986
Henry Taube, Chemistry, 1983
David H. Hubel, Physiology or Medicine, 1981
Gerhard Herzberg, Chemistry, 1971
Charles B. Huggins, Physiology or Medicine, 1966
William Giauque, Chemistry, 1949
Frederick G. Banting, Physiology or Medicine, 1923


As to Canadian politicians, history remembers that Alexander Mackenzie, who served at one time in the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada, was primarily a geographer and intrepid explorer.  He was the first person to cross America north of Mexico.  Sir Alexander Mackenzie Provincial Park, which is designated a National Historic Site of Canada, is his legacy.


Canada can also be justly proud of the historian Lester B. Pearson, a former Prime Minister who won the Nobel Prize for peace in 1957 for his part in resolving the Suez Crisis.


Canadians may well wonder what will be the legacy of a politician who seems determined to play a part in resolving the climate change issue by stripping Canada's citizenry of the benefits of Canada's world class scientists.

------------------

 

May I offer the above as a continuation / contribution?

Please, authors, feel free to discuss, adapt, amend etc.

2012-03-02 19:29:01Guys, sympathy
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
124.179.144.114

Guys, you Canadians have my sympathy. Our Right-Wing parties are rather extreme in some of their views, and some indivduals more so. But nothing this bad.

How did Harper get to be Prime Minister? Who votes for him. Is this a malaise of the Canadian people, or a product of the vagaries of your electoral system?

2012-03-03 01:20:45Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.204.110

Electoral system issues. With First past the post he gets a majority of seats in parliament with only 39% of the vote in an election. Complicating issues is there is 1 right wing party and 3 left wing ones which results in terrible vote splits. Here's an example of what occurs:

Moncton
Conservatives (Harper) 17,000
Liberals (Left Wing) 16,500
NDP (Very Left Wing) 15,000

So in this riding the conservatives win despite it being heavily left wing...

2012-03-03 04:16:54
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

CBC radio is now covering this in the news bulletins, it is also being covered by CBC on the web.  We might want to get this published while there is some momentum.

I was also thnking about inlcuding a line in which we say something like:

"We wish to express our support for our fellow scientists in the Federal government, scientists whose valuable research is being suppressed"

2012-03-03 05:02:55Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.204.110

I agree. I will add a few things soon.

2012-03-03 05:15:51
Andy S

skucea@telus...
209.121.15.232

I think Alby's closing comment is a good idea, perhaps with a note to say that we are all Canadian scientists (we can then remove the green box at the top).

I think it's important to focus this on the suppression of freedom of speech of government scientists (academics are largely untouched, I think) and the budget cuts, especially those directed at the environmental scientists who provide inconvenient truths that must be spun lest they undermine the unbridled resource exploitation policies of our government, sorry, The Harper GovernmentTM.

Also, as far as I know, there is no suppression (yet) of what even government scientists can say in the scientific literature. So, I think it would be overreach to include logicman's proposed addition, appreciated though his suggestion is.

2012-03-03 05:40:44
Andy S

skucea@telus...
209.121.15.232

It seems that Iceland is considering adopting the Canadian dollar as its currency. There are many economic pro's and con's that I won't discuss but this particular justification struck me as particularly bizarre:

“The average person looks at it this way: Canada is a younger version of the U.S. Canada has more natural resources than the U.S., it’s less developed, has more land, lots of water,” explained Heidar Gudjonsson, an economist and chairman of the Research Center for Social and Economic Studies, Iceland’s largest think tank.

And Canada thinks about the Arctic.”

In a recent Gallup poll, seven out of 10 Icelanders said they would happily dump their volatile and fragile krona for another currency. And their favoured alternative is the Canadian dollar, easily outscoring the U.S. dollar, the euro and the Norwegian krona.

Our Icelandic SkS colleagues might want to give Mr Gudjonsson's head a shake.

 

2012-03-03 05:42:42comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

publications they're lead authors on coming from canadian research labs have to be proofread I thought?

2012-03-03 05:45:27
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I agree it would be good to get this post our relatively soon.  We can publish it on Monday if you guys get it ready by then.

2012-03-03 05:54:06
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

I should hope we are ready by then. It's making progress but more work is needed clearly

2012-03-03 06:22:09
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

Hi Andy,

I think it was me who made reference to suppression of research.  You are correct though, that is (to my knowledge) not happening (they are being more passive on that front) and it was a poor choice of words on my part.  The problem is that scientists are not allowed to speak freely about their research to the media, research that was conducted using tax payers money, and they are also not being permitted to be critical of the government.

With that all said, Robert is correct, all scientific manuscripts submitted to journals have to be signed off the managers up to a regional level or perhaps higher, I can't quite recall how far upt he chain the approval has to come from.  IMHO, this is intimidation and makes it unlikely that a government scientist will publish anything that would embarrass the Harper government or minister of the environment.

2012-03-03 06:36:49
Andy S

skucea@telus...
209.121.15.232

Anecdote:

When I worked for the British Geological Survey I had to sign a contract acknowleging that my work was covered by the draconian Official Secrets Act. My boss, who spoke out publically about government mismangement of a geophysical survey, was threatened with prosecution under the act by the Thatcher government and was forced to quit. (As was cynically remarked on the TV show Yes, Minister, the Act was designed to protect Officials, not Secrets.) Incidentally, he went on to become an academic and a pain-in-the-arse for the government on nuclear waste disposal, so the Gov would have been better advised to keep him inside their tent, pissing out.

So, I have seen worse than Harper in my own career.

-----------------------

As I said, I think that the list of Nobel Prize winners is overdoing it a bit and it risks obscuring the main point. But I'm fine with leaving the post as it is if others like it the way it is now.

I don't want to do any edits but I'm still unable to.

2012-03-03 06:48:08
rustneversleeps
George Morrison
george.morrison2@sympatico...
198.96.178.33

I am a little indifferent to including the Nobels as well, and not quite sure how it connects, except to perhaps support the point below.

In any event, this line needs reworking:

This stance is especially unfortunate given Canada's former reputation as the home of many brilliant world-class scientists.

Canada STILL has the reputation as the home of world-class scientists. That's not a "former" reputation. It should read more like "This stance is especially unfortunate give that Canada is the home of many brilliant world-class scientists." 

 

2012-03-03 06:57:57
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

I'm neutral on listing the Nobels. Second Rust's suggested change.

Maybe my suggested sentence should read as:

"We wish to express our support for our fellow scientists in the Federal government, scientistswho are being prevented from speaking freely and candidly about their research. "

I think that it is also very important to inlcude that in 2008 the Harper government abolished Canada's National Science Advisor position.  That was a very worrying development and a hint of what was to follow.

This was another prominent example of muzzling that we should consider inlcuding--the following press release from PIPSC concerning the muzzling of DR. Kristi Miller's research on declining  Salmon stocks.

Do we have all the Nature editorials linked? 

2012-03-03 07:39:27comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

We should perhaps exclude the nobel list. I included it just because it was suggested. I think the salmon stocks and the national science adviser position are important. Can no one else edit this?

2012-03-03 08:25:04
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
109.150.152.138

Canada STILL has the reputation as the home of world-class scientists. That's not a "former" reputation. It should read more like "This stance is especially unfortunate give that Canada is the home of many brilliant world-class scientists."

Please accept my apologies for the unintended slight.

My excuse is that my alleged brain sometimes does not interface properly with my keybroad.

I take the point about the Nobels list - perhaps I was over-egging the pudding.

2012-03-03 08:51:41comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

there's a paper i saw one time which quantifies that its one of the most productive top 10 countries in research

2012-03-03 09:08:39
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

How do I go about editing the OP?

[Update] Nevermind I figured it out.

2012-03-04 06:39:48
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/

They will be interviewing one of canada's top climate scientists about the closure of pearl. Dick Peltier from U of T...

2012-03-04 07:05:33
Andy S

skucea@telus...
207.216.0.42
Looks good to go to me. The only thing oustanding is whether Kate cofirms that she wants to be included as an author. Can someone email her?
2012-03-04 07:49:30
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

I can email her.

2012-03-04 07:54:31
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

Is it OK for me to edit the post, or should we delegate one person to do that?

2012-03-04 10:41:24
rustneversleeps
George Morrison
george.morrison2@sympatico...
99.231.28.203
It still appears to read "Canada's FORMER reputation" in the version I see.
2012-03-04 12:32:07comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

I think we should all edit. It's okay we wont delete anything too important i think

2012-03-04 12:32:22comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

we need to have this done for monday afterall

2012-03-04 15:08:54
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.129

I can bump it to Tuesday if it's not ready Monday.  But if you're a co-author you should feel free to edit the post.  Your name's on it too!

2012-03-04 15:26:38
Andy S

skucea@telus...
209.121.15.232
Whoever posts finally this should check the list of authors, since, at present, Albie is listed as first and second author and Robert doesn't appear at all. I still can't figure out how to edit this but it doesn't matter right now. It's probably just my ineptitude.
2012-03-04 15:41:33
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Tweaked the author list to include Albatross, Robert Way, Andy S and Climatesight

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Harper_Control_Scientists.html

2012-03-04 17:01:26
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
109.150.152.138

It still says; "Canada's former reputation".

I'm sorry for being the one to start that error.  I had actually meant to speak of Canada's reputation for good science, and former Nobel Prize winners.

It just shows that Watts doesn't hold the exclusive rights to screw-ups.  ;-)

2012-03-04 17:21:59
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

This is what I see via the above link:

"This stance is especially unfortunate given Canada's reputation as the home of many brilliant world-class scientists."

2012-03-04 17:43:41
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.129

A glitch I've noticed is that whoever edits the post becomes listed as first author.  No worries, we'll make sure it's right before we publish.

2012-03-04 20:23:39
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
2.33.129.107

Sorry for being so late.
The third last paragraph:
"At Skeptical Science we consider the findings of science to be an indispensable part of the foundation upon which public policy should be based. Sadly, the Harper Government evidently sees science as an obstacle to its wider political agenda."
Although it does say science in general I'm afraid people would read "climate science". It would be helpful to explicitly underlined that it's a larger problem. Some people may be more sensitive to other issues than climate.

2012-03-05 04:04:29
climatesight
Kate
climatesight@live...
74.216.79.185

Sorry I haven't been keeping up with this thread - midterms getting in the way again. I'm fine with being listed as a coauthor, although I'm not sure I would describe myself as a scientist quite yet.

2012-03-05 04:19:31
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
23.17.186.57

No worries Kate, thanks fro dropping by. Best of luck with your midterms!

2012-03-05 07:04:16
Andy S

skucea@telus...
74.198.150.233
Kate: you presented a poster at the AGU, that's good enough for any reasonable definition of a scientist, in my opinion.
2012-03-05 10:32:47
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.129

You could revise the intro to say 'scientists and science students' or something similar.

2012-03-05 16:12:06comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.162.53

I made changes:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Harper_Control_Scientists.html

but it says my name twice in the author list and does not say Albatross

Any thumbs?

2012-03-05 16:37:50
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.129

Looks good to me - I cleaned up the formatting a bit.  Let me know when you guys are ready to publish.  Like I said, if not ready tomorrow I'll just publish the Lindzen post instead and post this one Tuesday.

2012-03-05 19:20:58
Andy S

skucea@telus...
209.121.15.232
Looks good. It's a damning indictment.
2012-03-06 03:15:46
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Okay, I'm going to launch it.

2012-03-06 05:01:32
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.161.203.93

Robert and Andy, thanks for doing the lion's shar eon this!  Sorry, I had hoped to work on this yesterday but we got busy cleaning the house.  I just signed on to do some writing and make some changes and saw that it has already been published.

It looks great...pretty damning as Andy notes.

2012-03-06 05:09:16
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Yeah you guys did a good job with it.  Gave me flashbacks of the Bush years.