[Zipperfish]

I think Canadians should have access to the scientists they are paying for. They are supposed to be a beneift to all Canadians, not just the Conservatives.

[commanderkai]

Wait wait, I thought day to day weather patterns did not constitute evidence of climate change? Meteorologists, last I checked, could only be considered experts on day to day weather forecasts and atmospheric conditions, not the gradual change of climate over decades, or even centuries.

So, government tells unqualified employees from making statements they have no education or training to truly support their conclusions. THE END IS NIGH! GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP! EVILLLLLL.

[Freakinoldguy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I think Canadians should have access to the scientists they are paying for. They are supposed to be a beneift to all Canadians, not just the Conservatives.

Fair enough. But you can't just say that Canadians only benefit from scientists and not every other Gov't employee. We pay for every civil servant and politician so they'll all have to be included in this freedom of speech revolution.

Anyway, good luck getting any of the Political Parties to go along with this benefit to Canadians because, like it or not they all do it to keep everyone in line and that doesn't just mean their party members but all Gov't and party employees. The only difference between the Conservatives and Liberals on the subject is that Harper came right out and publicly put the Government's gag orders on all their employees, something nobody else had the temerity to do before.

[Zipperfish]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Fair enough. But you can't just say that Canadians only benefit from scientists and not every other Gov't employee. We pay for every civil servant and politician so they'll all have to be included in this freedom of speech revolution.

Anyway, good luck getting any of the Political Parties to go along with this benefit to Canadians because, like it or not they all do it to keep everyone in line and that doesn't just mean their party members but all Gov't and party employees. The only difference between the Conservatives and Liberals on the subject is that Harper came right out and publicly put the Government's gag orders on all their employees, something nobody else had the temerity to do before.

Great, well come 2015, you vote for the party that pays scientists with your money, but won't let them talk to you. Meanwhile theya re engaging in public surveillance of unprecedented levels. They don't want to tell us anything they are up to, but seem intensely interested in everything we are up to.

[DrCaleb]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Wait wait, I thought day to day weather patterns did not constitute evidence of climate change? Meteorologists, last I checked, could only be considered experts on day to day weather forecasts and atmospheric conditions, not the gradual change of climate over decades, or even centuries.

So, government tells unqualified employees from making statements they have no education or training to truly support their conclusions. THE END IS NIGH! GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP! EVILLLLLL.

If we left discussions to experts only, we'd be pretty bored around here wouldn't we? Weather is not climate change. But meteorologists study the weather, and probabally have a more informed opinion of climate change than most people.

And as Zip rightly points out, why should we not be allowed to hear what the people we pay to do a job have to think, because they sure are interested in us!

[commanderkai]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

If we left discussions to experts only, we'd be pretty bored around here wouldn't we? Weather is not climate change. But meteorologists study the weather, and probabally have a more informed opinion of climate change than most people.

And as Zip rightly points out, why should we not be allowed to hear what the people we pay to do a job have to think, because they sure are interested in us!

But, and here's the thing, when meteorologists make statements while having their salary paid for by the Canadian government, those statements can easily be seen as being more representative of government opinion or policy.

I never said leave it to the experts, but if you are hired by a government or a major corporation, you're going to have what you say in the public sphere rather restricted, since your views can be easily construed as being linked to a broader corporate or government policy. Why should meteorologists be exempt from this while other government officials will not be?

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

But, and here's the thing, when meteorologists make statements while having their salary paid for by the Canadian government, those statements can easily be seen as being more representative of government opinion or policy.

I never said leave it to the experts, but if you are hired by a government or a major corporation, you're going to have what you say in the public sphere rather restricted, since your views can be easily construed as being linked to a broader corporate or government policy. Why should meteorologists be exempt from this while other government officials will not be?

All government officials are supposed to be impartial. The conflict with this governmetn is their unceasing efforts to make the snivel service an extension of their party. And, yes, all ogvernments do that as well--but it's just markedly higher with this one.

[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

commanderkai commanderkai:

But, and here's the thing, when meteorologists make statements while having their salary paid for by the Canadian government, those statements can easily be seen as being more representative of government opinion or policy.

I never said leave it to the experts, but if you are hired by a government or a major corporation, you're going to have what you say in the public sphere rather restricted, since your views can be easily construed as being linked to a broader corporate or government policy. Why should meteorologists be exempt from this while other government officials will not be?

All government officials are supposed to be impartial. The conflict with this governmetn is their unceasing efforts to make the snivel service an extension of their party. And, yes, all ogvernments do that as well--but it's just markedly higher with this one.

It's pretty much in every civil servant's contract that 'you will not talk to the media in an official capacity' as well.

No one seems to blame the media for taking a casual conversation as a official press conference it seems. That said, civil servants should never talk to the media, even while in line to get a coffee.

[Xort]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I was an adjustments officer for Revenue Canada. What you're saying would be somewhat akin to the media asking me about, say, changes in the tax codes. I could probably tell you what they'd mean for the average person. But if you're wanting information on the complexity of the new codes and what they would mean overall, then you'd obviously be better served either by asking a tax lawyer, or those who wrote the new tax codes.

In your roll you likely could answer most of the technical questions about any changes and a lot of stuff about the general tax system.

You wouldn't be qualified to make comment on the economic impact of the tax code and how the Bank of Canada should change it's monetary policy. Just like how someone in the Bank of Canada would be out of their depth talking about the tax code.

Now in the communication of a private citizen both would be able to express their views. But when someone says 'Oh yeah why should we care what you think?' They do not get to say well I just happen to work for the X.

What they are doing then is using the authority of their employment (the government) to back their private views.

Once they have taken up a new job I have no problem with someone saying my X years as a Y gives me the inside track on this so I'm right.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

It's pretty much in every civil servant's contract that 'you will not talk to the media in an official capacity' as well.

No one seems to blame the media for taking a casual conversation as a official press conference it seems. That said, civil servants should never talk to the media, even while in line to get a coffee.

Well it seems that a main job of the meteorlogic service is to talk tot he media about weather, which is why they had been exempt from previous civil service gag orders.

But there are 2 key assumptions being made by the conservatives on this thread that are ill-proven:

1) Assumption that meteorologits are providing information beyond their expertise. Meterologists are not big-tit weather bunnys from the local news, they are scientists. Whatever the difference between meteorologists and climatologists may be, I think we can all agree that a meteorologists have some expertise in the subject; we have yet to see eviedence tha the info they've been providing is beyond their reach.

For example, we all can agree that at the very least, a meterologist can tell you what the weather is forecast to be, what it is currently, and what has been recorded in the past. If today happens to be the hottest, coldest, or raniest day on record since 1943, or if this year had the most or fewest recorded hurricanes ever, they're easily able to tell you that. It seems that this new gag order would prevent them from providing that kind info if the question is being asked in relation to a story on climate change. The gag order appears to be on the TOPIC, not onthe information itself.

2) The assumption that meteorologists have been providing information (deliberately biased or not) that supports a particular position on the subject, rather than simple data. As above, we have yet to see proof of this.

[MeganC]

Government employees are supposed to do what the elected people tell them to do, right? Don't see what the crisis is unless people don't want to have elected government people anyway.