[DrCaleb]

jj2424 jj2424:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No one was talking about Diabetes either.

Click the other link and pick a topic.

We already have a topic. Once people decide to stick to it.

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

jj2424 jj2424:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No one was talking about Diabetes either.

Click the other link and pick a topic.

We already have a topic. Once people decide to stick to it.

He only knows the one song.

[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

jj2424 jj2424:

Click the other link and pick a topic.

We already have a topic. Once people decide to stick to it.

He only knows the one song.

http://soundjax.com/reddo/60600%5ESound ... ket-02.mp3

[Xort]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Because you didn't read the article,

I did, and unlike you I understood it.

$1:

The author was the "French National Trade Union of Scientific Researchers" like the article says. Did you read the first paragraph?

The author was Carol Linnitt 'Site Manager and Director of Research for DeSmog Canada'

You have mixed up the author with a reference source.

And as for the source:

$1:

The research union found governments internationally are pushing for policies "geared towards innovation in order to spur consumption and competitiveness,"

OMG terror and suffering! The poor dears being forced to do something that will have a pay off that will help everyone.

This can not stand. Researchers are entitled to the money of their fellow citizens to do whatever they want, not something that's planned to be directly helpful to the nation at large!

[DrCaleb]

Xort Xort:

OMG terror and suffering! The poor dears being forced to do something that will have a pay off that will help everyone.

This can not stand. Researchers are entitled to the money of their fellow citizens to do whatever they want, not something that's planned to be directly helpful to the nation at large!

And that is exactly the attitude that is the problem. Just because research does not have immediate effect on the economy, does not mean it is not valuable to everyone.

Harper closed DFO libraries that contained information going back 100 years. The only source of some data, and the data was not only destroyed, it was never preserved anywhere.

How can future governments reliable develop policy when they have unreliable information with which to form that policy?

$1:

"The findings should be very concerning to the public," he said, adding a full 50 per cent of scientists said they were aware of cases of political interference in the communication of scientific research.

The PIPSC survey came on the heels of a fundraising letter from the president of the Kenora Electoral District Association that referred to a group of Canadian scientists as "radical ideologues."

This letter was mentioned in the recent SNCS-FSU report, noting the phrase "radical ideologues" is "a term normally reserved for terrorists."

The muzzling of scientists in Canada -- and its political implications -- is well documented in DeSmog Canada contributor Chris Turner's book "The War on Science: Muzzled Scientists and Willful Blindness in Stephen Harper's Canada" and has gained celebrity attention from the likes of actress Evangeline Lilly.

In an interview with DeSmog Canada, Lilly recently said she was "terrified" to hear about the muzzling of Canadian scientists.

"All over Canada right now scientists are having their funding pulled," she said, "especially scientists who are speaking about climate change."

"I rely on the experts in this world, experts like scientists and journalists, to give me the information to help guide me, to help me guide the government and I think that circle is the way democracy is supposed to work," she said.

Politics is the discussion of what people see wrong in society and what they think needs to be done to change it. How can we have a reasoned debate about the future of Canada if the people charged with finding the information we need to do so are muzzled?

[DrCaleb]

Another story, based on the same research source:

$1:

A survey of 12 countries, including Canada, shows that scientists are concerned about the drop in government support of basic science in favour of applied research that leads to short-term benefits.

The report, from the French National Trade Union of Scientific Researchers (SNCS-FSU), showed that governments in Argentina, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Portugal, Russia, Senegal, Serbia, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S. are shifting their funding away from basic research — the kind that looks at fundamental processes in nature — to more industrial science that leads to better products and economic gain.

While applied science is valuable and necessary to keep up in a competitive global economy, we need basic science as well to open new possibilities for true innovation.

'To focus only on applied science is to limit future possibilities, because it is simply improving on a product.'

Canada has a solid history of basic science (going back to World War II) that has gained us high regard on the international scene. We were the third country in space back in the '60s, and today a team of Canadian scientists is a valuable part of the Large Hadron Collider, the world’s largest science experiment, which is probing the mysteries of the early universe. We have had Nobel Prize winners in chemistry, physics and medicine. We gave the world insulin and have joined international teams unlocking secrets of genetics, cancer, the environment and many more areas of scientific research.

But recently, governments have been concerned less with fundamental science and more with industrial developments that contribute more directly and quickly to the economy.

Basic science is one of our last tools to seek the truth, and what we don’t know about nature far exceeds what we do know. (Paul Sakuma/Associated Press)

While industrial research is important and needs support, it does not, in the long run, actually lead to the biggest payoff. Historically, most great discoveries, most revolutionary leaps of thought, have come from people asking fundamental questions.

When Michael Faraday explored the relationship between electricity and magnetism, he had no idea how many electrical devices his discoveries would lead to — from electric motors to GPS satellites and cellphones.

To focus only on applied science is to limit future possibilities, because it is simply improving on a product.

Sure, we need cars that are cleaner and more efficient, or computers that are smaller and faster. But if you really want to change things, you need to have people who are free to look at the fundamental forces that run the universe with no idea what they are going to find.

Who knows what will come from understanding black holes, dark matter or dark energy, for example? Will it lead to Warp Drive? Or something we haven’t even imagined yet?

Basic science is an investment in the long-term future, which current governments seem to be less interested in.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/scien ... -1.2756038

[Xort]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And that is exactly the attitude that is the problem. Just because research does not have immediate effect on the economy, does not mean it is not valuable to everyone.

You added the condition of immediate. That's not the argument being made.

$1:

Harper closed DFO libraries that contained information going back 100 years. The only source of some data, and the data was not only destroyed, it was never preserved anywhere.

Try and keep the spin down. Did Harper go to the place box everything up, wipe the tapes, drives whatever? No he did not, or if he did he's doing way more work than I'd expect him to. The government most likely reduced funding and Fisheries and Oceans Canada decided to make the cut where they did. Or decided that they didn't need as many physical locations as they once did, or that how people are using their data requires a new approach.

If the government gave direct orders from the governing minister to destroy all the records, that would be one thing, and it would be widely reported.

If the data was not stored properly and was lost, that's just not a valid excuse given the data density of modern equipment. I bet we could store every thing they had in a small box of hard drives for just a few hundred dollars with redundant off site backups.

That is unless what you just told me is false, and you just made it up, or are putting your own spin on things.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/libraries-bibl ... AQ-eng.htm
The official government page seems to think they kept their stuff.

$1:

Q10: Has DFO removed items from its collection?
The Department has removed duplicates from its collections, and content not required to support the department’s mandate. It is important to note that the Department has not withdrawn materials of value that support its mandate that have not yet been digitized. DFO continues to digitize its own publications and the resulting items in digitized form are preserved, catalogued in WAVES and made available via Internet.

So who do I believe? You or the official web page? I think you might have read something, never checked the bias of the source, and then made another stupid claim. Just like who the author was, I point I see you didn't bother to reply to.

$1:

How can future governments reliable develop policy when they have unreliable information with which to form that policy?

By collecting more data as needed. Or using what data they have.

$1:

Politics is the discussion of what people see wrong in society and what they think needs to be done to change it. How can we have a reasoned debate about the future of Canada if the people charged with finding the information we need to do so are muzzled?

No private citizens are muzzled on their work or how they communicate it, within the bounds of our laws, (libel, slander, hate speech...) non government sources are doing overlapping research.

The employees of the government are not free agents, they are employees and employees are subject to controls on what they can say, to whom and when. Having politically motivated people try to use their position in the government to undermine a government they don't agree with is hardly a fair exercise or a moral action.

When I was in the military, I couldn't talk about the military policy of Canada in my capacity as a military member. I was free to talk about my job, but that's it. If I was a staff officer working at NDHQ, my job would cover the military policy of Canada, but then I still wouldn't be free to talk about military policy. I would be confined to talking about how office work was.

If the government employees don't like having their ability to make official statements in their official capacity limited to what the government has approved they should seek employment in the private sector, because NDAs are never used there, and every employee is free to shit talk their employer without any negatives.

The lie that we only speak the truth so we should be free to say anything we want, is not nearly as widely accepted as our public sector professional would hope.

[Xort]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Another story, based on the same research source:

$1:

A survey of 12 countries, including Canada, shows that scientists are concerned about the drop in government support of basic science in favour of applied research that leads to short-term benefits.

The general population is worried about violent crime, and seem ignorant that it has been going down year after year.

They are concerned about it, but it doesn't in anyway mean it's a problem.

I looked at the report this was based off of. I wasn't aware stock photos of generic looking families and colorful presentations were part of grounded scientific research. What it looked like was a think tank publication which, I will admit can be well established in proper research. But my first reaction is one of mistrust.

The argument that we should reduce practical science in favor of basic science is not one I accept flat out. We have many things that we are working on, but haven't finished yet which would have huge positives for life today, or rather in the next 50 or more odd years.

Where is the line between them? Pick any number of interesting projects and technologies that are being worked on, are you saying we shouldn't explore them because we are not sure of what dark energy is? (or if it's real, or it's an indicator of some deeper fundamental issue with our understanding?)

How long do we put practical research on the side? Do we skip the development of a coal fired electrical power plant because we are not sure yet about the cosmic ether?

We can't do everything, so that's not an option. As it's my fucking money being spent I'd like to see some of the things that are being worked on right now get finished up into a workable state. I'd also like to see the more basic science get done sure, but my personal interest in the nature of the universe I put on the back burner for things like energy and food production.

$1:

"A particle accelerator that reaches 100bn GeV would be larger than Earth, and is unlikely to be funded in the present economic climate." - Stephen Hawking

We don't have an unlimited amount of economic resources at hand. Working on practical stuff will however free up more for later. This links back to my point on the coal fired plant. Practical research will lead into developments that will expand our economic resources, which will trickle down into basic research.

Simple question, do you think the space program was a waste? If yes, well at least you stuck to your guns and are consistent. If no, then why all the hate for practical?
~
All of which totally ignores that governments are not the only bodies that fund research. Practical or so called basic.

[DrCaleb]

Xort Xort:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And that is exactly the attitude that is the problem. Just because research does not have immediate effect on the economy, does not mean it is not valuable to everyone.

You added the condition of immediate. That's not the argument being made.

It's pretty hard to follow what argument you are making in such a statement.

Xort Xort:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Harper closed DFO libraries that contained information going back 100 years. The only source of some data, and the data was not only destroyed, it was never preserved anywhere.

Try and keep the spin down. Did Harper go to the place box everything up, wipe the tapes, drives whatever? No he did not, or if he did he's doing way more work than I'd expect him to. The government most likely reduced funding and Fisheries and Oceans Canada decided to make the cut where they did. Or decided that they didn't need as many physical locations as they once did, or that how people are using their data requires a new approach.

And the difference between ordering the Minister responsible to reduce funding in particular areas and actually holding a match to the books is . . . what exactly?

Xort Xort:

If the government gave direct orders from the governing minister to destroy all the records, that would be one thing, and it would be widely reported.

If there were any records of this, we certainly would never get confirmation through an access to information request, now would we? Another thing this 'open' government is good for.

Xort Xort:

If the data was not stored properly and was lost, that's just not a valid excuse given the data density of modern equipment. I bet we could store every thing they had in a small box of hard drives for just a few hundred dollars with redundant off site backups.

$1:

Hutchings said he doesn't know how well the department's plan is going to work.

"We're dealing right now with a department that has lost people, resources, money. It's shutting down facilities. One wonders where they are going to find the resources to digitize this extraordinary amount of material," said Hutchings.

The department website says 30,000 documents are available online and that "outstanding items will be digitized if requested by users."

The website also says only duplicate items will be removed from its collection.

It does add, though, that "in rare instances, materials which fall outside of the subject disciplines pertinent to the department's mandate" may be removed.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fisheri ... -1.2486171

$1:

Several Environment Canada libraries in the East — including the ones in Quebec City and Sackville, N.B., have also been shuttered, others have been downsized, and some cases valuable materials has been tossed, scientists say.

$1:

Claims by DFO that “all material has been scanned and made available online is simply untrue,” said Hubbard. She said she has been having trouble locating historic reports about East Coast marine science that were on the selves of DFO libraries that closed.

Hubbard and other researchers say historical data and reports are increasingly valuable given the change underway in the world’s ecosystems.

“DFO is dumping documents, including grey literature that exists in limited quantities, just at a point when fisheries biologists around the world have been turning to historical studies, data, and graphical information to reconstruct the effects of fishing and fisheries policies, and to document environmental change,” said Hubbard.

“The Department of the Environment’s scientists would similarly need to have access to older data and documents for doing historical time series to investigate environmental change in terms of populations, climate, etc, or even — ironically — potentially to critique some of the current scientific narratives of which the Conservative government is suspicious,” she said.

Environment Canada’s collections include reference materials like the 16-volume Handbook of the Birds of the World, historic photographs of glaciers in the Rockies and reports produced by federal scientists over the decades, some found nowhere else.

Insiders at Environment Canada say a lot of material was discarded as a result of the closures of the regional libraries and renovation and downsizing at the department’s reference library in Gatineau, Que. They said the loss includes dozens of boxes full of historical environmental reports and studies from around the world that had been translated for use by Canadians.

“They were immaculate translations,” said one scientist. While the original reports may still exist in foreign libraries, the translations are lost. “If you knew about the obscure Russian papers from the 1930s, the librarian could probably bring it in for you, but you’d have to read Russian.”

http://o.canada.com/news/last-chapter-f ... -libraries

Xort Xort:

That is unless what you just told me is false, and you just made it up, or are putting your own spin on things.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/libraries-bibl ... AQ-eng.htm

Ad hominem.

Xort Xort:

The official government page seems to think they kept their stuff.

$1:

Q10: Has DFO removed items from its collection?
The Department has removed duplicates from its collections, and content not required to support the department’s mandate. It is important to note that the Department has not withdrawn materials of value that support its mandate that have not yet been digitized. DFO continues to digitize its own publications and the resulting items in digitized form are preserved, catalogued in WAVES and made available via Internet.

So who do I believe? You or the official web page?

You have to ask yourself; is this a government that has been open and honest about it's inner working and can I trust what they tell me?

Experience tells me 'no'.

Xort Xort:

I think you might have read something, never checked the bias of the source, and then made another stupid claim. Just like who the author was, I point I see you didn't bother to reply to.

I never read just one source on any subject, I don't respond to logical fallacies other than to point them out, and I don't respond to every point. Sometimes they just aren't going to contribute to the discussion.

When all the sources say the same thing, that's pretty much a slam dunk to me. And the author of the study is exactly who I said it was. You are confusing the Article about the study with the study itself. Again, something that doesn't add to the discussion. I also gave a second CBC article, also about the same study by the "French National Trade Union of Scientific Researchers".

http://o.canada.com/news/science-news/c ... le-science
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e16237051/
http://www.canadaspastmatters.ca/public ... sures.aspx
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fisheri ... -1.2486171

Xort Xort:

$1:

How can future governments reliable develop policy when they have unreliable information with which to form that policy?

By collecting more data as needed. Or using what data they have.

So, when data that has been collected for 100 years disappears, how do you do a statistical analysis for future predictions based on what you don't know?

Xort Xort:

$1:

Politics is the discussion of what people see wrong in society and what they think needs to be done to change it. How can we have a reasoned debate about the future of Canada if the people charged with finding the information we need to do so are muzzled?

No private citizens are muzzled on their work or how they communicate it, within the bounds of our laws, (libel, slander, hate speech...) non government sources are doing overlapping research.

Non-government research is usually not available to the public, and most of the time it's never 'pure' research because the monetary benefits are never predictable.

Xort Xort:

The employees of the government are not free agents, they are employees and employees are subject to controls on what they can say, to whom and when. Having politically motivated people try to use their position in the government to undermine a government they don't agree with is hardly a fair exercise or a moral action.

You are describing the difference between 'Politics' and 'Partisan Politics'. Have Scientists been acting in a Partisan manner in the past? No. So why the need to muzzle how they communicate scientific findings at symposiums with other Scientists - a method of sharing and reviewing knowledge that Science has been doing since the Renaissance?

Xort Xort:

When I was in the military, I couldn't talk about the military policy of Canada in my capacity as a military member. I was free to talk about my job, but that's it. If I was a staff officer working at NDHQ, my job would cover the military policy of Canada, but then I still wouldn't be free to talk about military policy. I would be confined to talking about how office work was.

Again, standard fare for civil servants. First rule; you don't talk to the press, unless it's your job to talk to the press. And again, has this been a problem for federal scientists in the past? No? So why cut their funding? Why deprive everyone of the research they do and have done?

Xort Xort:

If the government employees don't like having their ability to make official statements in their official capacity limited to what the government has approved they should seek employment in the private sector, because NDAs are never used there, and every employee is free to shit talk their employer without any negatives.

Again, when has this been a problem in the past? Scientists had the job of doing research, and it was also their job to share this publicly funded research with the public that paid for it. Because the Government didn't like the message the research gave is no reason to shoot the messenger.

Total cost saving for library closures: $400k

Damage done: Only the future knows.

Xort Xort:

The lie that we only speak the truth so we should be free to say anything we want, is not nearly as widely accepted as our public sector professional would hope.

No, it's only part of the Constitution. Total falsehood there.

[Zipperfish]

Xort Xort:

If the government gave direct orders from the governing minister to destroy all the records, that would be one thing, and it would be widely reported.

It is widely reported. That's the whole point.

$1:

So who do I believe? You or the official web page?

What you should do is read the response more carefully. There is nothing in the response that says that DFO is not involved in a wholesale purge of records.

[DrCaleb]

Xort Xort:

Simple question, do you think the space program was a waste? If yes, well at least you stuck to your guns and are consistent. If no, then why all the hate for practical?

Why do you have the impression that I hate 'practical' research? Have you not read what I write? I have a hate for governments de-funding fundamental research and then destroying historical data because of their political ideology. To save $400k per year, data that can't be replaced!

If it weren't for Stephen Hawkings' fundamental research on black holes, the touch screen on your smartphone wouldn't work.

Xort Xort:

All of which totally ignores that governments are not the only bodies that fund research. Practical or so called basic.

Of which I have not said anything about. Companies are free to do as they like. Some, like GE, IBM and 3M do some incredible research. But none of it is for the public, it's all for the bottom line.

[Zipperfish]

Xort Xort:

If the government gave direct orders from the governing minister to destroy all the records, that would be one thing, and it would be widely reported.

It is widely reported. That's the whole point.

$1:

So who do I believe? You or the official web page?

What you should do is read the response more carefully. There is nothing in the response that says that DFO is not involved in a wholesale purge of records.[/quote]

$1:

The employees of the government are not free agents, they are employees and employees are subject to controls on what they can say, to whom and when. Having politically motivated people try to use their position in the government to undermine a government they don't agree with is hardly a fair exercise or a moral action.

This seems to be the spin the Conservatvies are settling on. But it's a complete straw man. We're not talking about scientists using their position to undermine the government. We're talking about scientists unable to share their research--a fundamental tenet of the sceitnific method. If a scinetist discovers that, for example, a caribou herd, based on genbetics, turns out to be a mix of two older caribou herds, that paper may not see the light of day. Not because the scientist is undermining government, but because the finding may have some implication down the road.

[DrCaleb]

If you didn't already have the "Spleler" medal Zip, I'd totally nominate you!

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

If you didn't already have the "Spleler" medal Zip, I'd totally nominate you!

I'm ane excellent speller. Just a really lousy typer.

[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

If you didn't already have the "Spleler" medal Zip, I'd totally nominate you!

I'm ane excellent speller. Just a really lousy typer.

You can't even misspell 'science' consistently!