Un-muzzle the scientists' Not so fast.

It's the answers that the Harper government doesn't have, and doesn't want to hear. That's why they muzzeled or unfunded the scientists to begin with.

Canadians are paying for those scientists. They should be able to hear what they have to say. It's not about criticizing government policy, it's about being able to publish in journals, being able to atttend and present at scietnific conventions, being able to present at public inquriis and court proceedings and such.





Yeah, 'nuff said right there.

He's confounding two aspects: scientists being able to speak to he media about their findings, and scientists critiquing govt policy. So with arctic ice: "here's the data" full stop, not "the data proves the govt policy is idiotic." The latter is for the media and opposition to opine. I do think scientists may have stepped over the line at times, but the answer is to put a stop to that, not presenting actual findings. Derisive sneers while doing so should still be optional.

But the right can't handle data being presented that conflicts with their ideology. We saw that on this forum last night, with a couple of basic facts about communism being attacked as somehow supporting communism.

Well, I say the right, but present the left with evidence contrary to their sacred cows and you get pretty much the same reaction. Guess the Liberals weren't as bad more muzzling science because they are in the center. And because they are not on a political jihad the way the Reformacons are. Harperu Akbar.

It's not a left/right thing to me. It's just that this government, much moreso than others in the past, sees the civil service as an extension of the party. And, in my opinion, that's bad for Canadians.

The line between politics and policy has always been hazy, and it's one of the reasons that the relationship between the bureaucracy and the government is always testy.

It's more than that. Look at how bent they get when anybody mentions root causes. They have a very rigid view that they have the world figured out and don't want to hear any info to the contrary - or especially want their followers to hear any contrary info. Doubt is bad, must eliminate doubt. It's the same reason we hear about the lamestream lieberal media,while at the same time relying on that very same media for information. Like jj quoting the CBC while attacking it. How often do we see the media accused of bias just because they report something - the deaths in Gaza say.

I could see the NDP following similar policies, because they also, like the Reformacons, see themselves on a holy quest. The Liberals, not so much.

Or, maybe the civil serpents are resisting the government, because they are all full of Cretin / Martin chowder heads.

Considering that this government has been power for 8 years now, I don't think so. The guy who wrote the article referenced in the OP worked at Environment Canada, and he definitely didn't come across as Liberal type. One of the first things a new government does is replace the ranks at the top of the civil service.

After 8 years it's time to stop trying to blame all the problems on the former government and take some responsibility.

Not the top, the middle and lower end, where all the work is actually done.

All long term positions.

Yes there's always friction there. I'm not sure that replacing the 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.

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

Assumes facts not in evidence. The government in power has very little say in hiring and firing of civil servants. It's not like we have to show a party card before getting a job.

And given the behavior of the radical leftists who represent the fanatical core of the AGW movement there is no longer a line between science and politics.

And given the behavior of the radical leftists who represent the fanatical core of the AGW movement there is no longer a line between science and politics.

Yes, advocacy science has pretty much ruined the appeal to auhtority that sceince used to have. There are examples of right-wing advocacy science (intelligent design, for example), but I'd agree that the statists have been much more active in that regard.