3 ms·

Yes exactly, it was all about glory-chasing who just wanted to see their names in print. It had nothing to do with climate and environmental scientists warning

by jgon 13y ago

Yes exactly, it was all about glory-chasing who just wanted to see their names in print. It had nothing to do with climate and environmental scientists warning of the impact of governmental policies when their studies and models fell on deaf ears. Of course the Canadian government hasn't muzzled any research, they have just systematically defunded all research aimed at establishing the environmental impact of the petroleum industry as it operates in Canada. Experimental Lakes project? Good-bye, but of course that is not "muzzling" science. Polar Environmental research lab? Axed, because we don't need studies of the warming arctic getting in the way of those petro-dollars. And now we finally get down to brass tacks. Unless you have industry funding or backing, don't bother. And of course industry just loves to fund rigorous investigations into the externalities they create. I don't know why you are trying so hard in this thread to shout "Nothing to be seen here!" but I really have to ask why you are trying so hard to remain oblivious. The current government's stance on the environment is pretty well established and is in no way secret. To claim ignorance of this requires serious effort, or serious dishonesty.

corresation 13y ago
Experimental Lakes project? Your best example of the oil agenda of the government is a very long running project having nothing to do with global warming or the oil industry at all? The other one -- an arctic station built to monitor the ozone layer -- provides zero scientific measurements that aren't replicated a thousand times over by many other arctic measurement stations, but maybe that'll hide global warming? Good stuff. Sarcasm, a bit of a conspiratorial closing note (such a nice way of offering a counterpoint). Absolutely nothing proving anything. And yes, I despise political-agenda driven bullshit, which is just incredibly common in Canadian politics. The misinformation and vilification for anything and everything grows tiring to anyone with a concern for discerning reality from fantasy.
- leot 13y ago
  Oh for heaven's sake. The NRCC is run by a non-academic oil engineer raised in Edmonton. They could have chosen almost anyone -- a university president, e.g., or even, god forbid, someone -- anyone -- with a PhD. But they didn't. It's a conspiracy, but not the secret kind.
  - corresation 13y ago
    They could have chosen almost anyone -- a university president, e.g., or even, god forbid, someone -- anyone -- with a PhD. Or maybe a petroleum engineer with an excellent CV and a long list of successes, most recently on environmental efforts (CO2 recapture). This is the same garbage that has people ranting about the credentials of federal ministers (hey wait...you did that as well) when the position has never, ever, in the history of Canada, demanded specific skills for the role, and instead is a leadership and reporting position.
    - leot 13y ago
      > and instead is a leadership and reporting position. You're absolutely right in that the specific technical skills associated with having a PhD in, say, physics, or math, or even (heck) engineering have little to no bearing whatsoever on what the person at the top of the organization will do during their tenure. But there are more things learned during a PhD than a bunch of technical skills. You might learn something, e.g., about the very nature of scientific inquiry. About the nature of the challenges of collecting and analyzing scientific data. About explaining complicated research to a lay audience. About trying to convince higher-ups of the scientific merits of a project even when said merits are subtle. About why something qualifies as "science" while something else doesn't -- and knowing the difference between the two decidedly does matter when you're in a leadership position. "'Scientific discovery is not valuable unless it has commercial value,' John McDougall, president of the NRC." ... I don't think John Holdren would have said this. Indeed I think one would be hard pressed to find anyone with a PhD who would say this.

by jgon 13y ago

corresation 13y ago

Experimental Lakes project? Your best example of the oil agenda of the government is a very long running project having nothing to do with global warming or the oil industry at all? The other one -- an arctic station built to monitor the ozone layer -- provides zero scientific measurements that aren't replicated a thousand times over by many other arctic measurement stations, but maybe that'll hide global warming? Good stuff. Sarcasm, a bit of a conspiratorial closing note (such a nice way of offering a counterpoint). Absolutely nothing proving anything. And yes, I despise political-agenda driven bullshit, which is just incredibly common in Canadian politics. The misinformation and vilification for anything and everything grows tiring to anyone with a concern for discerning reality from fantasy.

leot 13y ago
Oh for heaven's sake. The NRCC is run by a non-academic oil engineer raised in Edmonton. They could have chosen almost anyone -- a university president, e.g., or even, god forbid, someone -- anyone -- with a PhD. But they didn't. It's a conspiracy, but not the secret kind.
- corresation 13y ago
  They could have chosen almost anyone -- a university president, e.g., or even, god forbid, someone -- anyone -- with a PhD. Or maybe a petroleum engineer with an excellent CV and a long list of successes, most recently on environmental efforts (CO2 recapture). This is the same garbage that has people ranting about the credentials of federal ministers (hey wait...you did that as well) when the position has never, ever, in the history of Canada, demanded specific skills for the role, and instead is a leadership and reporting position.
  - leot 13y ago
    > and instead is a leadership and reporting position. You're absolutely right in that the specific technical skills associated with having a PhD in, say, physics, or math, or even (heck) engineering have little to no bearing whatsoever on what the person at the top of the organization will do during their tenure. But there are more things learned during a PhD than a bunch of technical skills. You might learn something, e.g., about the very nature of scientific inquiry. About the nature of the challenges of collecting and analyzing scientific data. About explaining complicated research to a lay audience. About trying to convince higher-ups of the scientific merits of a project even when said merits are subtle. About why something qualifies as "science" while something else doesn't -- and knowing the difference between the two decidedly does matter when you're in a leadership position. "'Scientific discovery is not valuable unless it has commercial value,' John McDougall, president of the NRC." ... I don't think John Holdren would have said this. Indeed I think one would be hard pressed to find anyone with a PhD who would say this.