Hmmm, independently wealthy? How about Lord Rutherford or that pesky kid, Darwin? At one time, scientists were considered sellouts if they were paid for doing science and most of those we consider the Greats had independent means.

THAT universe actually existed for a while, when science could be done in your basement. These days, it takes enormous resources to do cutting edge science, thus governments, universities and large corporations have to foot the bill.

Gary 7

Way to not read the thread before posting. Shadmere’s original post at #7 was a Poe (look it up in the Urban Dictionary if you are unfamiliar with the term). He was called out on it multiple times.

Prime Minister Harper is a control freak. He’s been in office for 4 years now, and in all that time even government ministers (our version of American cabinet secretaries) cannot speak in public without their comments being vetted by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to make sure they stay on message.

Harper has governed as slightly left of the conservative wing of the Democratic party. Overall, I generally approve of the major steps he’s taken, even though my perception is that he’s governing that way to stay in government, not because it’s what he believes is correct, i.e., he’s being political. But he has also shown disturbing tendencies consistent with the worst of the “New Right” whenever he thinks he can get away with it – being hyperpartisan, preferring ideology to science, etc. Our minister of science technology, Gary Goodyear, was asked by the Toronto Globe and Mail if he “believed” in evolution, and replied that he was a christian and it wasn’t appropriate to ask questions about his religion. Of course, later that same day he was asked on TV news and said that “We are evolving, etc”, but that was just spin doctoring. And he still didn’t categorically say he accepted the Theory of Evolution.

@18 kunigget: …Bad Canadians! Bad! No donut, eh?! Be careful what you say. Don’t mess with our Timmie’s (Tim Horton’s, for those of you unfamiliar with that piece of Canadiana).

@22 vagueofgodalming: Is this really new for Canada? Sadly, no. It’s been a fine tradition since the government of the day, the Liberal Party, muzzled scientists who were trying warn that cod fisheries were going to collapse if there weren’t restrictions on the size of catches. Of course, the government couldn’t have scientists warning about that – it would cause debate, and maybe the government would have to limit catches, which would cost it votes in Newfoundland. But of course, then the cod fishery did collapse, proving once again that reality doesn’t care what you think.

@7, 28, etc. Shadmere: I think you forgot the <sarcasm> html tags…

Shadmere, government gets ALL of its funds from taxes or from sales or management of lands and resources that are the property of the citizens. The citizens own the nation and the citizens own the government. All elected officials and their appointees are nothing but paid employees of the citizens, hired to manage property that belongs to the citizens.

Every one of the results of all taxpayer-funded research is the property of the citizens.

“The Public” doesn’t pay these scientists, the government does. If Joe Schmoe down the street wants to get valid data about the climate, he can damned well hire his own scientist.

Hey Shadwere, where do you think the government gets its money? Could it be taxes, from Joe Schmoe perhaps?

And the new thing I learned today; there are actually glaciers of salt on our planet :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_glacier

Now if only there were pepper trees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schinus_molle) or pepper vines growing alongside these salt glaciers …

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia

For more on Edward Teller here’s his wiki-page :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller

and it’s worth mentioning that Robert Oppenheimer who Teller clashed with was also an opposing political scientific advocate.

Plus for the meaning(s), forms and things “Liberal” generally see here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal

Curious and perhaps somewhat ironic to note that Liberal is a city in Missouri – & Kansas & a community in Oregon.

PS. Liberal Missouri was founded by an athiest as a type of atheist utopia & apparently specifically tried to bar Christians from living there! This must be true – it says so on Wikipedia!

(Note folks take *anything* you see on the internet with a large sample of halite! )

I agree it is problematic when, as in your example, Jim Hansen calls press conferences to talk about how he’s supposedly being censored.

I do agree that it is a bit of a concern for the reputation of science when the line between scientist and actvist gets as blurred as it is in hansen’s case and a few others.

On the other hand, scientists do also remain human beings with their own political views and the usual rights of freedom of expression and so forth as all of us. Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan and Edward Teller (“the father of the Hydrogen bomb”) are examples of prominent scientists who have engaged in advocacy for various causes over their careers.

So I can see both sides of this. Perhaps we need to be clearer about what is scientist Xs scientific opinion and what is sci. X’s personal opinions? If sci. X is letting personal political opinion bias scientific results – or even creating a reasonably widespread impression of that happening – then science generally does fall into disprepute. Scientists shouldn’t be lobbyists or activists, they shouldn’t play partisan politics in my view. That (as you noted) leads to all science losing credibility and trustworthiness.

Still, I do very much believe in everyone’s right to freedom of speech incl. scientists. I very much dislike the ideas of politicians telling scientists what they can and can’t say. If they’re going to do that then they need to have really good valid reasons not just “oh it looks bad for us.”

How do we balance these out? I’m not sure. There are gray areas here.

@7. & 28. Shadmere : Okay, you got me. Nice Poe – but, yeah, a emoticon there would’ve been handy. As the problem goes parody and real extreme opinion are oft confused.

@ 60. PJE : In Australian politics the conservative side is called the Liberal party!

(It really is, no kidding.)

The word “liberal” seems to have altered its meaning and taken on a much more negative connotation of late esp. in the US of A. Politics everywhere seems to be more and more polarised and depressing.

Regarding this particular post the science in question was published in Nature. The public was not shielded from the science but perhaps Canada’s science institutions are trying to shield themselves from headline seeking activists.

“NRCan scientist Scott Dallimore co-authored the study, published in the journal Nature on April 1, about a colossal flood that swept across northern Canada 13,000 years ago, when massive ice dams gave way at the end of the last ice age.”
-http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ottawa+tightens+muzzle/3514943/story.HTML

The science has not been censored.

Many remember the embarrassment of NASA GISS when James Hansen claimed he was being censored by the Bush administration and it was revealed that he had done hundreds of TV interviews in the previous months. He was asked how he had time to actually work on “science”.

Headlines are fun but they do not help science institutions. The BBC came within a hair’s width of not renewing it’s contract with the UK Met Office because the Met Office activists were more interested in making headlines than doing the drudgery of actual science.

What institution wants to suffer the fate of the University of East Anglia, NASA GISS or the IPCC?

The IPCC earlier this year told it’s own associates to put a muzzle on it. There is only so much embarrassment that an institution, organization or a “science” can take before it is marginalized. Some would say that the ship has sailed for “climate science” already. Pity the actual scientists and researchers that work in the field, the labs and at their workstations pouring over data only to be tarred with the same brush that the headline seekers bring upon the entire body of science.

Some people like to see their scientists on the cover of “Rolling Stone”, but I respect the ones that I have never seen their faces but have read their research in the journals.

· Pierre Trudeau (Former “Liberal” prime minister)
· Propagandhi punk rocker Chris Hannah
· Abortion activist Dr. Henry Morgentaler
· Former prime minister Brian Mulroney
· Schoolgirl killers Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka
· Prime Minister Stephen Harper
· Pop-singer Celine Dion
· Former Prime Minister Jean Chretien
· Serial killer Clifford Olson
· Former media baron Conrad Black

Trudeau won by a wide margin. The only surprise was that politicians only made up 40% of the top ten.

If someone can correct me, I think “Liberal” in the US has a sort of hippie anarchist sort of connotation?

Our Liberal party is still conservative in many respects. Our more socialist party is called the NDP, the New Democrat Party and typically get around 15% of the vote. They are all about social programs and are very pro union.

I can’t really offer more details so I apologise for that. I’m sure there are many more Canadian posters here that can offer a better explanation

Pete

Oh noes! BEWEAR TEH COMMIES!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6mGHoKxDQK8/SGOqtvbtK2I/AAAAAAAAAQQ/FBksW2oI2m0/s400/lolcat1476702.jpg

Pity them as they slog upon their sad courses . . .