[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This is complete conjecture on your part and is in no way accurate. This is just what you want to believe. "i'm sure it'd have been vetted and cleared in a day" is made up nonsense that you are choosing to believe to paint things as being standard operating procedure.

Right. It is. You've found one example where there was inefficiency. What was in that 110 page email chain? What was so difficult? I really want to know the answer.

Is it normal to completely deny scientists from discussing their work with the Canadian media?

Before it's vetted? Yes. When CERN found the Higgs-Boson, no scientist was allowed to talk about it until they all got together, figured out their results, ensured that their messaging was consistent, and THEN they held a press conference to announce this. Why should we not expect similar vetting?

The examples you posted show that the Harper government probably went too far - not allowing their scientists to give interviews after the report has been released is not something I agree with. In my opinion, it is a mistake on their part, but again, it is not "an attack on the intellectual class."

This is a demonstration that you don't understand how science works.

Science is infallible. Scientists are not.

I can provide you many links of scientists doctoring data. Environmentalists that use junk science. Statisticians that can make the data say anything. Scientists that are influenced by funding (whether from the Sierra club, or Exxon Mobil). The list goes on.

Armchair paints scientists as infallible selfless beings that pursue science selflessly and only for the betterment of humankind. I portray them as human.

Interesting that you view opinions based on science to be 'anti-CPC ideas', which is basically the crux of my entire point. CPC Ideology is opposed to scientific inquiry because it conflicts with said ideology.

How is what we are discussing "opinions based on science"?

I think the discussion whether scientists should be allowed to freely talk to media is an interesting one that doesn't have as obvious of an answer as you think it does. There's no opinion based on science.

When you say that "It is simply indefensible to muzzle Canada's scientists and restrict the Canadian public's access to information," that is not a science-based statement (especially with the context behind it). That's your own ideology whether you want to admit it or not. I don't particularly agree with it, but we can have a discussion about it.