The day I have waited for 10 years.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by savemedrzaius

Canada the most free country in the world under Harper my butt...Freaking scientists had to get permission from the government before they could talk to the media. What a joke!
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada...cid=spartandhp

Does your employer allow you to talk to the media about your work without permission?

[savemedrzaius]

Originally Posted by Fire

Does your employer allow you to talk to the media about your work without permission?

Why do Conservatives love seeing government and businesses as the same thing. They're not. Working for the government and working for a private business are completely different.

A government should want the truth brought to the public's attention no matter if it makes them look bad. Of course, that is rarely the case, but Harper was on the dictatorial side when it came to this.

[Buster]

I'm wondering if the scientist was arguing against climate change, the lefties would be so supportive of freedom of speech.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Buster

I'm wondering if the scientist was arguing against climate change, the lefties would be so supportive of freedom of speech.

Given that the vast majority of dictators and mass murderers start from the left, I assume not.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Buster

I'm wondering if the scientist was arguing against climate change, the lefties would be so supportive of freedom of speech.

If, hypothetically, a government scientist conducted a study whose conclusions were contrary to the broadly-accepted consensus regarding climate change, and the study was subjected to proper peer review by other experts in the field and judged to be scientifically valid, why would any "lefties" argue against the scientist publishing his or her findings and discussing them with the media?

[Drak]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Given that the vast majority of dictators and mass murderers start from the left, I assume not.

Historians of monarchies and fascism might disagree.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Drak

Historians of monarchies and fascism might disagree.

Speaking as a former professional historian, no - they would not. Hereditary rulers ruling by divine right are irrelevant to the discussion, plus they largely predate the whole right/left thing. Mussolini started as a socialist, as did Schicklegruber, though he is more debatable.
The main butchers (Lenin / Stalin / Mao) were all speaking for the proletariat of course. You do have some notable men of the Right (Pinochet, plus most of the military types, Chavez excepted), but most start out on the Left - virtually all the Africans, your Kims, Khmers, VC, etc. I don't know where you classify the religious ones (Iran).
I think the main tenet of the Left is "we know what's good for you"; well, how could you possibly cede power if you know what's best? Marx forbid, your opponents could undo all the "progress"... One thing leads to another, and it turns out you have to kill the bourgeoisie. Well, and then those other socialists are not socialist enough, so better bury them too. Completely understandable.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Speaking as a former professional historian, no - they would not. Hereditary rulers ruling by divine right are irrelevant to the discussion, plus they largely predate the whole right/left thing. Mussolini started as a socialist, as did Schicklegruber, though he is more debatable.
The main butchers (Lenin / Stalin / Mao) were all speaking for the proletariat of course. You do have some notable men of the Right (Pinochet, plus most of the military types, Chavez excepted), but most start out on the Left - virtually all the Africans, your Kims, Khmers, VC, etc. I don't know where you classify the religious ones (Iran).
I think the main tenet of the Left is "we know what's good for you"; well, how could you possibly cede power if you know what's best? Marx forbid, your opponents could undo all the "progress"... One thing leads to another, and it turns out you have to kill the bourgeoisie. Well, and then those other socialists are not socialist enough, so better bury them too. Completely understandable.

All that tells me is that power corrupts.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Fire

Does your employer allow you to talk to the media about your work without permission?

Public servants are employed by us.

[jammies]

So, the argument is that by allowing scientists to speak out, Trudeau is plotting his communist overthrow of the state?


Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by jammies

So, the argument is that by allowing scientists to speak out, Trudeau is plotting his socialist overthrow of the state?


Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

fyp

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Buster

I'm wondering if the scientist was arguing against climate change, the lefties would be so supportive of freedom of speech.

If by "lefties" you mean people who will accept new information and apply it, and thus accept climate change and all of the scientific evidence along with it, then, yes, I'm sure most "lefties" would be just fine with any new information on climate change that was supported properly and agreed upon by the scientific community.

Is "lefty" another term for "rational" in your world? If anyone seems to have trouble changing with the rise of new information, it's the "righties"(specifically, the far right).

[CroFlames]

Looks like the environmental savior of Canada is off to a great start.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/montrea...sday-1.2651319

The City of Montreal says it will begin dumping eight billion litres of untreated sewage into the St. Lawrence River on Wednesday after it agreed to conform its discharge plan to the federal government's conditions.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Looks like the environmental savior of Canada is off to a great start.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/montrea...sday-1.2651319

The article missed that this issue was presented during Harper's reign, but it was decided to delay making a decision until after the election.

Mechanical sewage treatment plants (as opposed to a lagoon or septic field) do this quite often (couple times a year). This one makes the news due to volume but, considering the volume of the St. Lawrence, not a big deal at the end of the day.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

The article missed that this issue was presented during Harper's reign, but it was decided to delay making a decision until after the election.

Mechanical sewage treatment plants (as opposed to a lagoon or septic field) do this quite often (couple times a year). This one makes the news due to volume but, considering the volume of the St. Lawrence, not a big deal at the end of the day.

The solution to pollution is dilution.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

If, hypothetically, a government scientist conducted a study whose conclusions were contrary to the broadly-accepted consensus regarding climate change, and the study was subjected to proper peer review by other experts in the field and judged to be scientifically valid, why would any "lefties" argue against the scientist publishing his or her findings and discussing them with the media?

Interesting.

NOW we think that opinions should be vetted and determined to be valid and accurate before they are released?

TAKE OFF THE MUZZLE YOU FASCIST.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Buster

Interesting.

NOW we think that opinions should be vetted and determined to be valid and accurate before they are released?

TAKE OFF THE MUZZLE YOU FASCIST.

Science isn't a matter of opinion.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Science isn't a matter of opinion.

It kind of is, actually. If data didn't present a healthy medium for discussion, there wouldn't be science.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Buster

Interesting.

NOW we think that opinions should be vetted and determined to be valid and accurate before they are released?

TAKE OFF THE MUZZLE YOU FASCIST.

The Prime Minister, whether its Harper, Trudeau, or Wayne effing Gretzky are not the authorities on validity and accuracy of science.

These are not opinions, these are verified scientific facts that were being withheld from the public because they were perceived to be detrimental to certain industries. Not because they were up for debate.

Originally Posted by peter12

It kind of is, actually. If data didn't present a healthy medium for discussion, there wouldn't be science.

Opinions can be drawn from scientific conclusions, but scientific conclusions are not up for opinion.

EX: The ppm of CO2 in the ocean has increased by x amount over the last y years. That is a fact (without numbers because I don't know them)

From that, there can be opinions on what's causing it and what the implications could be. But even then, if more research shows what is causing it, it changes from opinion to fact. And the people who were of the different opinion before either have to accept the new information as facts, or be behind the rest humanity.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Science isn't a matter of opinion.

I disagree strongly.

Science, by definition, is a competing set of theories and hypotheses. The majority view on which view is correct often changes as new information becomes available.