A little travel story (in Debates)

Last summer i when to my hometown as usual like every summer to see my father. On my way back i am taking a ride with someone that is making the trip back to montreal. I usualy meet very interesting person doing so. After a hour or 2 of talking i learn that is making is master in biology, he been involve is a few field project. A hour later or something we come on the topic of global warming. While i am convince like he does there not much argument going on this. Then he tell me something that strike me ''we cant make any study on global warming or the impact of global warming''. He explain me that the Federal gourvernement of Canada since the conservative have took power with a majority, are now cutting all funding to anything global warming related and if you continue to do so retialation will occur on others project.


Since its not hard prove i have no reason to believe that he is lying. Anyone here think that its anormal that a federal gour choses for political reason to stop research in a field. Bush have put is veto on stem cell research also for political reason. What next pulling out of the medical field for religious believe. Disbanding NASA cuz ppl are scare of E.T. coming to steal there bible.

While im not surprised to see our government commit to cutting funding for such fields. I bet the ends justify the means, keeping environmental regulations for corporations loose. Are we not as a country trying to commit to a kyoto accord?

Anyways I have to say that anyone who spent alot of time outside over the years can tell you things are what they used to be and it doesnt take a scientist to determine that, they provide numbers. Ive lived in the same atlantic region for 30 years. Summers were fair, fall was great, winter started after halloween, lots of snowy winters and mild temperatures, and wet springs. Now a days its more humid in the summer, alot more precipitation in the late fall and early winter. It doesnt get cold and snow staying on the ground until Janurary. Spring is a flood.


Maybe time has distorted my memory :|

NASA is a budget wounded goat already. =/

NASA should be getting royalties on all those "developed by NASA" things you always see in infomercials.

Couldn't launch an all important telescope recently. :P NASA does still do the weather data stuff.
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/science-technology/NASA-Satellite-Data-Helps-Scientists-Measure-Earths-Melting-Land-Ice-139148404.html
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coal-pollution.html

Or we can do the opposite and throw money away on companies like Solyndra,

You know ranger what split the left from the right.The main concern when you are on the right is liberty when you are on the left is equality. Both have there merit and a certain balance is needed to not choke eithers. When you never cut any slack for the others side then you end been a extremis. When you add a 3rd point religion or personal believe you are in a cocktail for trouble.

The republican use to be for liberty small gour and stay out of buisness way and personal life. Its all have its merits. When they have start to surender to something that look like a Catholic zealot those value become corrupt and inconsistant.

I think we should throw all our money at rich people, since they pay so much in taxes, it's only fair.

Back on topic, it's kinda sad Duke, but I would guess that because elections are so much shorter, and there aren't as many people in Canada, that there are less people to be angry and speak up about things like this when they come up. Down here, our election seasons are so long that everyone has to make very political decisions on everything. I think sometimes this is good, as it leads us to more deliberation and compromise on things, but other times it can lead to us acting very slowly on issues that need speedier results.

I would guess that Canada might be faster to act on some issues then others, just by the way your system of government works, and in some cases that means acting "rashly" and doing things that would essentially break a treaty that your government signed.

Reply to verifex.


The PM in canada is much more powerful that the president. He can make decision much quicker its a result of party disipline. MP need to respect its or been kick out of the party. Debate are done internaly, some party mostly does on the left make there debate on issue more public. As for debate there several show that cover a single issue for 1 or 2 hour similar to Meet the press. Again politic here is much more flexible a party can loss 20 point in a single year or gain as much.

Forgot to add that debate on general election are much more flexible and allow a much deeper debate here.

"Peter Kent said the protocol "does not represent a way forward for Canada" and the country would face crippling fines for failing to meet its targets.

"The move, which is legal and was expected, makes it the first nation to pull out of the global treaty."

The protocol, initially adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, is aimed at fighting global warming. "

from your link fex

Duke,

The "science" of global warming is not settled. No matter how loud the other side likes to scream it is.


Not really sure what you mean by this.


Actually it was Obama cutting NASA's budget. The "bible" people had nothing to do with it.

But it is nice to see you ridicule people who are religious. Very secular of you.

Perhaps then the government stopping studies is bad? Duke was recounting that there was opposition to studying 'global warming'. It is one thing to say "the information to date isn't conclusive" but another thing to say "stop looking for information".

Who is this 'other side' you speak of?

Ranger by not settle do you refute the point that is not getting warmer or that its man made.

Nasa is getting budget cut since the end of the coolwar so dont try to put this on OBY. As for medical field debate stem cell research saw massive protestation from religious group. For the rest, i am sure you can see its was mostly to spark a debate.

sigh....protesting fundies deserve verbal backhands, the NASA bucks went to wars/solyndra, and we need more climate studies to prove global warming is hogwash right? ;p

I would like some more proof that Canada is actually threatening to cut funding for other programs if for some reason your business continues to do research in the field of global warming, short of just cutting funding to that field in general. I call shenanigans!

I would like some more proof that Canada is actually threatening to cut funding for other programs if for some reason your business continues to do research in the field of global warming, short of just cutting funding to that field in general. I call shenanigans!


Reply

Where do you even see the mention of business in any of my reply, any global warming study will be conduct by university or some kind of public international body or federal agency like NOAA. Private donor or foundation help with funding but they represent only a part of the total. If you want to take the ozone hole issue of the 70 without the help of NASA and the sattalite nimbus its would have been quite hard to track ozone deplation with precision.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/09/canada-cuts-environment-spending

http://junkscience.com/2012/02/13/unusual-penn-state-researcher-whines-in-media-release-about-environment-canada-budget-cuts-to-her-program/

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1034331--700-environment-canada-jobs-on-the-chopping-block?bn=1#.TjqTL-B_gIQ.facebook


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/13/oh-canada/


Link from the USA UK canada..... and personal statement

http://www.duralpes.com/risques-climatiques-vus-d%E2%80%99ailleurs-le-canada/ Its in french but there are translator avaible on the website. Here a quote : Les efforts du gouvernement fédéral canadien ont été très limités jusquﾒalors pour adresser les problèmes liés aux changements climatiques. En décembre 2007, le gouvernement du Canada investissait 85,9 millions de dollars canadiens (environ 54 millions dﾒeuros) sur quatre ans ﾫ pour aider les Canadiens à renforcer leur capacité à sﾒadapter à un climat changeant.ﾻ Tout récemment des coupures majeures ont eu lieu dans les programmes consacrés aux impacts et aux adaptations aux changements climatiques. She say that effort to track global warming impact in canada mostly did nothing 86M investement to cover a country of the size of canada. She also claim that the gouvernement have cut spending on monitoring, impact, projection of global warming.

I may have missed something; but from what I've read, they cut funding for much of the research related to global warming. I didn't see anywhere mention of cutting funding to a group in other fields because they wished to independently do research in that area.

Titan i dont think you actualy understand how those thing work. Its not a guy that call you and saying you study global warming therfore we are cutting all your budget.

To give you a exemple and the 1 he gave me. Is team and him were studying expantion of moose futhers nord in Quebec territory at the expense of caribou. Study came to the conclusion that global warming is changing vegation. The line where the tundra start where boreal forest start are all moving north. There habit or breeding area are changing. This is for most species living in canada.

Now if he wrote the conclusion as its is therefore its a global warming impact study and those budget as been slash. Making any study in biology that avoid climate change will be very hard or anything climate at all. They are clearly more interest into controlling the message as they are doing in all others area.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/02/17/science-federal-muzzling-scientists.html

QUOTE

Government taking control to 'quite incredible extremes'

However, the audience did hear from Postmedia's veteran science journalist Margaret Munro and University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver, along with Francesca Grifo, a representative of the Union of Concerned Scientists who has worked to improve media access to government scientists in the U.S.

Munro said that during much of her career, it was easy to reach federal scientists to talk about their published research, but in recent years that has changed dramatically. Now, the government is taking control to "quite incredible extremes," she said, citing her own recent experiences and the information she obtained by filing access to information requests about the problem.

Munro said federal scientists face many layers of approval before they can speak to the media, going all the way up to the Privy Council Office.

"It would be sort of like asking the White House," she said.

Approved interviews are taped, but often scientists can't get approval in time for journalists' deadlines or at all. In those cases, journalists instead receive written lines approved by the government, said Munro. She discovered that it's the result of a new government policy that says a single department should speak with one voice.

"Science sort of depends on debate and discussion," she said. "If you only have one voice, you don't have skeptical voice and you don't have proper debate. So I have a bit of a problem with that."

Weaver said most scientists are frustrated with the policies and their inability to speak about their research ﾗ some so much so that they are looking for jobs outside the government.

But Grifo offered some hope that things could change. The situation for U.S. government scientists was similar under George W. Bush's administration several years ago, she said. But the Union of Concerned Scientists took a systematic approach to changing things. It studied and scored the scientific integrity policies of different agencies, then used them to create best practice guidelines and encouraged agencies to seek public comments on their draft policies.

Just this week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a new policy that encourages scientists to speak freely and allows them to express their opinions, provided they specify that those opinions are personal and not held by the government.

"That's quite wonderful," she said.

Both Grifo and Munro encouraged Canadians to document cases where scientists and journalists aren't allowed to speak with one another.

"There's been a lot of controversy and I think it's helping," Munro said, noting that there have been recent cases where journalists were surprised to find they were granted access to scientists.

This might be of interest:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/20/who-funds-thinktank-lobbyists

Story like this spawn in most country. I just dont know why there does not seem to get any reaction from the public. This is just legalize corruption.