If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New Scientist)   Since PM Sweatervest put his foot on the throats of Canadian government scientists, media coverage of global warming has fallen 80% according to a leaked Environment Canada internal document   (newscientist.com) divider line 57
    More: Asinine, Environment Canada, government scientists, majority government, Canadians, Canadian government, coverages, global warming, Fukushima Daiichi  
•       •       •

1138 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Apr 2012 at 12:19 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



57 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-04-03 10:59:08 AM
That guy sounds like a real Koch.
 
2012-04-03 11:17:09 AM
No surprise.

Harper is from Calgary and the Athabasca tar sands are to be protected at all costs.
 
2012-04-03 12:22:32 PM
I loathe that man and his sweatervest.

I'm still cool with kittens though.
 
2012-04-03 12:23:47 PM
Kill the messenger because that always works.
 
2012-04-03 12:26:50 PM
Real hoser, eh?
 
2012-04-03 12:27:34 PM
Don't worry. In 10 years everyone will forget all about global warming. It's like that hole in the ozone stuff. Libs said it was caused by CFCs. We ignored them and the problem went away.

Case closed.
 
2012-04-03 12:28:01 PM
So Harper forbid Canadian scientists from scare mongering and lying about fictional global warming/climate change/new-spin-on-old BS?

[imokwiththis.jpg]

The decline in coverage has happened because no one believes you anymore, NDerPer warmers.
 
2012-04-03 12:30:35 PM
Subby, its 'climate change' now. Not global warming. Its more ambiguous that way. I mean how can you argue against 'the climate changes'? Its like calling it 'temperature change'
 
2012-04-03 12:36:33 PM

Rapmaster2000: Don't worry. In 10 years everyone will forget all about global warming. It's like that hole in the ozone stuff. Libs said it was caused by CFCs. We ignored them and the problem went away.

Case closed.


7/10
 
2012-04-03 12:38:19 PM
wtf, Canada? Here in the US some of us look to you for sane policies in a modern nation and instead you've elected anti-science, environment trashing assclowns. Explain yourselves.

beta_plus
So Harper forbid Canadian scientists from scare mongering and lying about fictional global warming/climate change/new-spin-on-old BS?

I have no doubt that all of your moronic denialist arguments have been thoroughly torn to shreds in numerous other global warming threads, so I'm not going to bother with a debate. It would be utterly pointless. You lack the intelligence and knowledge to be worth debating on any issue. You read a few right wing articles on global warming or any other scientific topic that confirm your preconceptions and decide that you know more than most of the world's climate scientists. The sad thing is that everyone suffers because ignoramuses like you are a dime a dozen.

Take your willful ignorance and go fark yourself.
 
2012-04-03 12:38:24 PM
i149.photobucket.com
Howdy, partners! Stevie Harper, Cdn. PM & big oil corporate stooge here.
Global warming? Pish-posh!
Peter McKay & I discussed this while we were jet-skiing through the north-west passage in February and we both think it's a load of wank.
Polar bears seem to be adapting by making babies with grizzly bears. Bet that'll make nice fur for coats.
Anyhoo, I got some pipe to lay into the butt of America (no gay jokes, please).
So sit back and watch us get filthy rich in oil revenues. Speaking of filthy - check out those choking ducks in that tailing pond!
Toodles, y'all!
 
2012-04-03 12:40:13 PM
Between him, Santorum, and Jim Tressel I don't think I can ever trust anyone in a sweater vest.
 
2012-04-03 12:40:52 PM
 
2012-04-03 12:41:16 PM

DozeNutz: Its like calling it 'temperature change'


It's like saying something is like something else when you either don't understand or don't care to.
 
2012-04-03 12:42:24 PM

patrick767: wtf, Canada? Here in the US some of us look to you for sane policies in a modern nation and instead you've elected anti-science, environment trashing assclowns. Explain yourselves


He got 40% of the vote, which worked out to him being elected by ~25% of eligible voters. It's a hazard of Weeners the post voting systems and low voter turnout.

Even some of the people that voted for him accept that climate change is happening
 
2012-04-03 12:43:14 PM

DozeNutz: Subby, its 'climate change' now. Not global warming. Its more ambiguous that way. I mean how can you argue against 'the climate changes'? Its like calling it 'temperature change'


Ahhh, so it's like FOX & Friends calling the Clinton surplus a "deficit on the plus side".
 
2012-04-03 12:45:55 PM

amishkarl: patrick767: wtf, Canada? Here in the US some of us look to you for sane policies in a modern nation and instead you've elected anti-science, environment trashing assclowns. Explain yourselves

He got 40% of the vote, which worked out to him being elected by ~25% of eligible voters. It's a hazard of Weeners the post voting systems and low voter turnout.

Even some of the people that voted for him accept that climate change is happening


That's some serious filter pwnage.
 
2012-04-03 12:48:48 PM

DozeNutz: Subby, its 'climate change' now. Not global warming. Its more ambiguous that way. I mean how can you argue against 'the climate changes'? Its like calling it 'temperature change'


It's more that different terms mean slightly different things:

img260.imageshack.us

To make it even less intuitive, different groups (and audiences) use these terms differently or imprecisely.
 
2012-04-03 12:49:09 PM

Glenford: amishkarl: patrick767: wtf, Canada? Here in the US some of us look to you for sane policies in a modern nation and instead you've elected anti-science, environment trashing assclowns. Explain yourselves

He got 40% of the vote, which worked out to him being elected by ~25% of eligible voters. It's a hazard of Weeners the post voting systems and low voter turnout.

Even some of the people that voted for him accept that climate change is happening

That's some serious filter pwnage.


Ha, forgot it did that
 
2012-04-03 12:53:50 PM
When the center left is as fragmented as it is in Canada, we get stuck with this horrible gov't and only because there aren't enough fools to make up two right wing parties.
 
2012-04-03 12:53:50 PM
TFA is a bit vague, but there's more information out there on this topic. There was a great panel on this very topic at the AAAS conference a month and a bit ago. Someone must have taped it.

Alright, here it is. Bonus: crazy guy in page comments.
 
2012-04-03 12:54:02 PM

patrick767: wtf, Canada? Here in the US some of us look to you for sane policies in a modern nation and instead you've elected anti-science, environment trashing assclowns. Explain yourselves.

beta_plus
So Harper forbid Canadian scientists from scare mongering and lying about fictional global warming/climate change/new-spin-on-old BS?

I have no doubt that all of your moronic denialist arguments have been thoroughly torn to shreds in numerous other global warming threads, so I'm not going to bother with a debate. It would be utterly pointless. You lack the intelligence and knowledge to be worth debating on any issue. You read a few right wing articles on global warming or any other scientific topic that confirm your preconceptions and decide that you know more than most of the world's climate scientists. The sad thing is that everyone suffers because ignoramuses like you are a dime a dozen.

Take your willful ignorance and go fark yourself.


Typical leftist asshole right here. Sit there and call your opponent stupid and run away.
 
2012-04-03 12:56:55 PM
Changing their environment is what humans do. Why wouldn't the consequences of changing the environment, is that the environment is changed?

www.myessentia.com
 
2012-04-03 01:02:10 PM

The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: Typical leftist asshole right here. Sit there and call your opponent stupid and run away.


When the "opponent" is insisting that a dropped object will fall up and that water is dry is there really any point in debate?

The only things supporting his assertions are long-debunked studies, innuendo and talking points. He's stupid or lying. Or a combo of both.
 
2012-04-03 01:03:22 PM

Rev.K: No surprise.

Harper is from Calgary and the Athabasca tar sands are to be protected at all costs.


Actually Legohair grew up in Toronto then moved to Alberta for University/oil business. He is the perfect storm of dick.
 
2012-04-03 01:03:37 PM

Mjeck: Changing their environment is what humans do. Why wouldn't the consequences of changing the environment, is that the environment is changed?

[www.myessentia.com image 440x345]


This should be obvious. So the question become how much and what kinds of changes are happening, as well as what the effects those changes will have. Getting that kind of information to what we would like to be an informed populace is hampered by the policies that TFA is talking about.
 
2012-04-03 01:06:45 PM

patrick767: wtf, Canada? Here in the US some of us look to you for sane policies in a modern nation and instead you've elected anti-science, environment trashing assclowns. Explain yourselves.

beta_plus
So Harper forbid Canadian scientists from scare mongering and lying about fictional global warming/climate change/new-spin-on-old BS?

I have no doubt that all of your moronic denialist arguments have been thoroughly torn to shreds in numerous other global warming threads, so I'm not going to bother with a debate. It would be utterly pointless. You lack the intelligence and knowledge to be worth debating on any issue. You read a few right wing articles on global warming or any other scientific topic that confirm your preconceptions and decide that you know more than most of the world's climate scientists. The sad thing is that everyone suffers because ignoramuses like you are a dime a dozen.

Take your willful ignorance and go fark yourself.


And we all know, from innumerable apocalypse and zombie films, that guys like beta are going to be the first ones to turn to cannibalism when the end comes.
 
2012-04-03 01:08:27 PM
Yeah, maybe he is totally corrupt, but he looks so nice when photographed with cats

www.stephentaylor.ca

www.conservative.ca

www.cbc.ca

Note to self: if I ever run for office, make sure to release tons of pictures of me with cats. No one can resist the adorable little furballs.
 
2012-04-03 01:08:52 PM
This isn't http://Fark.ca/ !!!
 
2012-04-03 01:09:47 PM

ModernPrimitive01: Between him, Santorum, and Jim Tressel I don't think I can ever trust anyone in a sweater vest.


There's still Mr. Rogers.

/though I've always heard his called a cardigan.
 
2012-04-03 01:12:08 PM

patrick767: wtf, Canada? Here in the US some of us look to you for sane policies in a modern nation and instead you've elected anti-science, environment trashing assclowns. Explain yourselves.


"Where did you get it? Answer me. Who taught you how to piss on science?"

"You, alright?! I learned it by watching you!"
 
2012-04-03 01:14:39 PM
In the 1970s, the oil companies wanted to create a "National Sacrifice Area" in the American Rockies.
Glad they decided to do it in Canada instead this time.
 
2012-04-03 01:17:16 PM

oldfarthenry: [i149.photobucket.com image 240x302]
Howdy, partners! Stevie Harper, Cdn. PM & big oil corporate stooge here.
Global warming? Pish-posh!
Peter McKay & I discussed this while we were jet-skiing through the north-west passage in February and we both think it's a load of wank.
Polar bears seem to be adapting by making babies with grizzly bears. Bet that'll make nice fur for coats.
Anyhoo, I got some pipe to lay into the butt of America (no gay jokes, please).
So sit back and watch us get filthy rich in oil revenues. Speaking of filthy - check out those choking ducks in that tailing pond!
Toodles, y'all!


The ducks thing is way overstated. Plenty more of the animals get chopped up by wind turbines, and magnitudes more by hunters. Having worked at the mine where this happened, let me tell you the truth.

They always have had noise cannons etc to scare them away from the ponds, but the day that happened there was a freak blizzard that didn't allow staff to get out to the cannons to make sure they were fuelled up and operating (propane powered).

For an industry that supposedly 'doesn't care' you would be surprised at the amount of resources they pour into trying to protect the cute little animals.
 
2012-04-03 01:18:08 PM
I was talking to a science reporter about this last year. They are having serious issues finding stories they can cover from Canadian scientists, and while it seems like mostly climate scientists who have been blocked from doing research and raising the profile of their work, other scientists who receive federal funding and are nominally attached the Department of Whatever are also required to have bureaucrats stand between them and any media responses. Here's an example.

In media deadlines are everything. A journalist might have an hour or two to track down an authoritative source or write a story about research published in a new journal. When it comes to dealing with any branch of the Canadian government, since Harper came into office, if it isn't something on the PMO communications staff's radar, it takes days, weeks, sometimes even months for a journalist to get a response from a communications paper-pusher. If the story is about newly published research, by the time any journalist can even call up a paper's author to interview them about their research, the paper or discovery will be weeks old. This muzzling - entirely deliberate - has lowered the profile of Canadian scientists not only nationally, but internationally as well.

I can understand getting approval of politically sensitive material. But in the case of the Harper government, there would not be political sensitivity about scientific research if they hadn't made ignoring reality a key part of their governing philosophy. Reality shouldn't embarrass the government. The government should respond to it. Until Harper, our governments largely did, including the Progressive Conservatives. There was a respect for knowledge, research, discovery, expertise.

There is one thing that makes me feel okay about the state of science and science media in this country, and it's that Bob McDonald and Quirks & Quarks at the CBC are regularly holding the Conservatives' feet to the fire on climate science. Someone is still doing journalism in this country and isn't cowed by either deadline issues or the long reach of the government. It's awesome. Oh, and I think it certainly played into the government's decision to slash the CBC budget by 10%.
 
2012-04-03 01:39:49 PM
Anyone who is concerned about the environment in Canada should watch:

The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network:
http://aptn.ca/pages/news/

Their news host is HOT!
 
2012-04-03 02:04:30 PM

Mjeck: Changing their environment is what humans do. Why wouldn't the consequences of changing the environment, is that the environment is changed?


Because shut up, that's why.
 
2012-04-03 02:13:44 PM

Representative of the unwashed masses: oldfarthenry: [i149.photobucket.com image 240x302]
Howdy, partners! Stevie Harper, Cdn. PM & big oil corporate stooge here.
Global warming? Pish-posh!
Peter McKay & I discussed this while we were jet-skiing through the north-west passage in February and we both think it's a load of wank.
Polar bears seem to be adapting by making babies with grizzly bears. Bet that'll make nice fur for coats.
Anyhoo, I got some pipe to lay into the butt of America (no gay jokes, please).
So sit back and watch us get filthy rich in oil revenues. Speaking of filthy - check out those choking ducks in that tailing pond!
Toodles, y'all!

The ducks thing is way overstated. Plenty more of the animals get chopped up by wind turbines, and magnitudes more by hunters. Having worked at the mine where this happened, let me tell you the truth.

They always have had noise cannons etc to scare them away from the ponds, but the day that happened there was a freak blizzard that didn't allow staff to get out to the cannons to make sure they were fuelled up and operating (propane powered).

For an industry that supposedly 'doesn't care' you would be surprised at the amount of resources they pour into trying to protect the cute little animals.


I've lived up there too and I can tell you that the media have blown the whole thing out of proportion. Yes, strip mines are ugly, but the oilsands strip mines are no uglier than the coal mines you Yanks have, and it the oilsands operations have a hell of a lot less impact on the environment than mountain top removal. The reclaimed land is also far more healthy than the stunted muskeg forest that was there before, and all of that crap has been leaking into the Athabasca watershed for millennia.

Yes, it looks bad in pictures and real life, but so does Fukushima. Toxic waste dumps are rarely pretty, and the oilsands deposits are nature's toxic waste dump. We are actually doing the environment a favour by getting that shiat out of the ground.

Should they be doing more to lessen the environmental impact of their operations? Sure, but they are a hell of a lot more responsible than the coal mining industry in the US.

The only real problem I have with the operation is that we are burning natural gas to run the show. We need a nuke reactor up there (and one for Edmonton for that matter).
 
2012-04-03 02:19:23 PM

bobbette: I was talking to a science reporter about this last year. They are having serious issues finding stories they can cover from Canadian scientists, and while it seems like mostly climate scientists who have been blocked from doing research and raising the profile of their work, other scientists who receive federal funding and are nominally attached the Department of Whatever are also required to have bureaucrats stand between them and any media responses. Here's an example.

In media deadlines are everything. A journalist might have an hour or two to track down an authoritative source or write a story about research published in a new journal. When it comes to dealing with any branch of the Canadian government, since Harper came into office, if it isn't something on the PMO communications staff's radar, it takes days, weeks, sometimes even months for a journalist to get a response from a communications paper-pusher. If the story is about newly published research, by the time any journalist can even call up a paper's author to interview them about their research, the paper or discovery will be weeks old. This muzzling - entirely deliberate - has lowered the profile of Canadian scientists not only nationally, but internationally as well.

I can understand getting approval of politically sensitive material. But in the case of the Harper government, there would not be political sensitivity about scientific research if they hadn't made ignoring reality a key part of their governing philosophy. Reality shouldn't embarrass the government. The government should respond to it. Until Harper, our governments largely did, including the Progressive Conservatives. There was a respect for knowledge, research, discovery, expertise.

There is one thing that makes me feel okay about the state of science and science media in this country, and it's that Bob McDonald and Quirks & Quarks at the CBC are regularly holding the Conservatives' feet to the fire on climate science. Someon ...


Fair points, and I am as dismayed as you are about how the government is acting in this regard. This, however, does not change the fact that the oilsands industry has been cleaning up its act for decades and continues to do so, which is something that also isn't be reported. Cutting the CBC was one of the idiotic things to come out of that budget.
 
2012-04-03 03:31:51 PM

Rev.K: No surprise.

Harper is from Calgary and the Athabasca tar sands are to be protected at all costs.


Harper was born and raised in Ontario. I mean look at him, what self respecting born and bred Albertan would wear a sweater vest?
 
2012-04-03 03:34:41 PM

Representative of the unwashed masses: The ducks thing is way overstated. Plenty more of the animals get chopped up by wind turbines


Ironic and oblivious herp derp alert!
 
2012-04-03 03:53:36 PM
www.conservative.ca

images.wikia.com
 
2012-04-03 04:09:51 PM

Thorndyke Barnhard: Representative of the unwashed masses: The ducks thing is way overstated. Plenty more of the animals get chopped up by wind turbines

Ironic and oblivious herp derp alert!


Ok way more ducks die after being hit by cars every day? That's ok, you just keep thinking that the big mean oil company did that on purpose.
 
2012-04-03 04:38:30 PM
The new budget also "streamlined" environmental impact assessment requirements, cut the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's budget by 40%, added more hoops for environmental charities to jump through in order to maintain tax-exempt status, defunded the EcoENERGY efficiency program, has no new funds for renewable energy, eliminated the National Roundtable on the Economy and the Environment, and shifted the National Research Council's focus to "industry-facing" projects.

Oh, and today the Conservatives pulled the plug on Rights and Democracy.
 
2012-04-03 06:02:17 PM
Only the Derpest of the Derp get their science from Al Gore.

You Global Warming NutJobs really need some mental help....Man Made Global Warming has been throughly debunked...even your favorite scientist Al Gore is realizing this

Harper more than likely saved Canada from being irrelevant. As Communist China and India have no inclination to support Al Gore's Junk Science...it was wise for Harper to get away from the Fraud known as Man Made Global Warming
 
2012-04-03 06:18:03 PM

DozeNutz: Subby, its 'climate change' now. Not global warming. Its more ambiguous that way. I mean how can you argue against 'the climate changes'? Its like calling it 'temperature change'


The Big Bang was neither big nor a bang. To people like you, this might be shocking. To others, we understand that scientists sometimes give glib, shorthand names to entire fields of science composed of multiple subfields, and that none of this can be summarized in two or three words. The mind boggles, I know.
 
2012-04-03 06:29:39 PM

Dr. Mojo PhD: DozeNutz: Subby, its 'climate change' now. Not global warming. Its more ambiguous that way. I mean how can you argue against 'the climate changes'? Its like calling it 'temperature change'

The Big Bang was neither big nor a bang. To people like you, this might be shocking. To others, we understand that scientists sometimes give glib, shorthand names to entire fields of science composed of multiple subfields, and that none of this can be summarized in two or three words. The mind boggles, I know.


Actually as far as I understand the basics of it the Big Bang was exactly that. The entire universe from a particle no bigger than an atom exploding in all directions and expanding to this very day.

Or was that wrong?
 
2012-04-03 08:12:05 PM
Why is it that the only people that bring up Al Gore are those that don't accept the results of the scientific inquiry into Anthropogenic Climate Change?
 
2012-04-04 12:34:31 AM
I'm truly embarrassed for my country. Not because Harper's running it but because of the people that keep voting him in power that to this day continue to have their heads up their asses about the BS going on to this country.
 
2012-04-04 12:50:14 AM

Representative of the unwashed masses: Actually as far as I understand the basics of it the Big Bang was exactly that. The entire universe from a particle no bigger than an atom exploding in all directions and expanding to this very day.


You consider "no bigger than an atom" big? You think there was an actual onomatopoeia? Wow.
 
2012-04-04 12:52:49 AM

Representative of the unwashed masses: Actually as far as I understand the basics of it the Big Bang was exactly that. The entire universe from a particle no bigger than an atom exploding in all directions and expanding to this very day.

Or was that wrong?


And you do realize that the term "big bang" was coined to highlight the difference between the stable cosmology theory and the expanding-universe theory, right? I mean, it was specifically and explicitly thought up for the imagery it would invoke, not the veracity of whether or not that imagery was accurate. Exactly what I said. Imagery. Evocative. Glib. Clever.
 
Displayed 50 of 57 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report