UPDATED: Not A Hopeful Sign

As much as I have long been an advocate for the development and honing of critical thinking skills (while readily admitting that I often fall short of the mark - for me, it is always a work in progress), I regret to report, via the CBC, that there is much, much work still to be done. In fact, many Canadians are having a great deal of difficulty distinguishing between facts and opinion, fake news and science fact. In our fraught times, that is surely a recipe for disaster.

Are scientific findings a matter of opinion? Forty-three per cent of Canadians agree that they are, suggests a new poll.

47 per cent (up from 40 per cent last year) agreed that "the science behind global warming is still unclear," despite what scientists have been calling for years "unequivocal" evidence.

19 per cent agree "there is a link between vaccinations and autism," even though the study that made the link was found years ago to be "an elaborate fraud."

The poll, commissioned by Ontario Science Centre, has results that should worry all of us. Maurice Bitran, chief executive officer of the Ontario Science Centre, had this to say:

"If you think that climate change is one of the main issues that we face as a society, and almost half of us think that the science is still unclear when there's a pretty broad scientific consensus about it, this affects the chances that we have to act in a unified way about it."

He is concerned about some of the findings that suggest a lack of trust in science and media coverage of scientific issues such as:

68 per cent agree that media coverage of scientific issues is "reported selectively to support news media objectives."

59 per cent agree that media coverage of scientific issues is "presented to support a political position."

Such conspiratorial views of the media when it comes to fact-based science should give us all pause to consider, among other things, the role media themselves play in this perception:

Kelly Bronson, a University of Ottawa professor who has studied and written about science communication, said people are confused about where to go for reliable information and how to tell facts from beliefs.

She thinks the media are partly to blame for focusing too much on telling both sides of the story: "It doesn't help the public learn how to distinguish true knowledge from mere opinion, if both are given equal weight in a news story."

An excellent illustration of this is to be found in a recent Hamilton Spectator letter to the editor:

RE: Republicans in denial (Sept. 13)

This article calls climate change skeptics "deniers", but is itself a denier. To accomplish this clever trick of contradicting itself, the Washington Post (WAPO) cunningly suppresses the huge hidden assumption behind their "denier" pejorative, which is that man-made climate change is settled science, which it isn't.

An example of the bad science behind "man-made climate change" is CO2, an essential component of all life including ours. In fact we likely need more of it. Reduce pollution, yes, but reduce CO2, no. We emphatically do not have a link between climate change and human-generated CO2.

Pedlars of bad science like Michael Mann are quoted supporting this unproven man-made climate change hypothesis. Natural phenomena like sea level rise are dragged in as proof of it, when actually the sea level is simply rising as it has been for thousands of years. Further, we should note that the climate change industry yields nice personal profits for its promoters, such as writers of columns like "Republicans in denial?"

It is difficult to connect these dots into a picture that warrants calling skeptics of man-made climate change "deniers", particularly when WAPO itself denies much.

Frank Gue, Burlington

Mr. Gue, and all others of his ilk, try to peddle the opinion that the science of climate change is not settled. The fact that it has been settled is but an inconvenience people like Gue circumvent by exploiting people's ignorance and prejudices. Are newspapers doing anyone a service by publishing such arrant nonsense?

Ignorance, sloppy thinking, mindless chatter and misdirection continue apace, but here is an incontrovertible fact: The time is growing very late, and the window to mitigation is rapidly closing.

UPDATE: Pursuant to the comments about online polls (one was used in the above Leger poll,) made by Jay and UU4077, it was not a poll in which just anyone could contribute. Here is an excerpt detailing its methodology:

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

A survey of 1,514 Canadians was completed online between August 15th to 16th, 2017 using Leger’s online panel, LegerWeb.

A probability sample of the same size would yield a margin of error of +/-2.5%, 19 times out of 20.

ABOUT LEGER’S ONLINE PANEL

Leger’s online panel has approximately 475,000 members nationally – with between 10,000 and 20,000 new members added each month, and has a retention rate of 90%.

QUALITY CONTROL

Stringent quality assurance measures allow Leger to achieve the high-quality standards set by the company. As a result, its methods of data collection and storage outperform the norms set by WAPOR (The World Association for Public Opinion Research). These measures are applied at every stage of the project: from data collection to processing, through to analysis. We aim to answer our clients’ needs with honesty, total confidentiality, and integrity.

My wife is part of a large online polling group. Originally responding to a telephone poll by EKOS, she was later contacted by the pollster asking her to become part of an online polling panel, as they needed someone in her demographic. My understanding is that such groups are meant to represent a large cross-section of Canadians, and therefore does not have the notorious self-selection and skewing that open online polls do.

More On Harper's Censorship of Science

The other day I wrote a post about the Harper regime's ongoing efforts and measures designed to thwart government transparency; the Prime Minister's abuse of power is most flagrant in his suppression of the voice of science, thereby effectively denying information vital if citizens are to have any hope of evaluating government policy. Unfortunately, in a regime driven by ideology, as Harper's is, the end justifies the means, no matter how much those means might violate the basic underlying principles of democratic government.

I am taking the liberty of reproducing the editorial appearing in today's Star that rebukes the regime for this dangerous drift toward an autocratic rule that promotes and extols ignorance over knowledge and manipulation over meaningful deliberation. The bolded parts are mine, added for emphasis:

Apparently Stephen Harper is unmoved by the embarrassment of international reprobation.

It has been a year since Nature, one of the world’s leading scientific journals, chided the federal Conservatives for their antagonism to openness and declared, “It is time for the Canadian government to set its scientists free.”

Since then, other major international publications, including the Guardian and the Economist, have followed suit, calling on our government to take a more enlightened, democratic approach to scientific findings. Yet clearly not much has changed: the federal information commissioner is now considering a request to investigate the persistent and worsening problem of the government’s so-called muzzling of Canadian scientists.

Since the Conservatives took power in 2006, Canadian media have had little direct access to government scientists. In Friday’s Star, Kate Allen reported on the difficulty this paper has had working around the government’s unusual restrictions. Requests for information are usually routed through communications officials, yielding either perfunctory, inexpert responses, or circumscribed interviews with scientists often days past deadline. One way or another, scientists are kept from sharing their work with the public.

This silencing poses a significant democratic problem. How are Canadians supposed to evaluate energy or fisheries policies, for instance, when we aren’t exposed to even the most basic information about their environmental consequences? Moreover, the muzzling creates a problem for science itself, an endeavour that depends on the widespread dissemination, scrutiny and discussion of data. As Dalhousie University ecologist Jeffrey Hutchings wrote on thestar.com last week, “When you inhibit the communication of science, you inhibit science.”

That ought to be unacceptable. But as the thousands of scientists who gathered in protest on Parliament Hill last summer made clear, this government seems to regard evidence as worse than irrelevant. It regards it as a hindrance. Why else scrap the Experimental Lakes Area, the world’s leading freshwater research centre, despite the steep economic and scientific cost of that decision? Why else do away with the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, the national science adviser or the long-form census, among other integral parts of our scientific infrastructure lost in recent years?

Keeping Canadians in the dark is undemocratic; governing in the dark is reckless. Good government needs good science, and good science needs a level of openness this government may be incapable of.

Getting Things Done

                              

Those who prize quick decisions and action will no doubt applaud the likes of the Doug Ford government. As pointed out in my previous post, the premier and his coterie are not very often burdened by critical thinking. And that, as I tried to point out, has consequences.

Star letter-writers also share their misgivings over this kind of 'governance' in the following.

Someone should remove Premier Doug Ford’s supply of napkins and pens before he comes up with another plan to “save” taxpayers’ money, such as inviting 18 year olds to skip secondary education and join the police force right after graduation; knocking down the Ontario Science Centre and build housing on the ravine. So what if they get flooded every spring. Think of the view!

Let Therme Group build a spa on Ontario Place that 99 per cent of Ontarians won’t be able to afford, but won’t cost the taxpayers a dime, except for $200 million to clear the land and $450 million for underground parking. And those are only preliminary estimates.

Cut funding to hospitals so they can’t keep up with the need for cataract surgeries, but pay private clinics more per procedure than OHIP covers.

And those are only the most recent unplanned plans.

I can’t wait to read about his next great idea in tomorrow’s Star.

Carol Libman, Toronto 

Let us examine the Ford legacy 20 years down the road.

The Ontario Science Centre will be no more and Toronto will have lost a significant piece of architecture that could have been adjusted to continue its role in promoting science. In its place there will be a mass of grotty highrises with few if any subsidized units, much to the delight of developers.

On Ontario Place the wonderful spa which took twice as long to build and cost well-over budget failed as a business venture and was converted to a casino after structural additions. Both the spa and the casino were found to have guarantees from the province to cover revenue shortfalls.

Part of Ontario Place was converted to parking for the casino because water seepage made underground parking a non-starter.

RIP Ontario Place.

Peter Anastasiades, Markham

 The Toronto Star correctly points out that most of the Ontario Science Centre land is composed of hazardous and floodplain lands. Good luck to the Doug Ford government and a developer in trying to secure a Toronto and Region Conservation Authority permit for new housing development over these lands!

During Hurricane Hazel in 1954, many houses in the Don Valley were swept away by flooding and hence the conservation authority followed up by preparing floodplain mapping of the Don Valley to ensure that future housing would not be exposed to such destruction. There is also the concept of “setback” zones from floodplains.

Ministers within Ford’s government need to learn how to interpret floodplain mapping before suggesting new housing over hazardous and floodplain lands.

Jim McEwen, retired civil engineer, Bowmanville

In the annals of the oxymoron, known as Ontario Government intelligence, this could rank near the top.

The plan is to build the New Ontario Line subway running from Ontario Place to The Ontario Science Centre. But now, may also include moving the Ontario Science Centre to Ontario Place and building housing in its present location.

The Ontario Science Centre is a gem, nestled in a beautiful valley. By all means renovate it as needed to keep it relevant, but leave it where it is. Why not simply build high density housing above and around the new 2,700 space parking lot at Ontario Place, leaving the new residents closer to downtown.

Ian Alter, North York

Envelopes are best reserved for their original purpose, not as a medium for calculating public policy.  Expect no course corrections in the near- future from this obdurate regime, however.

 

A Scientist Speaks Out

By now, the plight of government scientists is reasonably well-known. Despite the Harper propaganda machine's vehement campaign to deny the practice, more and more Canadians have become aware that the regime has been systematically muzzling its scientists, whose research and hard data frequently contradict and expose as lies the ideology that passes as truth in our debased democracy.

Because we have a collectively short memory, every so often we need to be reminded of some harsh realities, as was done on September 16 when scientists rallied against government efforts to suppress much-needed information.

David Schindler, described as the Killam Memorial Professor of Ecology emeritus at the University of Alberta, has a well-written piece in today's Star reminding all of us of the government's odious practices.

Entitled Remove the muzzle from government scientists, the article begins by reminding us of the proud and often pivotal role Canadian science, much of it governmental, has played in some far-reaching environmental initiatives, including the fact that

Canada was the first country to regulate phosphorus in sewage and detergents, leading to the recovery of many lakes from algal blooms.

Canada also led global efforts to decrease emissions of ozone-depleting chemicals, resulting in the Montreal Protocol.

...policies to control acid rain, based largely on science from government departments, were implemented.

Shindler himself left government science when things began to change. The first changes were somewhat subtle, beginning in the 1990s:

Scientists ... were warned to avoid directly criticizing government policies, even environmentally harmful ones. Rebukes were mild for a scientist who challenged his political masters. At worst, a scolding letter was “put on your file.”

Things steadily deteriorated, with restrictions reaching their nadir once the Harper regime became ensconced:

Shortly after it took office, scientists were told they must have permission from bureaucrats to speak publicly. Bureaucrats and communications officers issued “speaking lines” that must be used to avoid criticism of policies. The permitted lines were often so inane that most scientists chose to remain silent rather be embarrassed by using them.

This weakening of the scientific voice had dire consequences, including the collapse of the cod industry, but much worse was to come:

The government divested itself of the Experimental Lakes Project, government contaminants programs, climate projects and the Arctic PEARL project. The Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Act were changed to provide less protection, while expediting large industrial developments.

And now, of course, we have the almost daily spectacle of government ministers defending the indefensible, with lies about subjects ranging from greenhouse gas emissions to oilsands and protection of fisheries.

Shindler ends his piece with the following sobering thoughts:

We must take government science back from politicians who would twist or hide science that reveals flaws in their policies. We deserve to know the truth about the impacts of proposed developments on our environment, in order to avoid mistakes that will be costly to future generations.

Government science once provided this information, and it must be changed to do so again. The health of not only our environment, but of Canadian democracy, depends on it.

We can expect the Harper cabal to continue to fight any such ideas vigorously, as is the wont of repressive regimes everywhere.

2015: Day Two

H/t The Toronto Star

Well, it is good to know that Star letter-writers have lost none of their edge over the holiday season. Responding to the paper's recent editorial lacerating the Harper regime's science policy ("Whatever the government’s motives, whatever it understands or does not about how science works, it has over the last eight years devastated Canadian research in a way that will be hard to reverse.") they offered the following:

Re: Canada needs a brighter science policy, Editorial Dec. 28

A lack of national science policy is fallout from the Conservative strategy of pitting one end of the nation against another, favouring pipeline-rich Alberta and shunning Ontario, for example.

There is no mechanism for uniting Canadians against this divisive, undermining approach. Stephen Harper has made clear that those who do not subscribe to his views are on his “enemies” list, and this would include scientists and other intellectuals who would challenge his free market doctrine.

The disrespect Harper has shown scientists, Statistics Canada, and others such as veterans and aboriginal peoples, is a form of contempt all Canadians should note come the next federal election.

Unlike the openness and enthusiasm for science joyfully brought forth to Canadians by Commander Chris Hadfield, Harper has silenced the dialogue about any policies Canadians value as fundamental to our democracy and impeded the future of Canada’s membership in a worldwide community of scientific research.
One has to wonder about his motives. It is time for Canadians to stand up.

Diane Sullivan, Toronto

The Harper government has taken us back several decades in our understanding of our relationship with the natural world, decades we may not be able to recover. Degrading our natural systems — wetlands, lakes, rivers, forests, wildlife, diversity of species and atmosphere — and calling the resultant increase in GDP a benefit to society is counterintuitive.

Instead of reveling in the exploitation of the sources of our water, food, air, flood protection, erosion control, soil fertility, resilience to diseases or invasive species, and protection from climate change, it would be far more productive to develop National Accounts that place a value on the assets of our natural world.

We continue to devalue the natural world of which we are a part and is essential for our existence, at our own peril.

Melanie Milanich, Toronto

With Stephen Harper’s Conservatives intent to push science back to medieval times, it may be time for Canadians to embrace those efforts and get with Harper Times. Issue all conservatives a bell to be worn in public. They have become pariahs of society, like the lepers of old, and should be treated as such.

How a party representing less than 40 per cent of the electorate can be allowed to systematically dismantle our democracy and scientific institutions shows the current first past the post voting system is a relic that has long passed its expiry date.

Tyler Lindsay, Niagara Falls

The Dominoes of Democracy

Cause and effect. Sometimes the relationship is obvious, as in, for example, a cigarette left smoldering on a couch and the subsequent conflagration that destroys a house. Other times, to see the relationship requires some digging, some thinking, some connecting of the dots. To its shame the Harper regime, as retrograde and benighted as it is, has proven quite adept at obscuring such relationships. Thanks to this Machiavellian bent, we are all the poorer.

In a recent address to the Alberta Federation of Labour, one that, curiously, was not reported in the mainstream Alberta media, former Tory pollster and strategist Allan Gregg gave another version of his Assault on Reason speech he gave at the opening of Carleton University’s new School of Public Affairs.

Gregg made the following unassailable assertion to the group:

..."effective solutions can only be generated when they correspond with accurate understanding of they problems they are designed to solve. Evidence, facts and reason, therefore, form the sine qua non not just of good public policy, but of good value."

He went on to lament the steady decline of these criteria under the Harper government that began with the elimination of the long-form census, followed by

the destruction of the national long-gun registry, despite the pleas of virtually every police chief in Canada that it be saved. After that, under cover of an austerity budget, there were massive cuts to Statistics Canada, Library and Archives Canada, science and social science activities at Parks Canada, the Parliamentary Budget Office, the CBC, the Roundtable on the Environment, the Experimental Lakes Area, the Canadian Foundation for Climate Science and so on.

Gregg notes that these assaults on evidence-based decisions were followed by a multi-billion-dollar penitentiary-building spending spree which flew directly in the face of a mountain of evidence that suggested that crime, far from being on the rise, was on the decline.

Gregg draws the following conclusions:

"This was no random act of downsizing, but a deliberate attempt to obliterate certain activities that were previously viewed as a legitimate part of government decision making," Gregg stated. "Namely, using research, science and evidence as the basis to make public policy decisions.

"It also amounted to an attempt to eliminate anyone who would use science, facts and evidence to challenge government policies," he added.

So, beyond the obvious consequences of flawed government policy that is based on ideology instead of empiricism, what is the effect of all of this?

To be continued later today...

The Harper Regime's Contempt For Science

Those who follow the depredations of the Harper regime will know of the terrible attacks that science and research have undergone these past several years. Cuts to funding, closing of research centres, and muzzling of scientists are common occurrences. Indeed, not even the recent news of the early success of the Ebola vaccine was enough to lift, even temporarily, the government stranglehold on researchers.

Now the scientific community is fighting back.

Evidence for Democracy (E4D), a non-profit organization that advocates on behalf of the scientific community, has created a website that calls out the federal government for actions the group says have sabotaged Canadian progress and prosperity.

“We’re really trying to get across the sort of idea that science and government making smart, informed decisions is part of what made Canada such a great country,” the group’s executive director Dr. Katie Gibbs said in an interview with The Huffington Post Canada.

A great website whose database offers access to heartbreaking stories of countless closings, cutbacks and restrictions on communications, True North Smart + Free, created by Evidence For Democracy is a must to visit to get a sense of the breadth and depth of the Harper regime's contempt for science.

The closure of seven research libraries and an internal government memo accusing an oil sands researcher of “bias” are among cases the website highlights.

Visitors to the website are asked to take the “science pledge” — a non-binding declaration condemning “restrictive rules,” promising support for actions that champion a transparent, evidence-based political system that serves in the public interest.

I hope you will visit the website, take the pledge and, most importantly, help spread the word.

He Who Controls Language, Controls Thought

“A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”

–George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1946

Given some very troubling developments in the U.S., the prescience of George Orwell, and his special concen about the manipulation of language to influence and control thought, are especially relevant today.

Jem Burkes put it this way:

George Orwell, like many other literary scholars, is interested in the modern use of the English language and, in particular, the abuse and misuse of English. He realises that language has the power in politics to mask the truth and mislead the public, and he wishes to increase public awareness of this power. He accomplishes this by placing a great focus on Newspeak and the media in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Demonstrating the repeated abuse of language by the government and by the media in his novel, Orwell shows how language can be used politically to deceive and manipulate people, leading to a society in which the people unquestioningly obey their government and mindlessly accept all propaganda as reality. Language becomes a mind-control tool, with the ultimate goal being the destruction of will and imagination.

Since his election, Donald Trump has worked hard to disparage the media, his stock response to all coverage that displeases him being the dismissive "fake news." A hallmark of incipient fascism,, there are also slightly more subtle methods taking place to bring about changes in language that will serve not only to tighten freedom of expression and range of thought, but also alter the culture of some important American institutions. One of those institutions is the Centers for Disease Control.

The New York Times reports the following very disturbing development:

The Department of Health and Human Services tried to play down on Saturday a report that officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had been barred from using seven words or phrases, including “science-based,” “fetus,” “transgender” and “vulnerable,” in agency budget documents.

A quick denial by an agency spokesman asserting the primacy of evidence-based decision-making has done little to quell fears for some very good reasons:

The Washington Post [has reported] that C.D.C. policy analysts were told of the forbidden words and phrases at a meeting on Thursday with senior officials who oversee the agency’s budget. Other words included “entitlement,” “diversity” and “evidence-based.”

In some cases, The Post reported, alternative phrases were suggested. Instead of “science-based,” or “evidence-based,” The Post reported, “the suggested phrase is ‘C.D.C. bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes.’’’

While some are suggesting that the interference with language is only to assuage Republicans during the budgeting process, others see much darker implications:

A former C.D.C. official, who asked not to be identified, said that some staff members were upset because the purported ban suggested that their work was being politicized.

Dr. Vivek Murthy, a former Surgeon General, expressed concern.

“Whether this is a directive from above is not clear,’’ he said. “But for C.D.C. or any agency to be censored or passively made to feel they have to self-censor to avoid retribution — that’s dangerous and not acceptable. The purpose of science is to search for truth, and when science is censored the truth is censored.”

I would argue that the threat goes beyond censorship and political pandering. Every institution has a culture. (Think of education, law enforcement, the tech industry, etc.) If such constraints at the CDC become entrenched, something that will inevitably happen if employees eventually understand them to be one of the conditions of employment, its entire ethos will, over time, mutate and increasingly become simply and exclusivity an arm of government and its inevitable biases, in the case of Trump, the pandering to the rabid and religious right.

When that happens, be prepared to bid farewell to anything remotely resembling evidence-based research. Diseases and projects skewed toward that which is anathema to the reactionaries will pay a very heavy price indeed.

The Climate Change Debate Lives On

The science on the theory of climate change is not settled. There is a powerful, scientific consensus that anthropogenic or man-made climate change is real, here now and worsening. There is a powerful, scientific consensus that man-made climate change is already triggering natural feedback mechanisms that eventually can become "tipping points" beyond which we will have runaway global warming. Runaway as in all the king's horses and all the king's men won't be able to stop it.

For all of that, the science isn't settled. That much is obvious from the tsunami of research studies that keep pouring in from a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines such as geology, glaciology, hydrology, oceanography, atmospherics, physics and chemistry, biology and marine biology, epidemiology, botany, meteorology, climatology and others. The science isn't settled because we're constantly uncovering new information, new pieces of a puzzle that give us a clearer picture of what we're up against. It may not be good news and it usually isn't but it's all important information that we ignore at our increasing peril.

Now, having said that, what about this climate change "debate"? It does exist but the important point is not that it exists but where it exists. It lingers on amidst the far right in magazines such as Forbes, in papers such as the Washington Post and Times, on TV networks like FOX and on open-mouth radio shows that appeal to the slack jawed, tea party crowd such as Limbaugh. It exists within any media outlet owned by Aussie news mogul, reptilian Rupert Murdoch.

What they're debating, however, isn't the reality of anthropogenic global warming. They can read the science as well as anyone or at least they can pay people to give them that information. What they're debating is the question of how much longer they can get away with sowing doubt and outright denialism before their pants burst into flame and their audience walks.

And then there's the debate among the political crowd, the sort-termer "Friends of Rupert Society." That would be people like Stephen Harper, Tony Abbott and David Cameron, most of the Republican caucus and an unseemly segment of the Democrats too, and camp followers such as Sarah Palin. Yeah, that's right. Sarah Palin and Steve Harper are on the same page. These types debate how much longer they can fudge and obscure and block any meaningful action.

Maybe the worst, though, are the pols who say they accept the reality of global warming but continue to act as though the debate was real and the science wasn't settled. Here I'm talking about the closet neoliberals who lead our opposition parties - Trudeau and Mulcair. Just like Harper, they're all for ramping up bitumen production and export. They're merely quibbling about transportation options which creates the false impression that there are any good options. They'll cajole you out of your vote on the promise that they'll be "less worse" than Harper and they'll dress up that claim with a tweaked policy here and there and then, if they convince enough of you to let them in, it'll be business pretty much as usual.

How can you tell they're closet neoliberals? Easy. Just like anyone else in a closet, unwilling to reveal themselves for who they are, they tread very lightly. They avoid getting drawn into certain conversations and they're adept at distraction. They bob and weave away from discussions that link things like the highest carbon oil on the planet and climate change tipping points. Much as Harper is vulnerable on it, they won't attack him for establishing Canada as a global pariah on climate change lest they find themselves hoisted on the petard of their own hypocrisy.

Look at it this way. Their foreign policy is neoliberal. Their policy on Israel is neoliberal. Their energy policy is neoliberal. Their economic policy is neoliberal. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck and lays duck eggs - it's a f__king duck! Makes no difference if it's labeled Liberal or New Democrat. Names simply don't mean much any more. They're false flags.

And now understand this. Fighting climate change is progressivism at its very best. Fighting inequality lies at the heart of progressivism. Leaving a better world for our grandkids is progressivism. Neoliberalism, however, is antithetical to progressivism. Neoliberalism is the grease on which corporatism quietly slides into our lives. Neoliberalism, no matter what sort of happy face you slap on it, eventually smothers progressivism.

It could be fairly argued that the 2015 general election will actually be a referendum on what form of neoliberalism we prefer. Some like it hot, hard and spicy. Most of us just hold our noses and swallow, hoping we don't gag. As for me, I'll be voting progressive and in this fetid milieu that can mean only one party, Green.


MoS, the Disaffected Lib

The Harper Attack On The Environment - Part One

I am currently reading Elizabeth May's Who We Are: Reflection On My Life And Canada, a political memoir in which her love for her adopted country, Canada, is apparent on each page.

Since we are now in an election year, I believe it incumbent upon all of us to remind as many as possible of the terrible record of the Harper rule these past nine years, a record that should alarm everyone for so many, many reasons. To this end I plan to regularly post small excerpts from May's chapter entitled Science Under Attack. Although most of what I will use is likely well-known to progressives, the abuses of the regime are so numerous that it is sometimes hard to recall all of them. Hence, this ready reference. As well, each post will include some relevant links.

The Attack Begins In Earnest

The position of science advisor to the prime minister was eliminated in 2008. By 2012, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) was also eliminated...it was the last governmental advisory body on science, nature, or sustainable economics. Ironically, after Brian Mulroney established the NRTEE, its existence was used as an excuse to eliminate the Science Council, the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council, and the Economic Council. When Harper killed the NRTEE, his environment minister, Peter Kent, said it had been rendered unnecessary by the advent of the internet.

There is, of course, much, much more to come.

UPDATED: Another Group Shames Harper

It is to be hoped that the closer we move to next year's election, more and more Canadians will be wagging their fingers at Stephen Harper for his various acts of destruction in this country. For now, let's enjoy the fact that this group is doing it for us:

An organization known for its efforts to improve scientific integrity within the U.S. government is taking aim at Prime Minister Stephen Harper over policies and funding cuts that it says are detrimental to Canadian public science.

In an open letter released Tuesday, the Union of Concerned Scientists urged Mr. Harper to lift a communications protocol that prevents federal researchers from speaking with journalists without approval from Ottawa. The letter also refers to barriers that it says inhibit collaboration with colleagues in the broader scientific community.

The letter, signed by over 800 academic researchers working outside of Canada,

was released jointly with the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), the union that represents more than 15,000 scientists employed within a range of government departments and agencies. It includes a reference to a PIPSC survey, conducted in 2013, which found that 90 per cent of more than 4,000 of the federal scientists who responded felt they could not speak freely about their work.

Dennis Hansell, chairman of the Department of Ocean Sciences at the University of Miami and one of the signatories, said:

“As a global scientist I need Canadians to be involved so I can get my work done too. If there’s any threat to that, that’s a problem,” said Dr. Hansell, who is in the midst of proposing a project in the Arctic that would require the co-ordination of U.S., German and Canadian research teams.

Much of the world seems aware of the autocracy and fear that exists in Canada. Let's hope that sufficient numbers of Canadian voters will soon become similarly enlightened.

UPDATE: Of course the Harper regime, used to such international disparagement, said black is white:

In a statement responding to the letter, Scott French, a spokesman for Ed Holder, minister of state for science and technology, said the government has made "record investments in science, technology and innovation."

With regard to the freedom of federal scientists to communicate, French said, "While ministers are the primary spokespersons for government departments; scientists have, and are readily available to share their research with Canadians," he said. He added that federal departments and agencies produce over 4,000 science publications per year, including 700 peer-reviewed articles last year alone.

As usual, everyone else is wrong, and the Harper regime leads the world in all that is sacred and holy.

It's All Connected

It isn't hard to come to the realization that one of the common denominators in almost all of the existential threats currently facing humanity is our flawed natures; human folly, shortsightedness and credulity have much to answer for. Climate change, resource depletion and pandemics readily come to mind as examples of what our collective folly has led to.

Were we apt students of life, we would realize that our refusal to think critically makes us our own worst enemy. Connecting the dots should not be the gargantuan task that it is for far too many people. 

Today's Star examines the inevitability of another pandemic and the things scientists are doing to prepare for it. One such scientist is Gerry Wright, a McMaster professor in biochemistry and biomedicine, who identifies a major impediment in meeting the next pandemic.

Gerry Wright feels confident that science will find the solutions to the next pandemic.

Perhaps not as quickly as we’d like. And not without obstacles. The race to fight COVID, which drew on decades of research, revealed how quickly scientists could rally.

But the flip side to these successes is the corresponding and deeply alarming rise in misinformation online.

 “The thing that terrifies me is that a person with an iPhone can think they’re an expert,” he says. “That people think their opinions matter just as much as those of people who’ve dedicated their lives to understanding science — and that this is now almost a widely accepted concept — is going to result in a super-dangerous future.”

The claims of false cures, promoted by people like Trump, served as a major stumbling block in attacking Covid.

Wright says he first became alarmed in 2020, when then U.S. president Donald Trump flouted the advice of top science agencies by touting the unproven benefits of the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID.

He says his worries deepened the following year when ivermectin, an antiparasitic medicine used to treat some human conditions and which is also a veterinary drug, was falsely hyped as a COVID miracle cure, even as effective vaccines were being rolled out.

“I just knew that we were in deep, deep trouble.”

While McMaster researchers worked flat out to find solutions for COVID, Wright says he knew it was equally pressing to combat misinformation.

He now heads the Global Nexus for Pandemics and Biologic Threats, a McMaster-led initiative that brings together scientists and medical researchers, along with experts in economics, political science and the social sciences. 

“I understand molecules. I don’t understand people,” says Wright, noting the hub will also provide interdisciplinary training for students, so they can think across typically siloed fields. 

One has to wonder if such efforts will be sufficient, given the new capacities for deception driven by A.I.-generated imagery and voice mimicking. And remember that there will always be those who will quite eagerly exploit such technology for their own diabolical ends.

As it has always been, the fate of humanity rests in our hands and in our minds. Not too much reason for optimism, is there?

 

 

The Harper Attack On The Environment - Part Two

Continuing the series I started the other day, here is another excerpt from Science Under Attack, a chapter in Elizabeth May's memoir Who We Are.

Much of that chapter is devoted to the science of climate change, a science that, although constantly under attack by the ignorant and the well-funded climate-change denial industry, is essentially irrefutable. The foundation of its credibility, of course, is research. It is that research that the Harper regime has been systematically hobbling since it came to office:

March 2012 marked the end of all funding for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (now the Canadian Climate Forum). The funds put in place in 2000, $110 million over ten years for autonomous research funding in Canada's major universities, had been spend expanding our understanding of the climate crisis in its multi-faceted disciplines of inquiry.

As reported in The Star at the time of its closure,

the Harper government promised a new program to replace the foundation. It committed itself to delivering $35 million to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada over five years...

But, for reasons that were never explained, that funding never materialized. The result?

The ensuing funding gap has caused many university-based climate and atmospheric science activities to collapse. With scientists already reeling from draconian cuts to Environment Canada, widespread layoff notices have resulted in a brain drain the like of which has not been seen for a generation. Rather than “attracting world-leading talent,” Canada is quickly divesting itself of its best and brightest.

Stay tuned for the next installment on the Harper wrecking crew.

Another Good Sign

I had a pretty busy day today attending the funeral service for the father of a good friend and former colleague, so I didn't have time to write a blog post, but very briefly, there is more good news to share about the new government:

Alain Vezina, regional director of science for the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, confirmed Friday morning that scientists at the institute are allowed to openly speak to media.

Vezina held a meeting this morning to brief staff on the change.

He told National Observer that the announcement was communicated to him from the assistant deputy minister of science at Fisheries and Oceans Canada (known by its old acronym for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO).

"Basically what I told the staff is if you’re contacted directly by the media, let’s say you’re at a conference or a workshop, the media is there. You can talk directly. You don’t have to say, ‘I don’t have permission to speak.’

The DFO is the first government department to lift restrictions on its scientists and the manner in which they communicate with the media.

The Assistant Deputy Minister for Science at the DFO, Trevor Swerdfager, said the announcement applies to some 1550 people in the department’s science sector, including in 14 major institutes across Canada.

The change came after Swerdfager and his management team met to discuss how to respond to media requests. “This is very much in the spirit of and the intent of what we see with this government and here’s how we want to move forward.”

So far, so good. May the trend continue.

Could It Be A Virus?

Stupidity, it has been said, is contagious, and one has to wonder whether a particularly virulent virus is running through the Conservative tent these days. First there was Ontario Progressive Conservative MPP Rick Nicholls suggesting that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools, as he doesn't believe in it. Now comes word of similar sentiments on the part of one of his federal cousins, B.C. Conservative MP James Lunney.

Coming to the defense of his fellow fundamentalist, Lunney tweeted:

"[Just] stop calling #evolution fact!" tweeted Lunney, who said he had no problem calling it a "theory."

A man clearly comfortable in his own skin and not afraid to parade his profound ignorance, Lunney made this statement to the House in 2009:

"Any scientist who declares that the theory of evolution is a fact has already abandoned the foundations of science. For science establishes fact through the study of things observable and reproducible. Since origins can neither be reproduced nor observed, they remain the realm of hypothesis," he said then.

"The evolutionist may disagree, but neither can produce Darwin as a witness to prove his point. The evolutionist may genuinely see his ancestor in a monkey, but many modern scientists interpret the same evidence in favour of creation and a Creator."

Like many of his benighted ilk, Lunney is also deeply suspicious of claims made about climate change:

Last year he tweeted "Science settled? Think again!" and posted a link to an article by a University of Guelph economist who is one of the signatories of a declaration disputing climate change.

But wait! As they say, there's more!

As reported last year in The Huffington Post, Linney signed An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."

The declaration went on to say,

We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits."

Oh, and one more thing. Lunney's disdain for science extends to vaccines with this discredited notion:

In a 2004 speech in the House of Commons, Lunney cited figures he said showed a tenfold increase in the incidence of autism and said Canada should explore a link to vaccines.

It is said that people get the government they deserve. Somehow, I can't help but think that the residents of Nanaimo—Alberni deserve much, much better than what this man has to offer.

In Praise Of Critical Thinking

At a time when darkness and ignorance seem to have become default positions for far too many people, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has made a four-minute video posted to his Facebook page that urges a renewal of critical thinking skills, the kind of skills that have enabled science to make such progress in the past several centuries.

The video begins with a reminder that the United States rose up from a "backwoods country," as Tyson calls it, to "one of the greatest nations the world has ever known," thanks to science. It was the United States that put humans on the moon and whose big thinkers created the personal computer and the internet.

"We pioneered industries," Tyson said. "Science is a fundamental part of the country that we are."

But in the 21st century, a disturbing trend took hold: "People have lost the ability to judge what is true and what is not," he said.

Tyson suggests that those who understand science the least are the people who are rising to power and denying it the loudest.

"That is a recipe for the complete dismantling of our informed democracy," he said.

You can watch the video here.

On Egregious Stupidity And Willful Ignorance

I readily admit to being intolerant of people at times. Not for me are the excuses that others may make for their shortcomings, such as the limitations of their upbringing, their education, or their natural abilities.

At the top of my list are those who either embrace or promote egregious stupidity and willful ignorance. And while no part of the political spectrum is exempt from such offenders, they do seem to be disproportionately represented by the right. Anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, and ardent supporters of the Harper regime readily come to mind.

Lazy thinking is no substitute for critical thinking, and while the latter, I am convinced, cannot happen without a a good education, whether formal or acquired through wide reading, there is no assurance that those who call themselves educated are in fact able to think critically. Bias, tunnel vision, and a myriad of other factors can militate against that capacity.

Given how much the Harper regime has invested in promoting and exploiting ignorance and stupidity (a look at some of its convoluted rhetoric around Bill C-51 offers ample illustration), now seems to be a propitious time to examine a few basic guidelines that can help promote better thinking.

My first source is an article from The Hamilton Spectator whose purpose was to help people think more rigorously about the science around vaccinations, but most are readily transferable to other topics as well:

Here are 10 questions to ask yourself when you read a piece about science and medicine:

1. Who's saying it and what's their reputation?

2. Where and how are the results being presented?

3. Who paid for the work and who pays the researcher?

4. Are you reading anecdotes or evidence?

5. Are there comments from an arm's length unbiased expert? How does that fit in to the picture?

6. What do the numbers really tell me?

7. How large was the study? (Generally, the bigger, the better.)

8. How was the study carried out? A test tube? Mouse? Dying patient? Healthy patient? (The closer the results are to the general population, the more important they are.)

9. How substantial are the benefits and how big are the risks?

10. Are opposing viewpoints included? If so, what's their reputation?

An even better and more comprehensive set of guidelines is taken from a university website:

1. Ask questions; be willing to wonder. (Re. research problems)

To think critically you must be willing to think creatively - to be
curious about the puzzles of human behavior, to wonder why
people act the way they do, and to question received wisdom and
examine new explanations of why things are as they are.

2. Define your terms. (Re. operational definitions)

Identify the problem in clear and concrete terms, rather than vague ones like "happiness," "potential," or "self-esteem."

3. Examine the evidence. (Re. data: empiricism, reliability, and
validity)

Consider the nature of the evidence supporting various
approaches to the problems under examination. Is there good
evidence one way or another? Is it reliable? Valid? Is the
"evidence" merely someone's personal assertion or speculation,
or is it based on replicated empirical data?

4. Analyze assumptions and biases - your own and those of others. (Re. empirical/objective observations: biases and
assumptions)

What prejudices, deeply held values, and other
biases do you bring to your evaluation of a problem? Are you
willing to consider evidence that contradicts your beliefs? Can
you identify the assumptions and biases that others bring to their
arguments?

5. Avoid emotional reasoning. (Re. empirical observations)

The fact that you feel strongly about something doesn’t make you
right! Remember that everyone holds convictions about how the
world operates (or how it should operate), and your opponents
are probably as serious about their convictions as you are about
yours. Feelings are important, but they should not be substitutes
for careful appraisal of arguments and evidence.

6. Don't oversimplify. (Re. Generalizations)

Look beyond the obvious; reject simplistic thinking ("All the evil in the world is due to that group of loathsome people") and either-or thinking ("Either genes determine everything about personality and behavior or they count for virtually nothing"). Be wary of "argument by anecdote," taking a single case as evidence of a larger
phenomenon. For example, reading about one chilling case of a man who murders while on parole should not be the basis on
which you assess parole programs in general.

7. Consider other interpretations. (Re. alternative explanations,or hypotheses; mutual exclusiveness and exhaustiveness)

Before you draw a conclusion from the evidence, think creatively
about other possible explanations. When you learn that two
events are statistically correlated, for example, be sure to think
carefully about which one is the cause and which the result - or
whether a third factor might be causing both of them.

8. Tolerate uncertainty. (Re. Theories and data: testing and
modifying)

This is probably the hardest step in becoming a critical
thinker, for it requires that we hold our beliefs "lightly" and be
willing to give them up when better evidence comes along. It
requires us to live with the realization that we may not have the
perfect answer to a problem at the moment, and may never have
it. Many people want "the" answers, and thy want science to
provide them: "Just tell me what to do!" they demand.
Pseudoscience promises answers, which is why it is so popular;
science gives us probabilities that suggest one answer is better
than another - for now - and warns us that one day we may have
to change our minds.

We Are Not Alone

Those of us who write in the progressive blogosphere, I suspect, often have a 'dark night of the soul,' fearing that we are only preaching to the converted in our posts, and that those who share our bent for criticizing the status quo are in a decided minority. That is why I always find it heartening when I see indications of a large and varied repository of citizens who pine for a better government, a better country, and a better world.

One of the best sources of such affirming evidence is the letters-to-the-editor page of major daily newspapers. Today I offer a reproduction of missives from the Toronto Star highly critical of the ongoing assault by the Harper regime on science and the environment. There are several excellent letters, a direct response to a recent article by Professor Stephen Bede Scharper entitled Closure of Experimental Lakes Area part of assault on science.

You can access all of the letters here. A few I reproduce below:

Professor Stephen Bede Scharper highlights, as have many other scientists, the seemingly incomprehensible approach of the Harper government to climate change and to scientific investigations of the consequences of industrial-induced degradation of the environment.

Regarding the inexplicable, imminent closing of the world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) research facility, one might ask where does Peter Kent, the Minister of Pollution Apologetics, akak the Minister of the Environment,stand on this issue?

Joe Oliver, the Minister of Natural Resources, is the front man for both the down-playing of environmental consequences of tar sands development and its promotion. One wonders if the environment ministry portfolio should be shut down completely. At least then we would not be under the illusion that the environment is given anything but perfunctory consideration in resource development.

If Prime Minister Stephen Harper actually does believe in climate change, it certainly does not show. His government’s treatment of the environment does not reflect mere benign neglect, nor even mild resentment for the scientists, engineers and technologists studying environmental degradation and presenting (inconvenient) facts.

No. An explanation for his policies is that he genuinely strongly dislikes this research and the people undertaking it.

Much more harm can be inflicted on environmental research by this government in the coming two years. But from an environmental perspective, the prospect of yet another Harper government is genuinely (even pant-fillingly) scary.

Paul Gudjurgis, Brampton

Scharper argues that shutting down research at Canada’s Experimental Lakes Area would be devastating to our collective health, and, moreover, that “the vitality of our waters and our democracy are at stake.”

Of course he’s right, and if the federal Conservative government didn’t recognize our water’s great value, it wouldn’t be stifling research.

Shea Hoffmitz, Hamilton

I’m just an ordinary Canadian, but I am so outraged at the Harper government’s multi-pronged attack on science, I started a petition on change.org to protest. Tell all your friends.

I also emailed the Prime Minister’s Office to politely inquire how many signatures would be required on a petition to persuade the government to save the ELA by diverting some funds from their Economic Action Plan propaganda campaign.

Closing the Experimental Lakes Area is such an incredibly bad idea that there may be something else behind it. Isn’t anybody out there following the money? What minerals are buried under those pristine lakes, and what mining companies want them? What tour operators want to lift the restrictions on bringing high-paying anglers up from the U.S.?

If it turns out that some campaign contributor benfits from the closure of the ELA, criminal charges might be in warranted.

Heather O’Meara, Toronto

Beguiling Words

The propaganda machine of the extreme right has scored a double hit, it would seem. Not only do they and their racist brethren have Breibart-founder Steve Bannon warmly ensconced in the White House as chief strategist and Senior Counselor to Donald Trump (whether he will also be keeping the president's seat warm in the Oval office in what are certain to be frequent presidential absences is anyone's guess), but many in Congress now appear to be conduits for Breitbart propaganda.

The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, headed by Republican Lamar Smith, has a new weapon in its attack on climate science: Breibart 'science':

The content of this tweet is the same sort of thing you’d get if you fed a bull 20 kilos of Ex-Lax and stood behind it for a while. Global warming, of course, is real. The Breitbart article in question is written by James Delingpole, a flat-out climate change denier who has a history of writing grossly misleading articles about global warming. He gets this information from yet another climate change denier, David Rose, who wrote an article for the execrable Daily Mail claiming that global temperatures have dropped by an entire degree Celsius since this summer. Contrary to what the Daily Mail might have to say, global temperature is indeed increasing.

In a nutshell, Rose is guilty of extreme cherry-picking. He looked at a single temperature data set from a specific layer of the Earth’s atmosphere and only used measurements over land. And to make matters worse, he only used data going back to 1998, a big no-no: That year was unusually warm, so starting there falsely makes it look like temperatures haven’t risen much.

He also is chasing local fluctuations and ignoring the decadeslong trend. And that trend is up. The Earth is heating up. If you want more details, Tamino at Open Mind debunks Rose’s claims quite thoroughly.

Somehow, I doubt that the propaganda machine in Washington is going to alter too many people's thinking. The true believers of climate denialism will dismiss the critiques, and those who trust the scientific data will be unmoved by such blatant attempts at manipulation.

But what it does show is that the need for critical thinking is greater now than it ever was. In what I hope will be my next post, I will discuss some of the ways one can vet information for its veracity or falseness.

Critical Thinking From Star Readers

That I am a faithful subscriber to the Toronto Star is in large measure due to its strong cadre of journalists and the capacity of its letter-writers for critical thinking. Rarely the reactionary, carping and simplistic fare to be found in many newspapers, Star letters reflect a readership that is unwilling to accept the bromides and platitudes that frequently pass for penetrating insights today.

One such example follows. Enjoy:

Re: PM's science blindness will only harm Canada, July 14

Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre states: “In all cases, science and facts should rule our decisions.” When did Stephen Harper make this stunning 180-degree complete reversal?

GST cuts, long form census, mandatory minimum sentences, the F-35 debacle, government pension “reform,” refugee health care and environmental safeguards all ignored science, and facts for blatant political gain. How stupid does Harper think Canadians are?

Harper Conservatives cannot afford $2 million for globally respected Experimental Lakes Area program but spends that much on the one off War of 1812 celebration. Another $2 million goes to Tony Clement’s riding for the Norman Bethune centre. Harper lectures world leaders on the need for austerity while he rolls out even more pork.

Wake up, Conservatives. Your man Harper is doing a masterful job of driving Canadians into the open arms of the dreaded socialists. My Canada is dying slowly by a thousand political cuts.

Doug Haslam, Stratford