When Chiropractors Get Angry ....

 
Gary Goodyear is Canada's Minister of State (Science and Technology). He's also a chiropractor.

Last week he met with two representatives of the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT). CAUT has a long history of lobbying in favor of increased funding for university research. Apparently the meeting didn't go well [Researchers fear 'stagnation' under Tories].

The screaming erupted last Wednesday afternoon, just down the street from Parliament Hill, in the offices of a Conservative cabinet minister.

Two officials with Canadian Association of University Teachers sat on one side of a boardroom table and on the other sat Gary Goodyear, Minister of Science and Technology, his policy adviser Wesley Moore and a civil servant ready to take notes.

CAUT, a lobby group that represents 65,000 staff at 121 colleges and universities, had planned to raise concerns over the government's handling of research funding. But within moments, it became clear they wouldn't get very far.

“The minister was very angry,” said David Robinson, associate executive director of CAUT. “He was raising his voice and pointing his finger … He said everyone loves their [federal budget] and we said, ‘A lot of our members don't love it'… and he said, ‘That's because you're lying to them, misleading them.'”

The talks, Mr. Robinson said, went from bad to worse. In 15 years on the job, he “never had a meeting like that.”

Mr. Goodyear agrees. “I, too, have never had a meeting like that. It was a unique experience and one I don't care to repeat.”

I don't know what could possibly have gone wrong. Perhaps it was something that Mr. Goodyear said?

Mr. Goodyear said he has met university presidents, deans of research, and researchers themselves and believes government critics are few. “You're going to see that one person who didn't get what they wanted,” he said. But “eight out of 10 folks I talk to get it … they are very positive.”

Mr. Goodyear, a chiropractor from Cambridge, Ont., said the government has been steadily investing in science and technology since 2006, with a new emphasis on commercialization and that it has designed an overall strategy to ensure Canada remains a world leader in research.

“We have done everything right,” he said.

Or maybe it had something to with the change in science policy since the Conservatives took over in 2006?

After years of double-digit budget increases in the early 2000s, government contributions in recent years to NSERC, SSHRC and CIHR have barely kept pace with inflation – and last year they underwent a government-mandated strategic review to reduce their spending.

So while the Barack Obama administration in Washington has added $10-billion (U.S.) to finance basic research in the United States, the three agencies that back basic research in Canada must cut spending by $148-million over the next three years.

CIHR, for example, Canada's main funding body for medical research, has to find about $35-million in savings by 2012, and $28-million of that is by eliminating a program that provided grants to research teams.

In any case, it ended badly ...

CAUT, however, is less confident. It was the position of researchers fretting for the future the lobby group hoped to represent at last week's meeting with Mr. Goodyear.

They had barely begun to state their case, Mr. Robinson said, when the minister accused them of twisting facts.

When CAUT staff said the Conservatives have a spotty record on science and noted they abolished the office of the national science adviser, Mr. Robinson said, the minister's assistant screamed at them to shut up.

“Then the minister said, ‘You've burned all your bridges with us!' and they stormed out.

“In all the meetings I've been in like this, I've never been shouted at and told to shut up,” Mr. Robinson said. The civil servant who escorted them to the elevator suggested it would not even be a good idea to return to the minister's office to collect their coats, he said. Instead, she retrieved them.

This meeting is more extreme than most but it confirms an impression I had when I used to go up to Ottawa for those lobbying weeks in March. When dealing with the Conservatives, the only workable strategy is to vote them out of office as quickly as possible.

Trying to reason with them doesn't work.

---

Liberal Party Policy Development Workshop

 
Here's where I'll be this evening.

WHEN:
Monday, March 2, 2009
7:30 - 10:00 PM

WHERE:
Mississauga Central Library
Meeting Room #3, second floor

PRICE:
Cost: $5 (to recover room and refreshment costs)

CONTACT:
For more information, please contact
Sharon McCarthy 905 828 5786
Omar Alghabra 416 564 5468

NOTES:
The Mississauga-Erindale Federal Liberal Riding Association is organizing an informative and engaging workshop on policy development and promotion. The workshop will be facilitated and presented by Maryanne Kampouris, Vice President, Policy, Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario)

The session will discuss policy development process touching upon different components, including Party structure, Policy Structure, role of the riding association, role of the policy committee with practical ideas on how to engage constituents in 'ideas' or policy discussions.

The session will include practical discussion on how riding associations can proceed in engaging their members and their constituents in this process.

The purpose of this workshop is to empower Liberals and educate them on how to convert their policy ideas into real resolutions that can make a difference, and how to promote and advocate for their policy ideas.

Does anyone have any suggestions? How can the Liberal riding associations engage voters and make them care about defeating Stephen Harper and the Conservatives?

We should probably start with hiring a proofreader for press releases but is there anything else?

---

Can We Win in Afghanistan?

 
It's seems like only a few years ago (March 6, 2006) when Prime Minister Stephen Harper said this ...

A debate on whether Canadian troops should be in Afghanistan would put the troops in danger, and any attempt to pull them back would be a betrayal, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Harper, speaking after a cabinet meeting on Tuesday, stressed that the previous Liberal government committed the troops to their Afghan mission, which has proved deadly in recent weeks, and that the Conservatives will honour the commitment.

"I'm saying that Canadians don't cut and run at the first sign of trouble," he told reporters. "That's the nature of this country, and when we send troops into the field, I expect Canadians to support those troops." He repeatedly rejected the idea of a debate and said his government will not make decisions based on opinion polls.

"I understand the frustrations," he said. "Perhaps the previous government should have had a vote on the deployment, but that was not their decision. The decision was taken and we can't change our opinion when the troops are in danger."

He did not say why a debate in Canada would put soldiers at risk in Afghanistan, but he stressed it is "a very dangerous mission. "It's not the intention of this government to question the particular commitment when our troops are in danger," he said. "Such a debate or such a lack of strength by any of the political parties in Canada will merely weaken the resolve of our troops and will even put our troops in even more danger."

At the time, the issue was all about "supporting the troops." The danger, according to Harper, was in raising the possibility that our soldiers might have died in vain. That's unacceptable to many Canadians. Unacceptable, perhaps, but is it true?

Here's what Prime Minister Stephen Harper said yesterday, according to The Canadian Press [Western forces alone can't beat Afghan insurgents: Harper].

Western forces alone can never defeat the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan and President Barack Obama better realize that in shaping his strategy there, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

In an interview aired Sunday on the U.S. cable news network CNN, Harper said he's "delighted" the president is sending more troops to the country in the short term.

Many of them will be deployed in the Kandahar region, where more than 2,000 Canadian soldiers already on the ground can use the help.

But in the longer run, said Harper, it's the government in Kabul that will have to run its own country and be responsible for its own security.

"We're not going to win this war just by staying," he told interviewer Fareed Zakaria.

"Quite frankly, we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency. Afghanistan has probably had - my reading of Afghanistan history (is) it's probably had an insurgency forever of some kind."

"What has to happen in Afghanistan is we have to have an Afghan government that is capable of managing that insurgency."

Asked if the current administration of President Hamid Karzai has the legitimacy to do that, Harper replied: "There is no doubt that governance in Afghanistan has to improve, and has to improve, and has to improve, much more quickly than we've seen."

Harper has repeatedly stated he's sticking to a commitment to pull Canadian combat forces out of Afghanistan by the end of 2011, although Canada would likely maintain a more limited presence focusing on development and reconstruction.

Obama said on his recent visit to Ottawa he didn't press the prime minister to change his mind. But if the U.S. leader did ask him to stay, Harper said Sunday, he'd want to know more about the long-term goals and the ultimate end date for the mission.

"Over the long haul, if President Obama wants anybody to do more, I would ask very hard questions about what is your strategy for success and for an eventual departure."

The comments are not a radical departure from Harper's past observations but he has rarely been so blunt in assessing the situation.

It's true that right now Canada is committed to withdrawal in 2011, so, in that sense, these comments don't represent a shift in policy.

However, Harper's current "bluntness" does make some of his earlier comments look hypocritical. If he really knew his history, as he now claims, then he has known all along that foreign troops can't impose an unpopular government on the people of Afghanistan. In other words, he knew that Canadian troops would die in a hopeless cause.

And why is Harper "delighted" that more US soldiers are about to die in Afghanistan in the same hopeless cause?

Now we need to hear from Michael Ignatieff, the leader of the Liberal Party. Can he be as honest with the Canadian people as Harper was yesterday? I hope he can.

---

[Thanks to The Galloping Beaver and Canadian Cynic]

Gasoline Temperature Maps

 
I recently posted about problems with the Alberta oil sands and the impact on carbon emissions and the environment [The Problem with the Alberta Oil Sands].

I noted that Alberta had received lots of money from the oil companies and suggested that the provincial government was well-positioned to take the lead in developing cleaner methods of extracting oil. I specifically said that the province had "plenty of room to manoeuvre."

One commenter noted that the provincial government doesn't have as much money as we think. But that wasn't the entire point. I was also referring to the fact that provincial income taxes are lower in Alberta and the province does not have a sales tax.

I was thinking about gasoline prices as well. Here's a map of current gas prices across Canada from GasBuddy.com. Most of the differences are due to taxes. Notice anything peculiar about Alberta—the province that's being accused of so much pollution? I think there's room to manoeuvre if it's serious about climate change.


Here's the USA map for comparison.



A typical US price is $2 per (US) gallon. The current Canadian dollar is equivalent to about 0.8 US dollars and there are 3.79 litres per US gallon. This means that a typical US gas price of $2.00/gal is equivalent to 53¢(US)/liter or 66¢(CDN)/liter.

A typical price for Canadian gas is about 86¢(CDN)/liter so the USA is selling gasoline for 20% less than Canada. I think this is mostly due to lower taxes.

I don't know what the current price of gasoline is in Europe but I suspect it's much more.

---

Come Ride an "Atheist" Streetcar on the Streets of Toronto!

 
The Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign is throwing a party on Friday night. Meet for food and drinks at the Centre for Inquiry on Beverly St. then take a one hour ride on a TTC streetcar bearing the atheist ad [Toronto Streetcar Party Tickets Now on Sale!].

A party in the downtown Toronto area on a streetcar and at the Centre for Inquiry building. Ticket holders will receive one ride on a streetcar around various landmarks in the downtown Toronto area and also have a chance to mingle, talk, and party with other atheists, secularists, and humanists at the Centre for Inquiry. Drinks and food will be available for purchase.

This is your chance to meet and thank the organizers who raised the money and got the ads on the buses (and streetcars). Buy a ticket and help support the cause in other Canadian cities.

---

Free Speech in Ottawa

 
Some of you might recognize these people in spite of their attempts to disguise themselves!¹

They are protesting the decision by OC Transpo in Ottawa (Canada) to ban the atheist ads on city buses. Apparently it's okay to run Christian ads but the atheist ad is "too controversial."

The Humanist Association of Ottawa wants you to show up at Ottawa City Hall on Wednesday March 11 when the city council is scheduled to vote on a motion to overrule OC Transpo and allow the ads [Protest the bigots at City Hall]. Several members of council are sympathetic and the first vote last month was a tie. It only takes one more council member to get the ads on the buses.

Atheist Bus Ottawa has put up a petition that you can sign. Do it now!

---

1. To find out who they are you have to sign the petition and see who else has signed!

Playing Chess with Pigeons

 
It's the blogiversary of Troy Britain's blog Playing Chess with Pigeons. Today it is one year old.

Congratulations Troy! Check out today's posting to see the cake [It’s Playing Chess with Pigeons 1st Birthday!]. Look in the right sidebar to see where the title of the blog comes from. It's really clever—I'd love to quote it here but if I do that you might not want to read it in situ and that would be a shame.

---

Massimo Pigliucci vs Jonathan Wells

 
Greg Laden found this old video of a moderated discussion between Massimo Pigliucci and Jonathan Wells [Massimo Pigliucci v Jonathan Wells on evolution and intelligent design...].

It's actually pretty good. If you don't pay close attention, you might even mistake Jonathan Wells for someone intelligent.

---

When Atheism Is the Norm

 
The Friendly Atheist has posted an interesting comment on what's it's like to live in Denmark or Sweden [What Happens When Atheism is the Norm Instead of the Exception?].

His comments are based on a recent article in The New York Times that discussed that topic [Scandanavian Nonbelievers, Which Is Not to Say Atheists].

Anyone who has paid attention knows that Denmark and Sweden are among the least religious nations in the world. Polls asking about belief in God, the importance of religion in people’s lives, belief in life after death or church attendance consistently bear this out.

It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in the first tier.

Well documented though they may be, these two sets of facts run up against the assumption of many Americans that a society where religion is minimal would be, in Mr. Zuckerman’s words, “rampant with immorality, full of evil and teeming with depravity.”

Which is why he insists at some length that what he and his wife and children experienced was quite the opposite: “a society — a markedly irreligious society — that was, above all, moral, stable, humane and deeply good.”

This is a very important issue. You should read the article by Peter Steinfels and the posting by Hemant Mehta. I often encounter otherwise intelligent people who try to tell me that religion is here to stay—it will never disappear. Those people really need to get out more. We already have societies today where religion, and belief in God, are minority views.

As you might imagine, there won't be too many attempts to teach creationism in Danish and Swedish schools. That's not because their courts are good at keeping religion out of the schools, it's because the hearts and minds of the people have changed. Rationalism is winning over superstition.

It could happen in America. I think it is happening.

---

The Problem with the Alberta Oil Sands

 

This month's issue of National Geographic has a lengthy article on the Alberta oil sands [The Canadian Oil Boom].

The U.S. imports more oil from Canada than from any other nation, about 19 percent of its total foreign supply, and around half of that now comes from the oil sands. Anything that reduces our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, many Americans would say, is a good thing. But clawing and cooking a barrel of crude from the oil sands emits as much as three times more carbon dioxide than letting one gush from the ground in Saudi Arabia. The oil sands are still a tiny part of the world's carbon problem—they account for less than a tenth of one percent of global CO2 emissions—but to many environmentalists they are the thin end of the wedge, the first step along a path that could lead to other, even dirtier sources of oil: producing it from oil shale or coal. "Oil sands represent a decision point for North America and the world," says Simon Dyer of the Pembina Institute, a moderate and widely respected Canadian environmental group. "Are we going to get serious about alternative energy, or are we going to go down the unconventional-oil track? The fact that we're willing to move four tons of earth for a single barrel really shows that the world is running out of easy oil."

Canadians know there's a problem but politicians are very reluctant to address it. Albertans have been very vocal in playing the victim card in Canadian politics. They have successfully convinced people that the province was hard done by in the past when the evil citizens of Ontario and Quebec tried to deprive them of their right to keep all the oil money for themselves, instead of sharing it with less fortunate Canadians.

Today, any attempt by the Federal government to impose restrictions on Alberta will be viewed as an act of war.

There's an obvious solution. The government of Alberta has amassed a fortune in oil revenues. Even in these tough economic times, it still has plenty of room to manoeuvre.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the provincial government took steps to reduce green house gas emissions and develop greener ways of extracting oil? Wouldn't it be wonderful if they took the lead in recognizing there's a problem and start to deal with it? There's some evidence that the Alberta government might be headed in that direction [National Geographic oilsands portrayal "fair": environment minister].

Of course they'd have to abandon the whining about Alberta being a victim of the East. In the long run, that may be very hard to do.

---

[Photo Credit: Peter Essick, National Geographic]

United Kingdom Protects Science Budget

 
From NatureNews: Brown pledges to protect science during downturn.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he would not let science "become a victim of the recession" in a speech today at the University of Oxford.

Speaking to an invited audience, Brown said he would defend investment in science by maintaining the ring fence around the science budget, so that it cannot be raided to prop up other areas competing for public funds such as the health service and industry.

He signalled his aim for Britain to move away from an economy "heavily centred" on financial services and towards one focused on science.

....

Responding to Brown's speech, Nick Dusic, director of the Campaign for Science & Engineering in the UK (CaSE), a London-based lobby group says, "The prime minister is absolutely right that now is the time to show the world the UK is the place to do science. Unfortunately he needed to go further today in his commitments because other countries are raising the bar by making science and engineering central to their economic recovery."

Dusic added that just maintaining current spending commitments will mean that Britain loses ground against countries, like the United States, that are giving science a huge boost within their stimulus packages.

Meanwhile, Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party are cutting the budgets of the major granting agencies in Canada.

How stupid is that?

---

Have You Been Scammed by Nigerians? Get Compensation!!!

 

Jim Lippard alerts us to the Best Nigerian 419 scam ever.

I think he might be right, but the competition isn't that tough.

---

Crime and Punishment

 
True to their ideology, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have introduced another "get tough on crime" bill. This one increases the jail sentences for gang-related killings.

There's only one problem. It won't work. Everyone with an IQ over 100 knows that you can't stop gang violence by just increasing prison terms for the ones who get caught.

Today's Toronto Star has two articles on the topic. The first one, Tory gang approach too little too late: critics, explains the consensus opinion of leading criminologists.

The punitive response may play well to citizens who fear gun battles erupting on city streets. But that get-tough approach lards the Criminal Code with redundant laws that haven't worked in other countries, says criminologist Irvin Waller.

"This is yet again a debate about penalties when it's very clear from looking south of the border that these penalties do not make a lot of difference to the number of people killed," he said.

"It's not a debate about what will actually stop them from happening."

Waller, a professor at the University of Ottawa, wrote the book Less Law, More Order to educate politicians on prevention and smart policing practices that have worked in other countries.

The second article, Critics say more jail time won't help curb violence, goes into more detail about what the experts are saying.

Criminologists predict tough sentences won't be effective in preventing gun and gang violence

Proposals to slap first-degree murder charges and tougher sentences on gangsters and police assailants will have little practical effect on curbing gang crime and gun violence, criminologists and other critics say.

More front-line officers, more intrusive investigative police powers and more resources for crime prevention are needed, they say.

Ross Hastings, director of the Institute for the Prevention of Crime at the University of Ottawa, joins other criminologists in arguing there is no evidence tougher sentences deter criminals, but the "certainty of being caught" is more likely to do so.

Nonetheless, amid an alarming rise in Vancouver's gang violence, politicians of all stripes rushed yesterday to endorse federal proposals to label gang killings first-degree murder offences, and to stiffen jail terms for drive-by or reckless gang-motivated shootings and assaults on police.

All three federal opposition parties promised to fast-track the measures proposed by the Tories.

I'm disappointed in all four political parties. Most of our MP's have IQ's above 100 and they know the rational response to gang violence. They know that this bill will be completely ineffective.

The only reason for supporting it is to pander to voters who don't understand the problem. There are far too many voters whose knee-jerk reaction in the face of any crime is to call for "justice" by increasing jail time. A majority of those voters probably support the Conservatives so there's nothing to be gained by the opposition parties' lack of fortitude.

Shame on Stephen Harper for his (probable) hypocrisy. Shame on Michael Ingatieff, Jack Layton, and Gilles Duceppe for being even more hypocritical. They should know better.

---

Darwin Stamps

 
A few days ago I got a letter from the Royal Mail. It was a complete set of Darwin stamps issued by the Royal Mail in the UK to honour Charles Darwin. You can see some of them on the right. They are stunning. Thank-you Ms. Sandwalk for arranging to have them sent.

I also got a postcard from Kate. She mailed it from London on Darwin's birthday. It was addressed to someone called "The Nutty Professor" but for some strange reason it ended up in my mailbox anyway. Thank-you Kate & Mick.

Great Britain, especially London, was the intellectual capital of the world back in Queen Victoria's time. Most of the world's top scientists were there and the number of scientific advances that came out of that environment was truly amazing.

Much of it was due to the wealth of the British Empire (science loves money) but also to the intellectual freedom, individualism, and entrepreneurship that was characteristic of that society. It was the same society that created the industrial revolution and sustained it for one hundred years.¹

What's amazing is that not only did Victorian England nurture and support men like Charles Darwin but that today, 150 years later, Great Britain is still proud to celebrate the scientist whose name is most closely associated with evolution.

---

1. Eat your heart out, Ken Miller (Only a Theory). :-)

Matt Nisbet Chooses Sides

 
Carl Zimmer has posted another article on the Geroge Will affair [Unchecked Ice: A Saga in Five Chapters]. Recall that George Will made a number of scientifically inaccurate comments in his Washington Post article last week. He defends himself in another column today.

Carl dissects the issue in order to set the record, straight. Any decent science journalist should be concerned about accuracy and I'm pleased that Carl has made an effort to stand up for the truth. The Washington Post takes the brunt of the blame.

What has kept me hooked on this saga is not George Will’s errors. Errors are as common as grass. Some are made out of ignorance, some carefully constructed to give a misleading impression. What has kept me agog is the way the editors at the Washington Post have actually given their stamp of approval on Will’s columns, even claiming to have fact-checked them and seeing no need for a single correction.

Chris Mooney has also attacked the newspaper for it's lack of integrity [George Will Lies; His Editor Does Nothing].

Many of the column's incorrect factual assertions were challenged, and as Will is revisiting the column due to the response it has garnered, it's inconceivable that he doesn't know that. For God's sake, Will claimed that "according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade." That's false. And Will doesn't even address the issue at all in his latest column.

Meanwhile, the Post's editorial page editor Fred Hiatt has made himself look terrible over all this. He should have held Will to the truth and thereby upheld his paper's standards. Instead he tells CJR this:

"It may well be that he is drawing inferences from data that most scientists reject -- so, you know, fine, I welcome anyone to make that point. But don't make it by suggesting that George Will shouldn't be allowed to make the contrary point. Debate him."

All of this is good. It is highly appropriate that science journalists reestablish their credibility by criticizing amateurs who don't know what they're talking about.

Where is Matt Nisbet in all of this? Here's what Nisbet says in In the Clamor Over George Will, Pundits Win But Public Loses.

The same observation currently applies to the clamor over George Will's recent syndicated column on global warming. As I detail in a cover article at the March/April issue of the journal Environment, Will's column is part of a decade-old message playbook on climate change, effectively (and falsely) framing the problem in terms of lingering scientific uncertainty.

The irony of this latest netroots clamor is that dozens of bloggers are just feeding the George Will beast, sustaining and amplifying attention to his false claims about climate science while providing easy cues to the public that the issue can be readily interpreted through the lens of partisanship and ideology. (Sound familiar? As I wrote at Skeptical Inquirer, the same thing happened in the initial response to Ben Stein's anti-evolution doc Expelled.)

The conflict and heat generated not only focuses more attention on Will's preferred uncertainty interpretations, but it also distracts from the narratives and frames that are actually likely to build broad-based support for action. As I note in the Environment article, these frames include an emphasis on the moral and religious imperative to action along with a focus on the public health and energy innovation dimensions of climate change.

Over the past two years, many of us have been pointing out the conflict between "framing" and scientific accuracy. Now Nisbet makes it perfectly clear. If you criticize the scientific accuracy of an article in the main stream media then you might be hurting the cause.

The implication is that you should let scientific errors go unchallenged because challenging them give them credence. The more insidious implication is that scientific inaccuracy may be okay as long as it advances the cause.

It seems to me that Nisbet's view and Chris Mooney's recent claims are not compatible. I look forward to seeing how Mooney replies to Nisbet. Chris has already tried to distance himself from Nisbet last Spring over the Ben Stein affair [see For Once, Chris Mooney Talks Sense].

Internecine framing wars, what could be more fun than that?

---