I have difficulty in understanding what kind of a scientist a “partisan scientist” may be, considered in relation to their field of study. My guess is, that such would actually simply be another way to describe a poor, that is to say, an incompetent, ‘scientist’.

If the Tories are afraid of science, that should scare you.

All electronic journal articles should include the raw data.

If not then I can always accuse the analysis of being wrong.

I wish I could think of a concrete example, but I’m blanking – the idea is though, that a study has questioned people on items A, B, and C, and then discussed how A and B each separately correlate to C. I read the study and go, “Well, no real surprise there. The interesting question is, what is the difference between (A and B) vs (A and not B), with respect to C”

we just give civilians cancer
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/02/06/edm-fort-chip-cancer.html

I don’t understand climate change denialists. Do they think climate scientists are engaged in a worldwide conspiracy to… do what?

Well, what happens to a climate scientist’s job and funding prospects if it is agreed that there is no major problem?

It’s like asking tokamak fusion researchers if they think tokamak fusion will ever be a viable commercial power source. Sure it will, just keep the money coming.

I don’t personally hold this view, but I can understand why there are people who do.

On the one hand, canuck R&D funding has benefited during the tenure of the tories. The problem is that so many of the people in the party are so goddamn ignorant, and sadly the problem is not confined to just the xtians. If the only other choice is the casual corruption of the liberals, who traditionally cut science budgets, then what hope is there?

Also, the idea of a “scientist union” really, really irks me.

All this is at the expense of the environment, yes. Like it or not, the oil is gonig to come from somewhere. At least in Canada we don’t kill civilians, exploit laborers, and actually have environmental controls.

An oil reserve the size of the tar sands will be exploited wherever it is located. You should count your blessings that it is in Canada, and not in China or some African nation.

science needs open communication to be self correcting, which is why there is peer review and open discussion in the scientific community and nothing is taken seriously until it has been independently verified by several neutral third parties. that is what makes science so great!

W-T-F-?

-RTM

The ability to question them is exactly the reason they should be allowed to speak freely. If the scientists had any sense at all, they’d be recruiting their naysayers and deniers to help them retain the freedom to tell the public about their results!

Many of you are missing the point.

Canada ‘research integrity’ council recommended
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/10/20/canada-research-integrity.html

Canada should establish a new agency to help reduce the incidence of scientists falsifying data, misusing research funds or other misconduct, an expert panel recommends. …The report by the 14-member expert panel appointed by the Council of Canadian Academies is intended to respond to a 2009 question from Industry Minister Tony Clement about what research integrity principles, procedural mechanisms and practices could be applied to all research funding by federal granting agencies.

—-
“The Council of Canadian Academies (Conseil des Académies Canadiennes) was created to perform independent, expert assessments of the science that is relevant to important public issues. The Council’s assessment scope includes the natural, social and health sciences, engineering and the humanities. The Council is a private, non-profit corporation that has received a $30 million founding grant in 2005 from the Government of Canada.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Canadian_Academies