BBC news report: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16861468
Interested to know what our BE experts views are.

Public access to Canadian government scientists is indeed being much more closely controlled by the PMO than ever before.

Equally damning is that many hundreds of them have been fired. More will follow.

It's not a good time to be a civil servant in Canada.

...and the beat goes on...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...a-eu-tar-sands

So who is the layman supposed to believe, or is this scientist misguided or just a crackpot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/02...n_1287693.html

No, he's not a crackpot, nor is he a government scientist.

Andrew modelled the warming effects of burning all the oil sands versus burning all the world's coal reserves and all the world's natural gas reserves. I can't really understand why he thought that would be a useful exercise, but he's got a perfect right to do it if he thinks fit and a perfect right to report the results.

What's your point?

So, scientists being barred from revealing their work to the populace by government interference.

What a surprise!

This has happened all over the world and will continue to do so.
In the UK, the government has had several issues with scientists over big stories such as Swine flu and they have also fired scientists who have disagreed with the government's preferred line on them and replaced them with those who will support the government line.

As the press in the UK often ask the government-approved scientists, then they get the government-approved response.

Scientific research is expensive so it has to be funded and this is usually by either government grant or business.
The support of the scientific community is also important to scientists - papers submitted for publication are judged by other scientists and many are rejected and are never published. This gives some eminent scientists and high profile scientific journals control over what reaches the rest of the scientific community, never mind the wider populace.
In science, everyone is competing for grants to fund their projects and money talks.

Putting all this together, it doesn't take much to see why some scientists who do not come up with the answers the government want to hear are not afterwards successful in their fields.

The Canadian media policy on this is a disgrace and the Canadian people, who rightly make such a big deal out of their cherishing their natural heritage need to make a huge issue of this.

But, if it means signing up to Kyoto, not developing the tar sands, losing the huge economic benefits of that and letting petrol prices soar, who thinks they will?

Generally, the public just look at what is in their wallet and anything that they can be persuaded will increase that or prevent it going down is an easy sell for government anyway.

So why is this guy nuts then? Surely to a layman - his findings seem to suggest that the oilsands aren't as bad as other forms of fossil fuels

Or is it because of his numbers and the fact that we don't burn as much coal in comparison to oil and therefore a crock of shit.

Or is he employed by someone higher up to take the sting off the oil sands?

There has to be an agenda from one side or another behind it - there always is. I just can't see it

I don't think the Canadian people cherish their natural heritage (assuming that means wanting to preserve the natural landscape and animals), I think Canadians want to pave over it and/or blast it to bits. I suggest that the oilsands are but one example of a desire to turn landscape into profit, the tar ponds would be another, gravel pits and wind farms others. Do you have any evidence for the idea that Canadians value "natural heritage"?

None of the above. I know Andrew Weaver fairly well and he is nobody's stooge. As I said, I think his choice of subject for this modeling study is puzzling. Perfectly valid but it is a weird way to look at things and wideopen to misinterpretation. (as you've done).

A bit like saying that if all the Canadians jumped up and down at the same time, the effect would be less than if all the Chinese did the same.

What he needs to do is compare the incremental warming associated with each energy source per each energy unit output achieved.

Roughly, this is what is measured by the EROEI metric.

And, using EROEI, the tar sands are criminal nonsense.

Reread post #2. I make no comparisons with other countries, just with previous Canadian governments. In the 30 years that I've had close dealings with a particular Ministry's federal government scientists, there has never been a comparable mood of frustration and disillusionment as there is today.

I'm sorry I still don't get it

In idiot terms are you saying

1 bit of oilsand energy makes global warming go up by - say 2 bits of whatever it is.

1 bit of coal energy makes global warming go up by 1 bit of whatever it is

So Oilsands = bad - coal = not so bad.

If thats so - how can lots of coal compared to lots of oilsand make the global warming thingy go up by more?

I dislike the phrase "idiot terms" coming from you. You're anything but.

The issue in your last sentence is with "lots". There are lots of Canadians and lots of Chinese, but there are still thousands times more Chinese.

Why, for example, would you calculate which noise would be louder if all the Chinese farted in concert, compared to all the Canadians?

I understand.
I just wanted to show that this has come late to Canada if this is only just happening here, as it has been happening elsewhere for a long time.

Science has increasingly become the tool of politicians who are used to bending the truth to suit themselves.
They have a short term agenda


If you read my post properly, you will see that I didn't say they did cherish it, I said they make a big deal out of cherishing it.

I also clearly say that I don't think they will give a hoot about the environment if the government tells them that being environmentally friendly will cost them money, such as in higher petrol prices.

Canadians are no more 'green' than any other population from what I have seen and they are just as willing to spoil their own nest for profit as every other country in the world.
No better and no worse.

They pretend to cherish it while not actually doing so? How odd.

I disagree in general.

Science was certainly a political tool in the USSR but elsewhere?

The US space program's inception by some standards? I suppose so.

Nuclear weapons research in a succession of countries? Yes.

Eugenics in Nazi Germany, again yes.

But these are (hopefully) aberrations which everyone recognizes as such.

Not the norm.