Hypocrisy and the AAAS
Timothy Birdnow
This piece appeared first at Canada Free Press and at Project Shining City. This is a bit of a rough draft, so it would be wise to see the polished version:
The BBC is accusing Canada's Conservative government of "muzzling scientists".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16861468
Seems that the Harper government has guidelines about how government-sponsored researchers deal with the press, and some do not like it.
This is the same accusations made by people like James Hansen of NASA during the Bush Administration, and those accusations were proven false. The purpose is to embarass the government, a government that does not ascribe to the catastrophic global warming scenario pushed by leftists who have infiltrated the science establishment.
From the article:
"The allegation of "muzzling" came up at a session of the AAAS meeting to discuss the impact of a media protocol introduced by the Conservative government shortly after it was elected in 2008.
The protocol requires that all interview requests for scientists employed by the government must first be cleared by officials. A decision as to whether to allow the interview can take several days, which can prevent government scientists commenting on breaking news stories.
Sources say that requests are often refused and when interviews are granted, government media relations officials can and do ask for written questions to be submitted in advance and elect to sit in on the interview."
End excerpt.
The complaint is being made by the same AAAS that has stated unequivocally:
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities
is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
This against a mounting body of evidence that climate change is natural, normal, and driven largely by variables other than human industrial emissions. It also ignores the growing number of skeptical scientists.
And while the BBC quotes several sources, what is glaringly missing are the actual guidelines issued by the Canadian government. According to the article:
"The media protocol was obtained and reported three years ago by Margaret Munro, who is a science writer for Postmedia News, based in Vancouver. Speaking at the AAAS meeting, she said its effect was to suppress scientific debate on issues of public interest."
End excerpt.
But we aren't given that protocol by the BBC. Why aren't those protocols at least excerpted here?
The amazing thing about this is that what the Harper government is doing is precisely what the AAAS has requested.
The AAAS, in their release "Statement of the Board of Directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Regarding Personal Attacks on Climate Scientists" said http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2011/media/0629board_statement.pdf
"The sharing of research data is vastly different from unreasonable, excessive Freedom of Information Act requests for personal information and voluminous data that are then used to harass and intimidate scientists. The latter serve only as a distraction and make no constructive contribution to the public discourse."
And
"Moreover, we are concerned that establishing a practice of aggressive inquiry into the
professional histories of scientists whose findings may bear on policy in ways that some find unpalatable could well have a chilling effect on the willingness of scientists to conduct research that intersects with policy-relevant scientific questions."
End excerpts.
And so the Canadian government, seeking to protect these same scientists from badgering skeptical media types, kindly employed a protective protocol. But now the AAAS is crying foul.
Why? Because they WANT to use the media to advance their vision of catastrophic global warming. Sauce for Canadian geese is sauce for Canadian gander; if the AAAS demands protection from inquiry they have no right to demand absolutely free press access - especially considering that their research is being bought and paid for by taxpayer money. It should be noted that there is no gag rule about scientists discussing their findings with one another - just a restriction on what they say to the press.
But the AAAS did not protest the gag rule placed on climate scientists by the IPCC, which claimed that research done under IPCC auspices is proprietary and that Freedom of Information requests should be denied. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/14/ipcc-declares-itself-exempt-from-foia-laws/ Where was the concern for openness then?
The AAAS was strangely silent when Heidi Cullen, meteorologist on the Weather Channel, was demanding the decertification of any meteorologist who would not follow the party line on global warming. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 They were silent when an environmental activist called for Nueremberg trials for "climate change deniars" - this based on the alarmist science they are promoting. http://grist.org/article/the-denial-industry/ They failed to protest the raid on the home of a skeptical blogger's home over the Climategate e-mails. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/british_police_raid_climategate_bloggers_home.html http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/british_police_raid_climategate_bloggers_home.html They did not complain about strongarming journal editors for publishing "deniar" science. http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/the_warmists_strike_back.html
In point of fact, the Climategate e-mails make it abundantly clear that silencing critics was a major strategy by the AGW alarmists, and the AAAS never bothered to condemn such tactics. It has been strangely silent about the theft of internal memos at the Heartland Institute http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/global_warming_alarmists_hail_mary_pass_a_scurrilous_and_dishonest_attack_on_the_heartland_institute and the subsequent faking of documents http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/ to discredit a foundation funding skeptical climate science.
But NOW the AAAS finds it's voice.
James Hansen repeatedly made the charge during the Bush Administration that he was being muzzled by his bosses - yet he went around touting global warming regularly, making considerable sums of money doing so. This is an old dodge; accuse the enemy of what you yourself are doing. Critics of Global Warming theory are accused of trolling for cash, lying about research results, and repressing open inquiry, yet the big money is on the side of alarmists
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/logic-gate-the-smog-blog-exposes-irrational-rage-innumeracy-and-heartlands-efficient-success/ and the climategate e-mails make it abundantly clear that it is the alarmist side using strongarm tactics and repressing results. What can they do? They have to convince the public that THEY are the victims, and the victims are actually the perps.
This is more of the same.
This piece appeared first at Canada Free Press and at Project Shining City. This is a bit of a rough draft, so it would be wise to see the polished version:
The BBC is accusing Canada's Conservative government of "muzzling scientists".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16861468
Seems that the Harper government has guidelines about how government-sponsored researchers deal with the press, and some do not like it.
This is the same accusations made by people like James Hansen of NASA during the Bush Administration, and those accusations were proven false. The purpose is to embarass the government, a government that does not ascribe to the catastrophic global warming scenario pushed by leftists who have infiltrated the science establishment.
From the article:
"The allegation of "muzzling" came up at a session of the AAAS meeting to discuss the impact of a media protocol introduced by the Conservative government shortly after it was elected in 2008.
The protocol requires that all interview requests for scientists employed by the government must first be cleared by officials. A decision as to whether to allow the interview can take several days, which can prevent government scientists commenting on breaking news stories.
Sources say that requests are often refused and when interviews are granted, government media relations officials can and do ask for written questions to be submitted in advance and elect to sit in on the interview."
End excerpt.
The complaint is being made by the same AAAS that has stated unequivocally:
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities
is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
This against a mounting body of evidence that climate change is natural, normal, and driven largely by variables other than human industrial emissions. It also ignores the growing number of skeptical scientists.
And while the BBC quotes several sources, what is glaringly missing are the actual guidelines issued by the Canadian government. According to the article:
"The media protocol was obtained and reported three years ago by Margaret Munro, who is a science writer for Postmedia News, based in Vancouver. Speaking at the AAAS meeting, she said its effect was to suppress scientific debate on issues of public interest."
End excerpt.
But we aren't given that protocol by the BBC. Why aren't those protocols at least excerpted here?
The amazing thing about this is that what the Harper government is doing is precisely what the AAAS has requested.
The AAAS, in their release "Statement of the Board of Directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Regarding Personal Attacks on Climate Scientists" said http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2011/media/0629board_statement.pdf
"The sharing of research data is vastly different from unreasonable, excessive Freedom of Information Act requests for personal information and voluminous data that are then used to harass and intimidate scientists. The latter serve only as a distraction and make no constructive contribution to the public discourse."
And
"Moreover, we are concerned that establishing a practice of aggressive inquiry into the
professional histories of scientists whose findings may bear on policy in ways that some find unpalatable could well have a chilling effect on the willingness of scientists to conduct research that intersects with policy-relevant scientific questions."
End excerpts.
And so the Canadian government, seeking to protect these same scientists from badgering skeptical media types, kindly employed a protective protocol. But now the AAAS is crying foul.
Why? Because they WANT to use the media to advance their vision of catastrophic global warming. Sauce for Canadian geese is sauce for Canadian gander; if the AAAS demands protection from inquiry they have no right to demand absolutely free press access - especially considering that their research is being bought and paid for by taxpayer money. It should be noted that there is no gag rule about scientists discussing their findings with one another - just a restriction on what they say to the press.
But the AAAS did not protest the gag rule placed on climate scientists by the IPCC, which claimed that research done under IPCC auspices is proprietary and that Freedom of Information requests should be denied. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/14/ipcc-declares-itself-exempt-from-foia-laws/ Where was the concern for openness then?
The AAAS was strangely silent when Heidi Cullen, meteorologist on the Weather Channel, was demanding the decertification of any meteorologist who would not follow the party line on global warming. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 They were silent when an environmental activist called for Nueremberg trials for "climate change deniars" - this based on the alarmist science they are promoting. http://grist.org/article/the-denial-industry/ They failed to protest the raid on the home of a skeptical blogger's home over the Climategate e-mails. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/british_police_raid_climategate_bloggers_home.html http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/british_police_raid_climategate_bloggers_home.html They did not complain about strongarming journal editors for publishing "deniar" science. http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/the_warmists_strike_back.html
In point of fact, the Climategate e-mails make it abundantly clear that silencing critics was a major strategy by the AGW alarmists, and the AAAS never bothered to condemn such tactics. It has been strangely silent about the theft of internal memos at the Heartland Institute http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/global_warming_alarmists_hail_mary_pass_a_scurrilous_and_dishonest_attack_on_the_heartland_institute and the subsequent faking of documents http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/ to discredit a foundation funding skeptical climate science.
But NOW the AAAS finds it's voice.
James Hansen repeatedly made the charge during the Bush Administration that he was being muzzled by his bosses - yet he went around touting global warming regularly, making considerable sums of money doing so. This is an old dodge; accuse the enemy of what you yourself are doing. Critics of Global Warming theory are accused of trolling for cash, lying about research results, and repressing open inquiry, yet the big money is on the side of alarmists
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/logic-gate-the-smog-blog-exposes-irrational-rage-innumeracy-and-heartlands-efficient-success/ and the climategate e-mails make it abundantly clear that it is the alarmist side using strongarm tactics and repressing results. What can they do? They have to convince the public that THEY are the victims, and the victims are actually the perps.
This is more of the same.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home