GG takes on fake news

[Rider59]

Her career and comments does however imply that she understands and respects science. Something many here reject. She doesn’t need to be an expert in climatology, because we have thousands of experts in such fields who are saying that climate change is real and that humans are having an effect on it. She’s just passing the information.
[b]
She is still more qualified to speak to this than any here who critique her yet lack any scientific background themselves[/b].

I'm an engineer also. Does that make me as qualified as her to speak to this subject? Btw, I don't agree with her so who is right?

[jimmy4321]

Scheer has already won the next election.

Hair Boy and Moneybags Morneau have served it up to him on a silver platter. And that's hardly divine intervention.

In your dreams if Dimple Boy insist on letting Jesus take the wheel

[Omnitheo]

Her career and comments does however imply that she understands and respects science. Something many here reject. She doesn’t need to be an expert in climatology, because we have thousands of experts in such fields who are saying that climate change is real and that humans are having an effect on it. She’s just passing the information.
[b]
She is still more qualified to speak to this than any here who critique her yet lack any scientific background themselves[/b].

I'm an engineer also. Does that make me as qualified as her to speak to this subject? Btw, I don't agree with her so who is right?

Were you invited to give a speech at a science convention? If you went there and told a group of scientists you believed they made up their studies and were lying you would be laughed and booed out of the room.

Her qualifications as an engineer don’t matter. It’s her understanding and acknowledgement of science that is important

[Rider59]

Were you invited to give a speech at a science convention? If you went there and told a group of scientists you believed they made up their studies and were lying you would be laughed and booed out of the room.

Her qualifications as an engineer don’t matter. It’s her understanding and acknowledgement of science that is important

^^ Keep twisting. Why do you so readily dismiss my understanding of science when we both have an P.Eng designation and most likely took the same core courses?

[The Green Barbarian]

Were you invited to give a speech at a science convention? If you went there and told a group of scientists you believed they made up their studies and were lying you would be laughed and booed out of the room.

Her qualifications as an engineer don’t matter. It’s her understanding and acknowledgement of science that is important

It's always a brilliant move to insult giant swathes of people who are paying your salary. Who cares if this idiot was invited to a science convention. That doesn't give this dimwit the right to insult a large number of Canadians. Who cares if what she is saying agrees with what a tiny number of far left psychopaths think is "truth". That's fine, invite her to speak at your Stalin conventions. This person really lacks some basic understanding of what the role of GG is, and may lead to the entire office being cancelled. Which may actually be a good thing, considering how much taxpayer cash is wasted on this purely ceremonial role. Adrian Clarkson was the one who kind of soured me on this whole GG thing when she was flying around the world on our dime, wasting millions of dollars, for nothing.

[Rwede]

Barbara Kay: Canada’s Governor Oversteps Mandate

By Barbara Kay - November 3, 20170147


Scarcely a month into her tenure as Canada’s Governor-General, Julie Payette has stirred up controversy. As keynote speaker at the ninth annual Canadian Science Policy Convention in Ottawa, Payette recently exhorted members of the audience to help combat a variety of misleading beliefs, notably those she deemed especially foolish in regard to climate change and origin-of-life myths.

In a sarcastic tone that raised eyebrows, given her position as the representative of a monarch renowned for her studied political neutrality and reticence in pronouncing on sensitive issues, Payette asked, with intentionally mocking incredulity, “Can you believe that still today in learned society, in houses of government, unfortunately, we’re still debating and still questioning whether humans have a role in the earth warming up or whether even the Earth is warming up, period?

“And we are still debating and still questioning whether life was a divine intervention or whether it was coming out of a natural process let alone, oh my goodness, a random process.” She went on to mock astrology and the use of placebos in the treatments of illnesses to the amusement and obvious satisfaction of her listeners.

Since then, Payette has been receiving some well-deserved flak for her performance. The tone of her remarks bespoke the kind of patronizing arrogance one often finds among progressive elites who equate non-scientific or holistic approaches to life’s big questions as the mere superstitions of unenlightened, childlike mindsets.

I do not know what constitutes “learned” in Payette’s books, but it would seem to be restricted to those educated people who are in agreement with her. There happen to be plenty of, what any objective observer would call, “learned” people who do not question “whether humans have a role in the earth warming up,” but who disagree with alarmists’ apocalyptic estimates of anthropogenic contribution.

By insisting on the false dichotomy between “science” and denialism, rather than acknowledging that there are grounds for legitimate debate between scientists (in fields Payette is not personally equipped to comment on as a figure of authority), she is betraying the first principle of scientific inquiry: you don’t shut down debate in dealing with predictions. Where hypotheses on the future are concerned, nothing is “settled science.”

The same principle applies to her comments on creationism. Payette’s understanding that divine intervention is incompatible with a natural process is just plain silly. Nobody truly knows whether the first seemingly random sparks of life happened with or without cause. All hypotheses regarding the prehistoric past are as unprovable as predictions about the future.

In ridiculing creationist beliefs, Payette was doubtless thinking of evangelical Christians, who are fair game for mockery in the eyes of virtually all progressives.

If she had considered, for a moment, the impact of her words on Indigenous peoples—some of whom hold quite fanciful beliefs on how the world came into being—she might have stopped her mouth, for Indigenous people and their narratives are never to be disrespected. Sooner or later, Payette will find herself the guest of honour at some Indigenous ceremony, gravely accepting a smudge on her forehead and listening to spiritual chants. At such moments, with her damning words hovering over the scene, what will be her thoughts? And theirs?

In a way, I am glad that the GG has overstepped her role. Payette’s thoughts on matters of faith and science would be none of our business if she had stayed within the bounds of her mandate. But now it is our business. In breaching traditional walls, she has, as litigating lawyers say, “opened the door” to further questioning of her beliefs regarding what she holds to be science and what she holds to be pseudo-science.

SNIPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP




https://www.thepostmillennial.com/barba ... s-mandate/

[Btfsplck]

I agree that divine intervention is ridiculous, but I don't think it's the Gov.G's role to point that out.
Her comment's don't help unite the country. They are divisive and not at all helpful in engaging Canadians.
Her comments make her look smug.

[Rwede]

*removed*

[JLives]

Good for her. We need far more advocates of science. Maybe some of you could learn a thing a or two. Like what it takes to become an astronaut or how we know human activities are the reason for climate change.

This was released just today. http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/03/politics/ ... index.html

A significant federal government study released Friday finds "no convincing alternative explanation" for the changing climate other than "human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases."

You don't get to plead ignorance or think if you have an opinion that isn't supported by science that it means it is valid. Creationism is not a valid viewpoint. It doesn't matter if someone's delicate sensibilities are offended by that fact (snowflakes?), it is just true. I fully support her remarks and hope we hear more of it from people of all sorts of backgrounds. so long as it's supported by the science of course.

[Omnitheo]

Nothing the GG said was political. Nothing she said is controversial.

Some snowflakes might be offended, but she wasn’t talking to them. She was talking to scientists. There is no scientific debate on astrology, or creationism, or climate change. And there is no debate on these subjects in our government either.

Anyone here getting offended needs to get over it. If you’re choosing to ignore science...then ignore it. Don’t get so upset about what some scientists at a science conference say to eachother. Just stick your fingers in your ears, and remain in your blissful ignorance.

[Btfsplck]

I'm fully onboard with science and support her comments. I think people getting upset about the content of her comments is rather amusing.
I do feel that in her position as Gov.G she must be inclusive rather than divisive. Mocking religious wing nuts and climate change deniers is not at all inclusive. She was appointed, not elected so she must remain neutral on these subjects. Run for election then mock all you want.

[The Green Barbarian]

You don't get to plead ignorance or think if you have an opinion that isn't supported by science that it means it is valid. Creationism is not a valid viewpoint. It doesn't matter if someone's delicate sensibilities are offended by that fact (snowflakes?), it is just true. I fully support her remarks and hope we hear more of it from people of all sorts of backgrounds. so long as it's supported by the science of course.

I look forward to you standing up in a mosque this week and letting everyone there know this in a very loud voice, insulting their belief system to their face in their house of worship. Oh, you don't want to offend them?? Maybe that just might make you smarter than this bonehead GG then.

[The Green Barbarian]

*removed*

[The Green Barbarian]

Mocking religious wing nuts

So now the Indigenous peoples of Canada are "religious wing nuts"? Isn't that "racist"? That's what I've been told by people who seem to think any condemnation of Islamic practices like murdering people for being gay is "racist". And BTW - you've also just offended Buddhists, Sikhs, Jewish people, and of course, Muslims, with this statement.

and climate change deniers is not at all inclusive.

What's a "climate change denier"?

She was appointed, not elected so she must remain neutral on these subjects. Run for election then mock all you want.

Isn't it funny though, that someone this dumb, out of touch and elitist, was appointed by a really dumb out of touch elitist PM? I find that kind of amusing.

[JLives]

I look forward to you standing up in a mosque this week and letting everyone there know this in a very loud voice, insulting their belief system to their face in their house of worship. Oh, you don't want to offend them?? Maybe that just might make you smarter than this bonehead GG then.

You do understand a scientific conference is not a church right? Right?