Ocean acidity increasing along Pacific coast

[Ranger66]

“Global carbon dioxide levels have risen since the Industrial Revolution and reached a high point of 400 parts per million in our atmosphere last year”

"About 10 years ago, they stopped being able to successfully grow the seed oysters they need for their industry. It turns out the water had absorbed so much carbon dioxide.”

Sadly, history tells us that ignoring facts and failing to deal with issues is a good way to court disaster.

We do not know if the 400 parts per million is affecting oysters but we do know that too much CO2 in water affects oysters. So we can keep our collective heads in the sand and one days ask where did all the oysters go, or we can allowed people trained in the correct disciplines to point out the facts and propose solutions. The choice is then ours to have or not have oysters.

[neilsimon]

...
No doubt? Of course, you're welcome to your faith-based beliefs, but for the rest of us, some evidence would be helpful.

There is plenty of evidence. Look at the rate at which the Great Barrier Reef is going through coral bleaching. It's not faith based, it's based on lots of evidence.

...
Sadly, history tells us that trusting our brains rather than proof is a good way to court disaster.

The point is that using our brains to focus on the evidence (scientific proof is an impossibility, anyone who knows anything about science knows that proofs are for mathematics and fools) and ignore the traps put in place by those who would have us ignore what is as plain as day and in front of us. The overwhelming amount of evidence points one way and to ignore it is to follow faith and gut feeling over science and evidence.

[rustled]

Interesting reading here:
http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-g ... e2_4ld659q

Due to human activities, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has been rising extensively since the Industrial Revolution and has now reached dangerous levels not seen in the last 3 million years. Human sources of carbon dioxide emissions are much smaller than natural emissions but they have upset the natural balance that existed for many thousands of years before the influence of humans.

Current efforts bank entirely on the first and the final "but" statements being proven entirely accurate, despite the lack of clarity around "how much smaller", and despite any clarity around whether or not changing that variable (significant or otherwise) can actually change anything. Conspicuous in its absence is a graph comparing our contribution to the whole.

On that subject, more here (linked from the first):
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keeli ... -look-like
Note how often this piece reminds us how scientists' understanding continues to adjust with new findings. For example:

That estimate made Earth’s last experience of 400 ppm a much more recent event than scientists have commonly thought. There has been broader consensus that carbon dioxide concentrations have been much higher than today’s but not for tens of millions of years. The assertion that Earth passed the 400 ppm mark a mere 4.5 million years ago has been supported by other analyses, many of which also concluded that the temperatures at that time were higher than previously estimated. These studies suggest that the traditional way scientists currently rate Earth’s long-term sensitivity to extra doses of CO2 might not sufficiently take into account the slower effects of climate change on the sunlight-absorbing properties of the planet, such as ice sheet melt and changes in plant cover on land.

This is followed by:

What that means is that Earth might react even more strongly to the increases in CO2 measured by the Keeling Curve. Several prominent questions remain to be answered, though, before accurate scenarios can be created. The extreme speed at which carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing is unprecedented. An increase of 10 parts per million might have needed 1,000 years or more to come to pass during ancient climate change events. Now the planet is poised to reach the 1,000 ppm level in only 100 years if emissions trajectories remain at their present level.

I note especially the contrast between the sensible use of the word "might", and the unscientific conclusion reached by the author. Despite the growing awareness of how little we actually know for certain, that statement "The extreme speed at which carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing is unprecedented" ought to be tempered with "might", too, or "As far as we can see" or "As best we can tell", particularly given the amount of public resources deployed to this issue based entirely on the presumption that statement is a certainty.

I envy those of you your absolute faith that this is indeed unprecedented, and that despite evidence the earth has done this before, we can somehow force the climate to go in the direction we prefer.

The more some of you look into this, the more you know for sure the focus of vast resources on reducing CO2 emissions at any and all costs is absolutely necessary.

The more I look into it, the more I see how the whole theory that we can stop the earth from doing what it has done before hangs on a thread, which is why I believe we need to focus far more of our efforts on the things we know we can change.

I'll leave you to your faith, but it seems to me if costly public policy is to be based on that faith, you ought not be surprised when others feel they have a right to question it.

You suggest we ought to be concerned about what might happen 100 years from now, if the worst-case hypotheses are correct. Meanwhile, I'd suggest we ought to be far more concerned about what has actually happened to more than 7,000 Canadians this year alone.

[BelieveNothing]

Geoengineering

[Omnitheo]

Rustled, it is you who is operating on faith. Faith that studies are wrong. Meanwhile myself and the rest of the world operates on the best available data. That is all you can do with science. We will never know every exact detail about everything, but a full understanding of electrons didn't stop us from inventing electrical power. We didn't understand DNA yet we were still able to utilize the data available to breed dogs. And while we still don't understand every detail of epigenetics we are still able to come up with gene therapy procedures.

The only thing that you could say I have faith in, is that the vast majority of scientific data is correct. It is irresponsible to ignore all of that data simply because myself as a regular joe doesn't understand what some of the findings represent. I'm sorry you saw the word "might" in a study. If I'm told by a meteorologist it "might rain" I'll probably bring a sweater or umbrella. If we're told the lake level might keep rising do we stop sandbagging because the word "might" or "could" is being used? There's an old adage "Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst". Well believe me I hope that we don't see major sea level rises, droughts causing unprecedented refugee crises, and mass extinction events. But if there's something we can do to prevent those, we damned well better try.

And these findings, the ones in my original post are not talking about 100 years from now. They are talking about now. We are already seeing these results. It's a false equivalence to say 1 thing doesn't matter next to an arbitrary number of other people affected by some other arbitrary thing. We all matter, our planet matters, and our economy matters. When farmers and fishers and pickers are out of jobs though because the crops can't live anymore, well that's affecting our economies.

[BelieveNothing]

I think its a foolish decision to trust the media and scientific data that is shared with the public at this point in history.

I think most know better by now.

The Canadian government under Harper put a muzzle on climate scientists a few years back - why would that be?

Those very scientists protested in a march against the Canadian government to remove the muzzle - do you trust those scientists or do you trust Harpers government?

At this point trusting news releases about anything that actually matters is beyond what a reasonable individual would do.

[rustled]

Rustled, it is you who is operating on faith. Faith that studies are wrong. Meanwhile myself and the rest of the world operates on the best available data. That is all you can do with science. We will never know every exact detail about everything, but a full understanding of electrons didn't stop us from inventing electrical power. We didn't understand DNA yet we were still able to utilize the data available to breed dogs. And while we still don't understand every detail of epigenetics we are still able to come up with gene therapy procedures.

The only thing that you could say I have faith in, is that the vast majority of scientific data is correct. It is irresponsible to ignore all of that data simply because myself as a regular joe doesn't understand what some of the findings represent. I'm sorry you saw the word "might" in a study. If I'm told by a meteorologist it "might rain" I'll probably bring a sweater or umbrella. If we're told the lake level might keep rising do we stop sandbagging because the word "might" or "could" is being used? There's an old adage "Hope for he best, but prepare for the worst". Well believe me I hope that we don't see major sea level rises, droughts causing unprecedented refugee crises, and mass extinction events. But if there's something we can do to prevent those, we damned well better try.

And these findings, the ones in my original post are not talking about 100 years from now. They are talking about now. We are already seeing these results. It's a false equivalence to say 1 thing doesn't matter next to an arbitrary number of other people affected by some other arbitrary thing. We all matter, our planet matters, and our economy matters. When farmers and fishers and pickers are out of jobs though because the crops can't live anymore, well that's affecting our economies.

Surely if the meteorologist tells you it might rain, you'll take practical measures. I'm all for that, whether it means taking an umbrella, lobbying for better dikes, or any other sensible responses depending on how much rain and how fast.

What I'm not for is having our government deploy vast resources to "manage" the rain.

We are not being told by folk like yourself that climate change might have catastrophic effects. We're told it will. We're not being told we might be responsible. We're being told we are. We're not being told we might be able to change that. We're being told we can. Which is why most Western governments are now focusing a vast amount of our resources on reducing CO2.

And yet, scientists still don't have the certainty around this you claim they do. If the scientists truly understood it, as Einstein pointed out quite clearly, they'd be able to explain it simply. Simply enough for all of us, including Trump, including me, to grasp.

We see a lot of "might" and a lot of "estimate" and a lot of "theory" in any genuinely scientific discussion around this topic, and that's as it should be. Where we're not seeing it is in the political or emotional discussion.

This suggests to me you have faith in something other than what Einstein described as science.

So I'm with Einstein on this. I believe failed models and contradictory data and new data should all be taken seriously, not swept aside with trite phrases about who knows best, settled science, or consensuses. Indeed, we have many recent good examples of the consensus proving incorrect. None of the "settled science" crowd is interested in acknowledging this. It's an inconvenient truth, but one we can't ignore.

Vast resources are being expended to study the problem, and vast resources are being deployed to reduce CO2 emissions. You're fine with that, because you've accepted the catastrophe hypotheses and you are willing to overlook the failed models, the contradictory data, and the uncertainty. That's your prerogative, but it's not actually science as Einstein described it, and IMO it more closely matches most accepted definitions of faith. You prefer to believe I'm the one operating on faith. Again, that's your prerogative, but IMO public policy should not be decided this way.

This isn't about scientists doing research into electricity or dog breeding, it's about substantial policy being decided by public pressure. Massive difference.

So faith and denial is what the discussion keeps circling back to, because that's where folk like you want the discussion to focus. How pointless! Because meanwhile, we're not doing practical things we could be doing to mitigate the current problems killing people today. That's where some of us want the discussion to be, so we ask:

- What if the current models are wrong, too?
- What's our plan B? What if we can't turn things around? When/how will we know if we are?
- While you're focused on the long game, why aren't we doing more about what's happening to people right now?

And in return, we get more trite dismissal.

I get why none of you want to talk about the harm done by "green" energy policy, and there's little point talking about it since the damage is already done. But for goodness sake, why can't we even have this discussion without being labeled "deniers"
and dismissed?

At any rate, there's some very interesting reading on the sites I linked to above, with some thoughtful examination of what happened the last time the earth went through what's happening now, as described in your OP, and (based on that understanding) some consideration of what might happen next.

Just thought I'd share those links before I gave up here and went to do something productive with my time.

[neilsimon]

...
We are not being told by folk like yourself that climate change might have catastrophic effects. We're told it will. We're not being told we might be responsible. We're being told we are. We're not being told we might be able to change that. We're being told we can. Which is why most Western governments are now focusing a vast amount of our resources on reducing CO2.

You are right that some are selling this as having complete certainty, rather than the extremely high level of certainty that scientists really have. In fairness, it is similar for smoking causes cancer, HIV leads to AIDS, heat energy causes water to warm up, etc.

And yet, scientists still don't have the certainty around this you claim they do. If the scientists truly understood it, as Einstein pointed out quite clearly, they'd be able to explain it simply. Simply enough for all of us, including Trump, including me, to grasp.

So, are you telling me that anyone has been able to accurately and simply explain special relativity and it's consequences to you? How about Godel's theorem of incompleteness? Or Poincaré conjecture? Are you going to deny them, despite the fact that many people struggle with them?
The fact is the a sufficiently complex system may well be beyond the understanding of the vast majority or people, no matter how much they try to simplify it and yet remain accurate.
Of course, if you don't care about accuracy, the term Greenhouse Effect might be sufficient: CO2 acts as a thermal barrier, preventing the loss of heat, while allowing heat in the form of radiation to pass through from the sun.

We see a lot of "might" and a lot of "estimate" and a lot of "theory" in any genuinely scientific discussion around this topic, and that's as it should be. Where we're not seeing it is in the political or emotional discussion.

Largely because scientists and experts know that the public, who are largely ignorant about science, latch on to words suggesting a possibility that things won't happen and blow them out of proportion. Remember that so many play the lottery, or think that they have a streak of luck which will continue, or that their luck has to change, etc. despite the fact that science and logic do not support these often naive opinions.

This suggests to me you have faith in something other than what Einstein described as science.

Einstein said a lot of things, not all of which are accurate to every context they are applied.

So I'm with Einstein on this. I believe failed models and contradictory data and new data should all be taken seriously, not swept aside with trite phrases about who knows best, settled science, or consensuses. Indeed, we have many recent good examples of the consensus proving incorrect. None of the "settled science" crowd is interested in acknowledging this. It's an inconvenient truth, but one we can't ignore.

All models ultimately fail, but that doesn't mean that they had no value. Newtonian understanding of gravity is known to be wrong, but still accurate enough to be useful.

Vast resources are being expended to study the problem, and vast resources are being deployed to reduce CO2 emissions. You're fine with that, because you've accepted the catastrophe hypotheses and you are willing to overlook the failed models, the contradictory data, and the uncertainty. That's your prerogative, but it's not actually science as Einstein described it, and IMO it more closely matches most accepted definitions of faith. You prefer to believe I'm the one operating on faith. Again, that's your prerogative, but IMO public policy should not be decided this way.

If scientists say that with a high level of certainty, something is going to happen, it is not faith to accept that they are probably right. IMO, public policy should assume that what scientists say is likely is likely, and when they offer incomplete models (which they admit are incomplete), but which do the best job of modelling we have, we should use those models above relying on no models or less accurate ones.

...

I'm sorry, but it really just sounds like you don't have a solid grasp of what science is. I could be wrong, but I doubt that you have formal training in science at a University level, and that shows. Scientists know that they are on an endless pursuit for truth and that their job is often to build models of the world to better help us understand why things are the way they are and where things are going. Thankfully they will continue to do so, even though some people will happily dismiss their work for not being completely accurate and certain, and look for a more convenient but false message.

I remember a time when many smokers continued to deny the strength of the link between smoking and cancer, sadly, many of them died, but thankfully they were mostly just hurting themselves and not everyone else.

[rustled]

^^My goodness, why must the champions of CO2 reduction strategies keep making it personal? Why the suggestion those who don't fully share your belief must think in simplistic terms, in black and white?

...
... because that's where folk like you want the discussion to focus. How pointless! Because meanwhile, we're not doing practical things we could be doing to mitigate the current problems killing people today. That's where some of us want the discussion to be, so we ask:

- What if the current models are wrong, too?
- What's our plan B? What if we can't turn things around? When/how will we know if we are?
- While you're focused on the long game, why aren't we doing more about what's happening to people right now?

And in return, we get more trite dismissal.

I get why none of you want to talk about the harm done by "green" energy policy, and there's little point talking about it since the damage is already done. But for goodness sake, why can't we even have this discussion ....

Crickets on that front. Again.

I do hope your CO2 reduction strategy saves the coral reefs and the oysters. Seems to me we shouldn't be putting all our eggs in one basket, but that doesn't seem to strike anyone else as worthy of discussion. I'll leave you to it.

[neilsimon]

...
So, let me get this straight. The constant pursuit of the truth is an admirable trait, but to question this particular hypothesis and the efficacy of policy based on it is to "happily dismiss their work for not being completely accurate and certain, and look for a more convenient but false message"?

Challenging an hypothesis is always invited, if you have credible evidence to support such a challenge, and even more so if you have a more complete and accurate hypothesis. Continually challenging an hypothesis against a preponderance of evidence is simply sowing the seeds of doubt without actually furthering the science.

That's quite an extraordinary leap. I guess it makes it easier, for you, to put things in black and white and suggest I must think that way, too. Like JLives and Omnitheo, you're a little too interested in making this about whether or not I'm qualified to even ask questions. Gee, why might that be?

Everyone is qualified to ask questions, but some do not have the understanding to know which questions to ask. I'm sorry, but the credo of there being no such thing as stupid questions doesn't apply to science

Here's what I see: no one here who's championing the CO2 reduction strategy is willing to address the harm done by "green" energy strategies.

I am more than happy to discuss these, especially in terms of long-term effects. Short term economic effects are the only thing that people tend to focus on.

No one championing the strategy will engage in a discussion about what if it's not enough, or what if it doesn't work at all.

If you can provide a rational model which reasonably predicts that significant changes in human produced CO2 emissions will have no significant effect on climate change, I will happily discuss these too

No one championing the strategy is interested in what other mitigation measures may prove more immediately beneficial.

Such as?

It's pretty clear to me the CO2 crowd is far more interested in protecting the narrative than in anything else. So we get smug, sanctimonious, elitist lectures about how we should all just sit back and leave it to the experts.

We certainly shouldn't just do that, but if we are going to deny the value of the experts' opinions, then we had better have extremely strong evidence that they are wrong. Since the topic is well beyond the understanding of the average person, I would be surprised if anyone who is not an expert, either by professional or personal interest, could reasonably put a strong argument against it.

Whether it's the coral reefs, the rising tides, the drought: it's easier for the CO2 crowd to believe we'll only solve these problems by controlling the climate, and we'll only do that by reducing CO2 emissions. Ergo, we should all just keep telling the policy makers to throw our money into "green" energy "solutions" that trample the environment and harm the poor, because (collectively throw your hands up here) my golly goodness, what else can we possibly do?

The idea that more-green energy needs to necessarily be more expensive is not proven (nuclear for instance), so is the idea that we can't reduce our consumption with little to no significant impact to our economies. Plenty of economies do better than we do and use far less CO2.

And, so what if we're wrong to put all our efforts in this direction! It's the experts' fault, not ours! We couldn't possible be expected to wonder about a thing that didn't seem right, like maybe we should have a back-up plan, or a way to know if what we're doing is working. Asking questions like that? Heck, that'd be like happily dismissing all their work!

Nobody is suggesting that we only pursue a single course of action. That would actually be foolish. We should also prepare for changing climate, rising ocean levels, etc.

[neilsimon]

^^My goodness, why must the champions of CO2 reduction strategies keep making it personal? Why the suggestion those who don't fully share your belief must think in simplistic terms, in black and white?

I certainly don't think you are unintelligent or a simple binary thinker. In fact, if I did, I certainly wouldn't argue with you. I do have doubts about your understanding of science, the scientific method and the concepts of what a scientific theory is, but I honestly rarely expect someone who isn't formally trained in sciences at least beyond 1st year of University to understand them and this is generally borne by experience

... because that's where folk like you want the discussion to focus. How pointless! Because meanwhile, we're not doing practical things we could be doing to mitigate the current problems killing people today. That's where some of us want the discussion to be, so we ask:

- What if the current models are wrong, too?

They are. We know they are. But we also know that they are the best kind of wrong we have and are in all probability fairly accurate

- What's our plan B? What if we can't turn things around? When/how will we know if we are?

Waterworld ;) In all seriousness, we know we can't turn things around. We can only engage in harm reduction. If we fail at that, we are going to have to adapt to a World which will change in ways we currently do not have the ability to fully predict, but they won't be nice.

- While you're focused on the long game, why aren't we doing more about what's happening to people right now?

I have never met someone in favour of fighting anthropogenic climate change who was not in favour of dealing with other issues we face. The problem is that some of the issues people think we face are really not that important. We don't need to be so dependent on fossil fuels.

And in return, we get more trite dismissal.

I get why none of you want to talk about the harm done by "green" energy policy, and there's little point talking about it since the damage is already done. But for goodness sake, why can't we even have this discussion ....

I'm all for it, but only when it is done with actual evidence and an understanding of proportional impact. A few people whinge about birds being killed by windmills, but never complain about house cats or tall glass buildings, both of which are much bigger killers of birds. Or the noise, or sight, or concrete used, all of which are relatively small harm compared to a traditional power station. Even for the energy produced.

Crickets on that front. Again.

I do hope your CO2 reduction strategy saves the coral reefs and the oysters. Seems to me we shouldn't be putting all our eggs in one basket, but that doesn't seem to strike anyone else as worthy of discussion. I'll leave you to it.

Of course we should have diverse solutions, but we shouldn't deny the evidence of many experts just because it is inconvenient to follow it

[The Green Barbarian]

The Canadian government under Harper put a muzzle on climate scientists a few years back - why would that be?

No, there was a massive lie put out by leftist losers that there was a muzzle put on fake "climate scientists". This was complete crap and lies put out by idiots. Why would that be?

Those very scientists protested in a march against the Canadian government to remove the muzzle - do you trust those scientists or do you trust Harpers government?

The losers that participated in that march were paid protesters and not scientists. Of course this wasn't reported as the lies mounted in an attempt to get the idiot airhead we have now as PM elected. This is a giant load of crap.

[rustled]

Challenging an hypothesis is always invited, if you have credible evidence to support such a challenge, and even more so if you have a more complete and accurate hypothesis. Continually challenging an hypothesis against a preponderance of evidence is simply sowing the seeds of doubt without actually furthering the science.

Sowing seeds of doubt? In my lowly no-science-degree opinion, if the science isn't robust enough to withstand scrutiny, our politicians shouldn't be basing extensive public policy on it.

And when public policy is based on science, we do get to ask questions, regardless of whether or not we're able to further that science. The onus here is not on those of us footing the bill with our collective resources (the environment and our tax dollars). It's on those who have politicized the science. I get the condescending smackdown for saying this because I don't have a degree in science. But funnily enough, when Dr. Judith Curry points out the science is too politicized, she's smacked down, too!

I certainly don't think you are unintelligent or a simple binary thinker. In fact, if I did, I certainly wouldn't argue with you. I do have doubts about your understanding of science, the scientific method and the concepts of what a scientific theory is, but I honestly rarely expect someone who isn't formally trained in sciences at least beyond 1st year of University to understand them and this is generally borne by experience

See above. I'm not the only one pointing out there's more politics than science here. Far greater minds than mine have been smacked down for it. No one gets to sow the seeds of doubt.

Of course we should have diverse solutions, but we shouldn't deny the evidence of many experts just because it is inconvenient to follow it

You keep tossing this nonsense in. I question the efficacy of basing public policy on politicized science, you reframe this as "denial of evidence" for selfish reasons: "because it is inconvenient to follow it".

I have never met someone in favour of fighting anthropogenic climate change who was not in favour of dealing with other issues we face. The problem is that some of the issues people think we face are really not that important. We don't need to be so dependent on fossil fuels.

See above. This, neilsimon, is why so many of us feel there's no genuine discussion allowed. You pepper every response with this condescending hooey. Why suggest anyone thinks we do need to be so dependent on fossil fuels? (And for pete's sake, those who believe the issues we face are important ought to be the most serious about ensuring the public policy is based on sound, unpoliticized science, since that's where the vast majority of our efforts to reduce pollution are now being directed. Just sayin'.)

So here we are again, back to what polarizes the discussion. The reduce-CO2-at-all-costs crowd responds to any questions about the strategy as though there's no room for doubt. Anyone who questions The Strategy gets smacked down with a load of tripe designed solely to put their motivation for questioning The Strategy in the worst possible light: selfish, short-sighted fossil-fuel-lovin' inadequately educated folk who happily deny all the evidence of experts just so we can keep dumping CO2 into the environment. We question what motivates you to do that, instead of discussing the issues (see above) which is why it simply isn't worth the effort. It's so unlikely this will ever be about the issues. So:

I do hope your CO2 reduction strategy saves the coral reefs and the oysters. Seems to me we shouldn't be putting all our eggs in one basket, but that doesn't seem to strike anyone else as worthy of discussion [just another condescending smackdown, LOL]. I'll leave you to it.

[BelieveNothing]

The Canadian government under Harper put a muzzle on climate scientists a few years back - why would that be?

No, there was a massive lie put out by leftist losers that there was a muzzle put on fake "climate scientists". This was complete crap and lies put out by idiots. Why would that be?

Those very scientists protested in a march against the Canadian government to remove the muzzle - do you trust those scientists or do you trust Harpers government?

The losers that participated in that march were paid protesters and not scientists. Of course this wasn't reported as the lies mounted in an attempt to get the idiot airhead we have now as PM elected. This is a giant load of crap.

Muzzled scientists? Trudeau carries on just like Harper

OTTAWA -- If Stephen Harper muzzled federal government scientists, then Justin Trudeau has failed to lift the muzzle, a federal public sector union says in a memo obtained by Postmedia Network.

Mind you, data quietly tabled in the House of Commons earlier this summer suggests that Harper's "muzzle" appeared to be ineffective. That data shows that federal government scientists gave nearly 1,500 media interviews in the 12 months prior to last October's election.

Nonetheless, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) -- the union that represents tens of thousands of federal government scientists -- says the Trudeau government is continuing a Harper government communications policy that prevents scientists from participating in conferences.

Moreover, "a communications policy was issued by (the Trudeau government) with the intention to end 'muzzling' but its implementation remains uneven across science-based departments," PIPSC says in a submission to Finance Minister Bill Morneau.

The union is calling on Morneau to hire another 1,500 federal government scientists and to open collective agreements to include a clause to "enshrine the principles of scientific integrity."

The government already employs about 39,000 scientists and technicians.

During the Harper years, some scientists complained they were forbidden from discussing their research, could not attend academic conferences, and that some had to wait weeks -- months, even -- for approval to speak publicly about their work.

One Environment Canada scientist wrote an anti-Harper song in 2015 (and got suspended). Others marched in a demonstration organized by PIPSC. Calgary journalist Chris Turner, who ran as a Green Party candidate in a 2012 byelection, wrote it all up in a 2013 book The War on Science: Muzzled Scientists and Wilful Blindness in Stephen Harper's Canada.

And yet, the Liberal ministers in charge of nine major federal departments that employ scientists told Parliament in writing earlier this year that when they took over from the Tories they did not change a thing when it came to communication policies for scientists.

"No internal memos, directives or emails were sent to federal scientists since (the Liberals took office) concerning the communication of scientific research and the approval process for speaking to the media," Health Minister Jane Philpott told Parliament in writing.

Environment Minister Catherine McKenna wrote that "while media requests (to speak to scientists) on policy, enforcement and international affairs require departmental approvals, this is not the case for science requests."

McKenna said that policy had been in place at least since 2008, long before the Liberals took over.

The Sun has also learned that McKenna is on track this year to make the biggest-ever year-over-year cut in the number of scientists her department employs. She'll finish this fiscal year as the boss of 3,386 scientists, a far cry from the all-time high of 3,830 scientists employed at Environment Canada just two years ago under the Harper regime.

Ministers and parliamentary secretaries from other departments that employ scientists made similar statements in writing.

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/08/08/muzzled-scientists-trudeau-carries-on-just-like-harper