Saturday, July 12, 2008

They Appointed Whom To The "Science Advisory Panel"???

Okay fine, Preston Manning is a smart enough man, but he isn't exactly the sort of person I'd put into a board discussing how science should be interpreted with respect to public policy.

The group is supposed to “build public confidence that policy and regulatory decisions are being based on broadly accepted scientific knowledge and evidence.”


I'll believe that this group isn't a bunch of CPoC hacks and ideologues when I start seeing something from this government that demonstrates a modicum of respect for facts and evidence instead of ideology.

10 comments:

Veronique said...

Preston Manning? I wonder what his qualifications for this position are supposed to be.

MgS said...

Party loyalty and he's a neocon - meaning that science is something he'd rather not pay attention to in all probability.

Anonymous said...

Preston Manning deserves nothing - he was leader of the Reform Party for 10 years and in a mere six months Stockwell Day did better than he ever did. Clearly Day was the better leader.

MgS said...

Clearly Day was the better leader.

If you say so...

Anonymous said...

Manning taught a course at the UofT for some time about the topic of Science and Policy.

MgS said...

Anon@6:47:

I hate to point this out, but that qualifies Manning how?

Manning holds an undergraduate degree in economics, and as far as I know, no advanced degrees in the sciences at all.

While he is head and shoulders above most of the ReformaCon party in terms of intellectual capability, he also has a history in his party days that I have to suggest blithely ignores a great deal of science in preference for political ideology.

Anonymous said...

No matter which way you spin it, Day's electoral results in 6 months as leader eclipsed anything Manning could do in 10 years. By far the better leader.

MgS said...

From my point of view, making a young-earther party leader simply proved to me what I've claimed for years - that the ReformaCon party is dominated by raving wingnuts.

Outside of small-town Alberta, Day was a disaster. People who were starting to consider Manning as a realistic possibility turned away in droves. (I count myself as one of those - at the time I had started to feel that Manning was growing beyond the protest party mindset.

Anonymous said...

Actually, you're wrong. Your argument ignores the fact that Day did far better in terms of votes and seats in 6 months as leader than Manning was able to do in 10 years, no matter which way you spin it.

MgS said...

Arguably, Day was riding on the coattails of the work Manning had done building the party from day one.

In other words, had Day been leader through a second election, I fully expect the party's fortunes would have sunk quite dramatically.