Dear Ubyssey,

I have to write to register my displeasure at your coverage of the Ignatieff talk, namely how it focuses almost exclusively on the rather embarrassing display by Greenpeace, while ignoring the much more important and interesting discussions which occurred during the hour and a half. Amongst other things, an image captions reads “Jessie Schwarz leads the audience in a loud chant protesting the tar sands”. It should be obvious to anyone who was there, or even anyone who has simply seen a video of the event that “Jessie Schwarz” did not “lead the audience” in anything. Jessie Schwartz lead a small fringe group in a rather pathetic chant which was soon drowned out by the vast majority of attendees who were more interested in hearing Ignatieff’s response to the question asked than witnessing yet another juvenile stunt pulled by one of UBC’s many unrealistic fringe groups.

I attended Ignatieff’s talk with no prior opinions regarding the man, but I left rather impressed at how he responded to tough questions honestly, while making no apologies for the hard facts which must be acknowledged, and yet again disgusted at how a mature, respectful attempt at dialogue can be hijacked by a small group of juveniles with an axe to grind. When will UBC’s fringe groups cease pulling this kind of childish stunt? My guess is not before the Ubyssey ceases giving them legitimacy by providing them with more coverage than their impotent attempts at advocacy deserve.

Sincerely,
Nicholas FitzGerald

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past few weeks (or buried in textbooks, as the case might more likely be), you’ve probably heard about a the case of a group of hackers stealing and releasing emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. This has kicked off a ludicrous knee-jerk reaction from climate-change deniers who want so badly for there to be a conspiracy that, apparently, they neglected to actually read the emails. YouTuber potholer54 convincingly demolishes the only “examples of fraud” which have thus far emerged (linked here via Pharangula):

(incidentally, potholer54, who’s channels stated goal is to “explain in simple terms the conclusions of scientific research and correct some of the unsourced crap you get fed on the Internet” has a great series of videos on cosmology, biology, and climate change)

There is a larger question here, which is about the constant assertions of a “scientific conspiracy” which is so often levelled by anti-scientific types of many stripes: be it Climate Change deniers, Intelligent Design, or Anti-Vacciners. I’ve always wondered how these “conspiracies” are supposed to work. As the above video puts it, are we really supposed to believe that thousands of independent researchers are collaborating to fake results, hide counter-evidence, and tie all their “fake” data together in such a way as to tell a convincing story and beguile the unwitting populace? Add to this the fact that for a scientist, one of the best career moves you could make, to ensure your name would forever be entered in the annals of history, would be to convincingly overturn the dominant theory of your day. If there were really good scientific grounds by which to doubt these “conspiracies” we should expect researchers to be clambering over one-another to be the first to prove it, and the evidence to be pouring in. E pur si muove!

Also, I’ve always thought that if I were going to go to the trouble of orchestrating a giant conspiracy involving thousands of researchers and a monumental (impossible?) effort to suppress dissent and fake the evidence, I’d choose something a bit more… sexy than Climate Change, or Vaccines. Maybe I’d have my evil Ph.D-wielding minions brainwash the hoi polloi into believing that first-contact had been made with an extra-terrestrial civilization and we must begin colonizing our solar system – that would be a great way to kick-start the space program again. Or maybe I’d convince people that a new “super-caste” of humans had evolved, with superior capabilities in telepathy, empathy, and responsible fiscal policy, and that I was one. That would be a good way to ensure the continued dominance of my Evil, Science-Wielding Liberal Empire of Doom.

So I ask you, Terry readers, if you had control of a massive, complex conspirational network of thousands of researchers, what would YOU have them trick the unwitting populace into believing?

Update: The situation has been resolved

Another shocking development in the sad affair which is the Frederick/Chu AMS Scandal. This evening I received this email from UBC V-Day, the group behind The Vagina Monologues on campus, and an advocacy group against gender-based violence:

AMS Student Union to Decide Tuition Policy

Fellow students,

If you are not already aware, your AMS Student Council is seeking to impeach your elected AMS President, Blake Frederick and Vice-President of External Affairs, Tim Chu who are taking action against the high cost of education. The current AMS Student Council policy is that it is acceptable for tuition to increase by up to two percent each year. Your President and Vice-President of External Affairs were elected on a mandate and made a commitment to lobby for lower tuition and are now seeking to change the official tuition policy of the AMS, but we need your feedback.

If you want to make your voice heard on the cost of education, you should take three actions:

1)  Email your Council representatives and let them know what you think about tuition fees (see email list below).

2)  Write an email under 300 words for the Ubyssey student newspaper and send it to feedback@ubyssey.ca before 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 1, 2009.

3) Attend the AMS Council meeting on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in SUB room 206 and make your voice heard.

The AMS needs your input so that we can decide together on how to move our student union forward.

Sincerely,

Blake Frederick

President

AMS Student Union

* We have been asked to pass on this message. UBC VDay does not take a particular side on this issue, however, we do encourage students to be involved in their community and ensure that their voices are heard on matters of importance

I cannot believe that Blake Frederick could find another way to sink even further. I am so angry that a club like UBC V-Day would allow itself to be abused as a vector for such a partisan political statement, which has nothing to do with their purpose.

The following is an open letter I sent as a response:

To UBC VDAY,

I fully support the UBC V-Day organization, and think what you do is an amazing and important part of UBC. I have attended the Vagina Monologues many times, and am friends with several current and former members of the club. However, I must express my utter shock and disappointment that you would allow your club email to be used as a vector to spread partisan messages about a sensitive political issue on campus which has NOTHING TO DO with the purpose of your club. You claim that “UBC VDay does not take a particular stance on this issue”, but by allowing Mr. Frederick to use your club as a vector, you have allowed him to once again cast this as an issue of tuition, again attempting to deflect attention to the real reason for his being asked to resign, which is his consistant and repeated abuses of power and the democratic process (of which this email is yet another example). By allowing him to send email through you, you are implicitly endorsing his position.

I must say I am extremely disappointed that a club such as yours, which is a valuable and extremely important part of UBC, would allow itself to be abused in this way.

Sincerely,

Nicholas FitzGerald

To UBC VDAY,

I fully support the UBC V-Day organization, and think what you do is an amazing and important part of UBC. I have attended the Vagina Monologues many times, and am friends with several current and former members of the club. However, I must express my utter shock and disappointment that you would allow your club email to be used as a vector to spread partisan messages about a sensitive political issue on campus which has NOTHING TO DO with the purpose of your club. You claim that “UBC VDay does not take a particular stance on this issue”, but by allowing Mr. Frederick to use your club as a vector, you have allowed him to once again cast this as an issue of tuition, again attempting to deflect attention to the real reason for his being asked to resign, which is his consistant and repeated abuses of power and the democratic process (of which this email is yet another example). By allowing him to send email through you, you are implicitly endorsing his position.

I must say I am extremely disappointed that a club such as yours, which is a valuable and extremely important part of UBC, would allow itself to be abused in this way.

Sincerely,

Nicholas FitzGerald

This is not, and never has been, an issue about tuition. It is an issue about two executive who have continuously abused their power, and the democratic process. I said as much as last Saturday’s council meeting:

In response to the shocking revelation of comments by Canada’s Minister of State for Science and Technology on evolution.

(see here for some great responses from the research community)

As a student in scientific field, I wish to express the deep concern I felt reading about Minister Goodyear’s comments on a central fact of scientific knowledge - evolution. I was disappointed to learn that the man in charge of scientific development in this country is so deeply ignorant of his domain. The fact is that evolution is a central pillar of many avenues of scientific research today - from biomedical advances which increase our ability of understand and fight diseases, to even seemingly unrelated fields such as my own - artificial intelligence - where concepts of evolution have been adapted into successful computational techniques. Far from being a controversial issue, as some dishonest partisans imply, there is no controversy amongst scientists; Evolution is a fact, and an important one.

Moreover, it is confusing that the Minister would frame the question as a matter of belief in the first place - evolution is the result of overwhelming evidence and consistent data from a wide array of research avenues. To frame the issue as one of personal belief or even as a matter of religious freedom is to miss the point entirely, and suggests a frightening lack of understanding on the Minister’s part.

To have the Minister of Science be so ignorant of a central fact of scientific knowledge is absurd - as absurd as if the Finance Minister did not “believe” in supply-and-demand, or if the Minister of Defense did not “believe” in the existence of Iraq. How can Canada hope to remain relevant and competitive as a location for research if those in charge are so incompetent? As a student looking towards graduate school, such revelations about our country’s leadership make me seriously question whether I wish to continue my studies in Canada, or go elsewhere.

I sincerely hope that further clarifications will be made on the Minister’s stance on this issue and that, if it his found that he is as ignorant as his previous comments suggest, a more suitable replacement will be found.

Beyond the comments on evolution, I am further concerned that the minister hinted at an approach the research focusing on commercial applications. Such a focus on research that will sell will harm the research community in Canada; pure research is important and valuable, and it should not be the domain of the government to decide which avenues are likely to be the most profitable.

Sincerely,
Nicholas FitzGerald