Reddit mentions: The best environmental science books

Hi, I graduated with a degree in Natural Resources a few years ago. Your basic 100 level courses are most likely going to be general science courses like Chemistry, Biology, and some math. Here are some of the books I used and enjoyed in my upper level courses, though you might not get into these for a few years yet: A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold, Evolution by Douglas Futuyma, The Economy of Nature by Robert Ricklefs, Introduction to Wildlife Management by Paul Krausman, The Origins of Modern Environmental Thought by J.E. de Steiguer.


I don't recommend you buy any of these textbooks, because your college probably will use different textbooks. Of course if you think they sound interesting or you find a cheap copy by all means go ahead, but many schools will use a slightly different version, or if your teacher is published, they may want to use their own books. I liked these ones and if you read it I'm sure you could learn a lot, but it might not all be relevant to what your current classes are.

Also I'm sure some of your books will depend on your part of the country, I went to school in the Southwest so many of my books are geared towards issues like water conservation and one of my favorite textbooks A Field Guide to the Plants of Arizona, we also used Mammals of California, you might buy Mammals of North America and another local guide depending on where you are, I had to buy two (California and North America) for my mammalogy class.

I took a lot of elective biology classes for my general biology credits towards my degree. Your school may not have the same classes, or use the same textbook, or you may not be interested, but here are some other books I'd recommend. Most are 'fun' books and read more like a narrative and are normal book length instead of chapter books. You can learn from reading them but they are set out more like a story than a textbook crammed full of data. The World Without Us by Alan Weisman, Alex & Me by Irene Pepperberg, The Devil's Teeth by Susan Casey, Never Cry Wolf by Farley Mowat, Survival of the Sickest by Sharon Moalem & Jonathan Prince, Evolutionary Medicine Edited by Trevathan, Smith, & McKenna, Endgame by Derrick Jensen, Why We Get Sick by Randolph Nesse & George Williams.

Anyway hope this was useful and you got some good ideas, feel free to ask me for further information about anything! I don't think you should worry about being the oldest kid in your class, there are plenty of older people there than you and I think having a bit of maturity will help in your studies. Good luck!

(Repost from user wcclirl444 on college confidential)

NOTE: Be sure to order the books listed later in this guide ahead of time so that you have them for the weekend before the exam to study. Almost no store carry's the Smartypants Guide, so you will have to order it online.

Hey everyone. I self-studied for the APES exam this year and started literally 36 hours before the exam. In order to make the best use of my time, I spent hours trying to figure out the most efficient way to study and thought that I would share what I have learned. Although I would recommend to start study for this earlier than I did, if you have the dedication and use my methods listed below, I believe that you should be able to learn the entire AP class in just 2 days like I did.

I would recommend the following to study:

-Smartypants Guide (make sure you know everything in it... the book is small and you should be able to do this in about a full day of serious studying) Link: http://www.amazon.com/Smartypants-Guide-Environmental-Science-Exam/dp/1411644778/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336448288&sr=8-1

-Princeton Review (read through this entire book after you read smartypants and use it to connect ideas together and to expand on the concepts that were in the Smartypants guide. Also, this will help with understanding the weather patterns and a few other important topics which Smartypants just skims over. I was able to just read through this the night before the exam and I retained most of the additional information) Link: http://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Environmental-Science-Edition-Preparation/dp/0375427295/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336448311&sr=1-1

-5 Steps to a 5 500 APES questions book (note that this is NOT a review book... it just contains 500 MC questions. Personally, I think that these were quite realistic in terms of what was on the exam but perhaps a little more difficult. Use this to figure out what topics you need to reemphasize after reading through the Princeton Review book) Link: http://www.amazon.com/Environmental-Questions-Advanced-Placement-Examinations/dp/0071780742/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336448340&sr=1-1

-1998 Released Exam (this was an incredible resource that I neglected to take advantage of until just hours before the exam. This provided incredibly useful insight as to what they are looking for in the FRQs that might not be explicitly stated in the questions. Also, many of the FRQ questions and multiple choice were incredibly similar to the ones on the actual exam) Link: http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/env-sci-released-exam-1998.pdf

If you are self studying this or have a bad teacher and have waited until the last minute to start studying (the weekend before the exam), I would recommend the following STUDY PLAN:
Use Saturday to memorize and know everything in the Smartpants Guide by heart. Although it is a fairly short book (about 65 pages of content), this will take all day to get a thorough understanding.

Use Sunday morning to read all of PR and expand on any topics that were not covered enough in Smartypants (try to retain as much additional info as possible. Also, wake up around 8ish for this and it should take about 4-5 hours to do).

Then, go and do the 1st 10 MC questions in each section of the 5 steps to a 5 500 questions book and review any sections where you missed more than 2 questions in by using the PR book (also go over the answers in the 5 steps to a 5 book... several of the questions in here were actually covered on the exam).

At about 3-4ish, you should try the 1st 40 questions of the 1998 exam to give yourself an idea of where you are. I got about 37 of these right and you should be close to that. Also, go over any question that less than 85% of people who got 5s got correct (you can view this at the end of the exam in the answer key).

By around 5, you should begin to go over the FRQs on the released exam and pay close attention to how they grade and give points which is shown in the answer key (focus on how they are grading the questions instead of the questions themselves... by now, you should already know the answers to them).

Lastly, try to get a good nights rest if you can. If you don't know the material, you may have to pull an all nighter, but that should not be the case if you have followed this plan. When you wake up, go over all of the terms in the back of the Smartypants Guide and PR and get ready for the fun!
Hopefully this will help some people in the future. I spent several hours trying to find the most efficient way to study for this, and I believe that my method is by far the easiest and most efficient way to cram for this exam.

Well tbh, I am probably classifying personality disorders that are prone to SJWism as SJWs, along with stereotypical SJW traits. But now that religion is gone, SJWism is highly attractive to collective minded people.

For females I'd say: Dyed hair, tattoos - things which detract from their natural femininity. Now I must be clear that there's absolutely nothing wrong with this, it's just that it's the first flag that goes up. When I see this, I'm wondering if she's a punk rocker or a SJW. SJW's are the ultimate bandwagoners. They come in, camouflage themselves in all the superfluous aspects of their new interest, ignore the true meaning behind it, denounce everyone in the movement as morally corrupt, then proceed to destroy everything that made it good. Basically, they are normies in disguise but it doesn't take long to figure them out. It's just that when I see quietly confident women, who aren't afraid of displaying their femininity, they rarely are SJWs. And this is not just because I don't like the punk look, far from it. I have a thing for punk/goth chicks, it's my absolute favourite. However, it's been co-opted by people incapable of having fun and so want to spoil it for everyone else. So I have to be careful.

As for their personality traits, it's very easy. Basically, if they're overly concerned with looking ethical, especially regarding shit that 90% people do without grandstanding, that is a red flag. An even bigger red flag is when they're more concerned about exposing others and inethical. You see the common thread here, it's all superficialness behind them, their interests, their look, their act. A lack of sense of humour and inability to see when someone is joking or not, is an extremely good indicator.

They tend to get together, create drama, form hierarchies that wouldn't naturally arise. This is why they're so politically adept. They yearn for the power they feel they don't have, so have a tendency to be good at conspiring over long periods to attain it, in their jobs, social group and this manifests in the political order.

This is where we get onto socialism. Now most people are socialist to some extent, thanks to the brainwashing of our society from media institutions. Socialism is the ultimate form of collectivism. Just like I said above, it's all superficial, they grandstand about giving aid, but don't understand the dependency which it is creating. Now, I'm all for giving aid in an emergency situation - an earthquake for example, but when you're trying to take away their natural ability to create their society on their own, you are really fucking them up. A book that really opened my eyes to this was "Eco-imperialism."^[1] This book details that though the low level SJWs maybe well meaning, the higher levels are the most racist and disgusting people you can imagine. This book focussed on the third world, but the same is true in modern society with the welfare state.

Male SJWs aren't nearly as dangerous in my experience. At least not to me. They come across like my grandma, they can't say hardly anything without thinking about potential problematic statements, so they play safe which is why they come across as extremely old fashioned. They're not nearly as image conscious as female SJWs and therefore are more difficult to spot. Usually though, they're quite cool people when you get to know them a little more and show them it's safe to express themselves a little bit. They just seem to be bad with women and think that by sucking up to the most insecure and low level ones that they might get laid. However, one time, a guy went running to some girl after he baited me into making a sexist remark over - he was basically taunting me about having interest for a girl (which was obviously his interest), I didn't want to say my true thoughts on her as they weren't that pleasant, but he took this as weakness so finally I caved and gave him my honest opinion, to which I literally saw him run off and tell her. This is a guy in his late 20's.

Anyway, hopefully this doesn't describe you. But it's not like anyones perfect, we can all work on ourselves. This is what growing up is all about. Feminism is basically telling you that you don't need to go through these natural stages.

edit-holy shit, did I just write all that?

The seaweed figure (50 billion tons annually) is from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration

The Wikipedia references this article:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/nov/20/climate-crisis-future-brighter-tim-flannery
>The most exciting, if least well understood, of all the biological options involve the marine environment. Seaweed grows very fast, meaning that seaweed farms could be used to absorb CO2 very efficiently, and on a very large scale. The seaweed could be harvested and processed to generate methane for electricity production or to replace natural gas, and the remaining nutrients recycled. One analysis shows that if seaweed farms covered 9% of the ocean they could produce enough biomethane to replace all of today’s needs in fossil fuel energy, while removing 53 gigatonnes of CO2 (about the same as all current human emissions) per year from the atmosphere. It could also increase sustainable fish production to provide 200kg per year, per person, for 10 billion people. Additional benefits include reduction in ocean acidification and increased ocean primary productivity and biodiversity. Many of the technologies required to achieve this are already in widespread use, if at a comparatively minuscule scale.

The article referenced in the above quote is not identified. The article is presumably referencing the following book by the author Tim Flannery:

This one "Atmosphere of Hope" is out of stock:
https://www.guardianbookshop.com/catalog/product/view/id/344757/

Tim Flannery has a number of books on Amazon including this one specifically on seaweed:
https://www.amazon.com/Sunlight-Seaweed-Argument-Power-Clean-ebook/dp/B071LD3TVS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1503710029&sr=8-1&keywords=Tim+Flannery#customerReviews

Perhaps there is some information there.

I need to look into this more myself. Busy with work. Have done a little sporadic reading,

I note that much of the Pacific Coast can produce large amounts of kelp provided the seaweed has an attachment point and a population of sea otters that eat the animals that would consume the kelp. I think many of the plans for seaweed involve providing floating attachments in the open ocean. I read a little (can't remember where). Apparently the seaweed can be sunk in deep water and it will be preserved on the ocean floor without releasing the carbon incorporated in its cells.

There is also talk of using passive means to mix the oceans to fertilize sunny surface waters with nutrients from the deep oceans. Idea is to stimulate algae growth and accelerate the natural carbon cycle in the ocean.

The Schiller Institute is a good example that Chinese influence campaigns don't always originate in China. Helga Zepp-LaRouche is one of many prized western tools of the Communist Party. Her overzealous nature is easy for most English speakers to see through, but still provides great sound bites for the State Council Information Office. You are not in China, why do you post things like this?

edit because it's funny, I know it's not nice to attack the messenger's character but she really is a 'useful idiot': 'Global Warming' Scare Is Population Reduction, Not Science, The scientific and historic proof that 'Global Warming' is rooted in the satanic outlook of Nazi eugenics - and, to the same purpose: radical, global, depopulation. By Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Jeffrey Steinberg, and Paul Gallagher

Not a book, but this is the science, from the scientists themselves (sorta, the IPCC is a committee that reviews all of the literature, and provides a meta-level analysis of what everybody has to say). the IPCC provides some of the most current and collectively vetted climate science literature available. Of note is that each publication is free to the public, and provides a Summary for Policymakers at the start of every book. This 20-50 page synthesis is a "for the public" overview of the science, attached to a 1000+ page book of the actual science, and all of the citations and references you could ask for. The version linked above is from the 5th report, the 6th is not yet available.

They recently released another publication, which is a bit more poignant and directed, titled Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C, which also comes with a great summary document.


The problem with a traditional "book" on climate change is they are outdated as soon as published. we are learning so fast, its hard to capture that outside of the peer-reviewed literature. A great book I suggest is Reason in a Dark time. It does a great job of tracking the policy and actions/inactions of how we got where we are, and the book is rife with citations for every fact/tidbit he uses to justify his point of view. It is not about science so much as the policy, which I think is very pertinent this day in age.

Ooh! Hey! I took a Coastal Ecology class and I know something about this!

This video misses a key point: New jersey has to pump all this sand because they chose a development path of fighting against nature, rather than working with it, by overdeveloping, building sea walls and dikes, and other measures that might seem to protect beaches, but actually make erosion WORSE.

There's even a term for it: "The New-Jerseyfication-of-Shore-lines."

That phrase was coined by Orrin Pilkey from Duke, and you can read more about this in his book The Last Beach.

We don't HAVE to be pumping all this sand. We've chosen to do it:

> Pilkey and Cooper say in a new book, The Last Beach, that sea walls, which are widely believed by many local authorities to protect developments from erosion and sea level rise, in fact lead to the destruction of beaches and sea defences and require constant rebuilding at increasing cost.

>Dunes and wide beaches protect buildings from storms far better than sea walls, say the authors. “The beach is a wonderful, free natural defence against the forces of the ocean. Beaches absorb the power of the ocean waves reducing them to a gentle swash that laps on the shoreline. Storms do not destroy beaches. They change their shape and location, moving sand around to maximise the absorption of wave energy and then recover in the days, months and years to follow,” said Pilkey .

>Beaches in nature are almost indestructible, but seawall construction disrupts the natural movement of sand and waves, hindering the process of sand deposition along the shorelines, said Cooper.

>“The wall itself is the problem. If you build a sea wall to protect the shore, the inevitable consequence is that the beach will disappear. The wall cannot absorb the energy of the sea. All beaches with defences ... are in danger. When you build the sea wall, that is the end of the beach,” he said.

>As beaches disappear, countries are turning to increasingly expensive sand replenishment programmes which dump thousands of tonnes of dredged sand on existing, eroded beaches.

>But these artificial beaches usually erode at least twice as fast as natural beaches and can only ever be a temporary solution, said Cooper. “As time goes on and as the sea level rises, the interval of re-replenishment will get shorter because the beach becomes less stable. Beach replenishment is only a plaster that must be applied again and again at great cost. It doesn’t remove the problem, it treats the symptoms. Eventually and inevitably beach replenishment will stop either as sand or money runs out”.

EDIT: Also, at the risk of sounding like a tin-foil hat fool. The Army Corps of Engineers has had an enabling role in encouraging Jersey shore authorities to build these destructive sea walls and allowing expensive developments too close to the shore. They have a financial interest in getting these big dredging contracts. Makes me suspicious that the video casts the corps of engineers in such a positive light, and the very framing of the video. Who arranged for him to come all the way to Cape May just to film this this short YouTube clip, which conveniently missed the root cause of why all the sand is disappearing?

All the following information can be found in either Permafrost: A Guide to Frozen Ground in Transition by Neil Davis or in Land of Extremes: A Natural History of the Arctic North Slope of Alaska by Alex Huryn and John Hobbie.

These are thermokarst lakes and are an ubiquitous permafrost feature found all across the arctic tundra along with pingos, palsas, ice wedges, poygonal ground, and beaded streams. These thermokarst lakes are often termed oriented lakes since most seem to be found elongated 90 degrees to the prevailing wind. They are quite shallow, never exceeding 3 m. Those less than 2 m freeze to the bottom every year. They also reduce the thickness of permafrost around and beneath them ( In bare tundra near Point Barrow, permafrost can be as much as 400 m thick whereas under these lakes it may only be 60 m ).

Since these lakes are often associated with poylygonal ground, it is thought they originate with these structures. Ice wedge polygons often form raised relief, which with the extremely flat tundra prevents drainage. Water tends to stay as it doesn't evaporate very efficiently due to cold temperatures, low sun angle, and short summers despite most of the arctic receiving less than 300 mm of precipitation per year. Consequently, these polygons form small shallow ponds. If there is enough relief, these ponds may connect and form beaded streams. Otherwise, they remain disjoint.

It is thought from these small polygonal ponds, these thermokarst lakes form. Wind blowing across the surface may promote preferential erosion on one side of the small pond, growing and elongating it. This erosion removes the thin active layer (the thin layer of earth that that thaws every summer) insulating the permafrost below. This removal of insulation promotes thawing of the permafrost at the borders of the pond, allowing the pond to continue eroding its banks and melting more permafrost. The pond deepens, widens, and subsides linking up nearby polygonal ponds and forming a basin, allowing it to capture more water and continue growing each summer. They can become quite large such as Teshekpuk Lake.

These lakes rarely host fish. They typically host grasses and a small selection benthic inverbrates. They make great summer habitat for migrating birds and of course mosquitos.

Dr. Eby. His book is used at a few schools. He's a genius and such a sweet man, but his intelligence can be quite intimidating at first. He cares about his students too so he try's to keep the text as cheap as possible. Great man and influential in his field/fields.

https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Environmental-Geochemistry-Nelson-Eby/dp/0122290615

Introduction to Microwave Remote Sensing by Ian Woodhouse is a great textbook that's actually readable. It's $10 for the kindle edition (which you can read on your computer with the kindle app), or free if you have a kindle unlimited subscription.

Edit: Also definitely look at the Alaska Satellite Facility's Vertex data portal. Its much more user-friendly than ESA's data portal if you are looking at Sentinel-1 data and includes a lot of other radar satellite missions in its database. They also have really nice tutorials for working with SAR data.

http://www.amazon.com/Guide-Microlife-Science-Life-Environmental/dp/0531112667/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453749068&sr=8-1&keywords=guide+to+microlife
I wasn't sure if linking this from Amazon is okay. I'm still fairly new to Reddit. This is actually a high school textbook, but seems like a good place to start as it covers a broad range. What magnification are you on in the picture. We generally scan on 10x and read slides on 40x. At 40x, it's about the size you show. The ocular micrometer is hugely helpful for this stuff. But I could be wrong. I live in an area where we hardly saw anything interesting, so it's hard to learn. We finally opted to send samples to our reference lab once our 'expert' retired.

I think you may just be overlooking the data. For example, how can you say that, "All I see there is talking about a species adapting. Not inter-species evolution." with clear examples such as cetacean evolution?

It is also important to note that even if we had no fossils evidence (which we have plenty of) genetic sequencing has more than confirmed common descent.


One thing I will say is the thread that started this is idiotic. The fact that Dinosaur bones exist is not a refutation of creationism. There are plenty of good reasons to believe that a creator is not necessary to explain anything and then without sufficient evidence should be rejected.


Finally, never forget that even if the theory evolution were refuted today that would not make intelligent design, young earth creationism or any other theory correct. It is not an either or situation. None of these theories have any credible evidence. On the other hand there are mountains of evidence for evolution.

Here are some options for further reading.

Why Evolution is True
This is a really good book for people new to the theory.


Evolution by Douglas J. Futuyma
This text book gets into the meat and potatoes of the issue. A very fun read.

You asked about Harper, I gave you the answers and your reply only relates to 8 of the 23 things I mentioned, you have anything to say about the 15 other things?

> This is literally something I have only heard on reddit. I believed it back then, but now I am a lot smarter to just trust random redditors and get my opinions from them

There was a book about it as well

https://www.amazon.ca/War-Science-Muzzled-Scientists-Blindness/dp/1771004312

Do you really expect me to be able to do a better job teaching you through a few Reddit comments than you could do on your own with Google? You're hostile to learning. That much is clear. You've already made false statements in this thread that are very easy to verify on your own. The scientific community is in overwhelming agreement on the subject.

Don't mistake me being wise enough not to engage with a hopeless case as a lack of knowledge.

If you ever actually want to learn about the topic all the information is out there for you to learn on your own. That would be much more valuable than the words of some random stranger, don't you agree?

The textbook I use in my course happens to be this one. But it's probably overkill for your needs. A little google work would do for the basics.

https://www.amazon.com/Environment-Science-Behind-Stories-5th/dp/0321897420/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=5MD02YPJ5B7JZ143MJJB

Here are a few of my personal favorites, with the descriptions I gave copied and pasted from my own books page of my blog.

The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment – Paul R Ehrlich & Anne H. Ehrlich. This is an excellent overview of where we came from and what we are doing to the ecosystem on which we depend for our lives. It covers a tremendous number of topics relating to the ways in which humans have come to dominate this planet and what we must do now in order to survive on it.

Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity – James Hansen. The title is very clear about James Hansen’s professional opinion on global warming, just in case anyone has been hiding under a rock for so long that they haven’t heard of him. The book is shockingly well written and full of information you may not have heard before. For example, I had not heard about the level of technology, safety, and source of the energy of breeder reactors. The status on these alone is worth the time to read this book. However, it is also full of other information including the scientific case for anthropogenic climate change, which most definitely does NOT rest solely or even largely on computer models, and what it will take to solve the crisis.

Under A Green Sky – Peter D. Ward. This book is about mass extinctions. There have been 5 major ones, plus the one we’re in and causing today. One is known to be caused by a cometary impact 65.3 million years ago. The author is one of the scientists who proved that. Now he is presenting excellent evidence that the others were not caused by impact. The causes of the others is shocking and scary as hell.

Collapse – Jared Diamond: Study of civilizations that did and did not collapse and the relevance today.

P.S. It is possible that this list shows that I'm not really optimistic about humans solving our environmental problems.

More kind of 'applied' continuum mechanics, but I really enjoyed Mathematical Geoscience by A. Fowler. If you're also interested in river/groundwater flow and mathematical modeling it's a must have imo. http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Geoscience-Interdisciplinary-Applied-Mathematics/dp/085729699X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1372360986&sr=8-1&keywords=mathematical+geoscience

It's not ice, it's soil that was deposited on the now dry bed of an ancient lake. And there were many hundreds of .5mm slices, each representing a moment in time 1 to 3 months long. By analyzing the slices sequentially they were able to reconstruct the climatic conditions over a period of many hundreds of years. They simplified things when they said .5mm thick slices. What they were talking about were varves from a lakebed, which are sort of similar to tree rings, and which can be used to deduce the climate of the area around a water body at the time of the formation of the varve.

One of the most awesome non fiction books I ever read was Reconstructing Quaternary Environments by John Lowe. It forms a good basis of understanding when dealing with climate change (and is required reading in most environmental archaeology classes).

We used this book in our undergrad Geomechanics class: Mechanics in the Earth and Environmental Sciences by Middleton and Wilcock. I thought it was great, but some classmates disagreed. Good luck!

That's the primary reason I bought it. I'm interested in evolution, but don't know enough details about why we know it. I have a copy of Futuyma (which seems very expensive from Amazon US compared to the UK), but it's hardly relaxing evening reading.

50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the Earth

SAVE THE EARTH

>Are these employees able to create positive change within the system?

No whoevers in power can defund departments and hamstring them and you'll get a good diea if you go read some books when you get the time.

https://www.amazon.ca/War-Science-Muzzled-Scientists-Blindness/dp/1771004312

When harper defunded Experimental lakes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Lakes_Area#Defunding_widely_condemned_by_scientific_community

you might enjoy this book: https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Microlife-Science-Life-Environmental/dp/0531112667/ref=sr_1_1 its very helpful in id'ing micro-organisms.

If you don't mind reading a textbook, I like Evolution by Futuyma. Don't let the price scare you, you can get the previous edition for super cheap. One thing that's nice about it is it has an entire chapter at the end of the book with concise scientific answers to many "criticisms" of evolution and offers criticisms of its own for alternative "theories." The same chapter also goes on to talk about why teaching evolution is important in a broad way.

The sub has some decent resources in the FAQ. Other than that, Evolution: A Very Short Introduction is great. It's part of a series of pocket-sized handbooks on various topics, evolution among them.

If you wanna go heavy, Evolution by Douglas Futuyma is where to go.

> One of first things that started to worry people was in early 2011, when a major salmon study in British Columbia came out in the journal Science. It was going to get international media attention because it was showing significant climate-change impacts on salmon populations, and it had international importance. The scientist working on it was told, “You are not putting out a press release about this, you will not talk to the media about this.” But there were only a handful of scientists being specifically told not to talk.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/canada-war-on-science/514322/

The same author recounts an anecedote in his book about some scientist doing research on snow. After days of trying to get approval to quote the research, a journalist that wanted to use it in a story just gave up and talked to an european researcher instead.

This is the book. It's full of this sort of thing:

https://www.amazon.ca/War-Science-Muzzled-Scientists-Blindness/dp/1771004312

Canada survived similar

• http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/technology/faq-the-issues-around-muzzling-government-scientists-1.3079537
  
  
• https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/09/16/stephen-harpers-war-on-experts.html
  
  
• https://www.amazon.ca/War-Science-Muzzled-Scientists-Blindness/dp/1771004312

Somebody did...in Ottawa anyway. Chris Turner's book War on Science is a good read. he was part of the Death of Evidence march in 2012.

>Were these claims ever substantiated, and if so, did the Trudeau government reverse or change these policies?

Yes there is an entire book on it

https://www.amazon.ca/War-Science-Muzzled-Scientists-Blindness/dp/1771004312

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Third-Douglas-J-Futuyma/dp/1605351156/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1421514838&sr=1-7&keywords=evolution

1. Maybe if you could make a coherent argument against Harper being anti-science I will engage with you.
   
   
2. A grad student crying for funding so he can continue working 50+ hrs/week for shit pay is exactly the same thing as a corporation lobbying for subsidies. /s
   
   
3. Here are some articles on Harper and his anti-science stance:
   
   http://www.academicmatters.ca/2013/05/harpers-attack-on-science-no-science-no-evidence-no-truth-no-democracy/
   
   This is a great blog post chronicling virtually every cut, muzzling, cancellation etc from the Harper government: http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/2013/05/20/the-canadian-war-on-science-a-long-unexaggerated-devastating-chronological-indictment/
   
   http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/01/07/pellerin-robson-stephen-harper-vs-canadas-intellectuals/
   
   "The War on Science: Muzzled Scientists and Wilful Blindness in Stephen Harper's Canada" by Chris Turner is also a great book on the subject: http://www.amazon.ca/The-War-Science-Scientists-Blindness/dp/1771004312