Canadian society embraces scientific technology, yet we are often willing to disregard predictions of the established scientific community. This work is an investigation of this paradox. My general concern is to examine the means by which robust empirical evidence may be discredited. Specifically, I consider whether and how Canadian notions of citizenship may facilitate such a project. The study builds upon my past research into the discourse surrounding climate science. Earlier this year I examined the rhetorical tactics employed by the George Marshall Institute (referred to hereafter as the MI), a Washington D.C. think-tank, to mobilize doubt, encourage public apathy and forestall government initiatives to implement regulatory environmental policy. However, my intention in this paper is not to attack the MI (or other groups with similar political objectives). It is, rather, to assess how Canadian notions of citizenship might affect the relationship between science and policy features of citizenship today, and how may these features be mobilized to support public policy that contradicts empirical evidence?