Today I submit the correspondence I had with the new and actually first ever EU Chief Scientific Advisor, Dr Anne Glover. She has now been on the job for six months.
I am not convinced the advisor fully understands what she ought to understand, nor that she has the personal, mental integrity on scientific questions that she confessed to in the interview, in order to give decisive recommendations on climate policies. Though I am thankful she responded at all to my questions and that she did it in just in a few days. There is a lesson to be had for a lot of politicians, officials and civil servants.
I was very pleased to read the interview Euractive made with you six months ago. That goes especially for your determination of sticking to science and what is known by science.
There are a lot of issues swinging by any political office. Some requested by the politician and others hurled at him. Science can sometimes, but not every time, be a good companion for the politician in making his mind up. On that note, I have a few questions I wonder about, especially how you advice our politicians in the EU (Commission, Council and Parliament).
The question of Anthropogenic Global Warming has been on the public agenda for two decades now. In this time there has been a rising flow of scientific evidence that:
a) We don’t know enough about how the climate works (ie. what is cause and what is effect).
b) Our tools for modelling are all flawed, or at the least that we have none reliable.
c) In the last 16 years there has not been any statistically significant rise in global mean temperature. That is a period longer than more than half of the running average (30 years) which is the agreed period a change has to sustain in order to be considered a change in climate.
d) We are not in any way able to discern the anthropological component of what ever is going on with the climate.
e) Nature seems to be better buffered against acidification by CO2 than previously anticipated. Such studies are presented in great numbers each year.
f) This all adds up to us having very little scientific knowledge about climate on which to base our political decisions. Climate may not be possible for humans to alter. Even if it does, we still have no answers as to how, why or with what aim we should.
How do you make this scientific basis for political decissions clear to the politicians?
How is it received?
How do you, in your communications with politicians, sort out and point out claims (from politicians, NGO:s, industry, or scientists even) that are not science or scientifically based?
The conversion to “sustainable” practices has now been at play for quite some time in various industries and businesses. They seek dividends from their investments. How do you separate their economic arguments, for subsidies or laws mandating their technology, from scientific arguments?
I am a former local politician and journalist with a political blog www.frihetsportalen.se. I intend to use what ever answer I receive on my blog.
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 2:59 PM
To: MUELLER Jan Marco (BEPA)
Subject: Scientific recommendations on climate policy
Dear Mr Jangdal