Before Willie Soon sent me an article about the climate hysteria, I didn't know that the EU already had its own "chief scientist". But it's true. Her name is Anne Glover, she is a bacteriologist, she's been a science in adviser in Scotland, and her modest new job since the end of 2011 is
To provide independent expert advice on any aspect of science, technology and innovation as requested by the Presidentand similar far-reaching things. Not bad for a woman whose only expertise in science has been a membership in large teams of biologists. With the EU institutions' unlimited ability to produce worthless jobs, this woman may avoid washing the dishes for years.
How does it happen that one becomes a chief scientist of the Old Continent? In order to save my stomach, I won't comment on that. See Neurope.eu and you won't learn anything, anyway. You may call this process in any way you want but "democracy" or "meritocracy" are clearly not two appropriate words you would want to choose here.
Barroso himself doesn't really have any democratic credentials to pretend that he is a leader of Europe. But claiming that a derivative woman, someone whom he randomly chose because of political convenience and because of her politically correct sex, should be called "the European chief scientist" is totally preposterous.
You see that political ideology is primary in all these questions. If Barroso hadn't picked this woman, pretty much everyone could loudly agree that she's just an incompetent crank when it comes to almost any scientific question that isn't related to bacteria. But because a relative EU political heavyweight stands behind her, people are inevitably discouraged from admitting they think she's a crank.
At any rate, this new Einstein of all European Einsteins has already revealed her opinions on the climate change. She claims that everyone is obliged to lose his mind and become hysterical:
“It has been extremely disappointing to see many member states cut back on their emission reduction efforts because they say ‘we’re going through a recession’,” she said.In this proposition, she omitted the "for whom" part of the sentence. It's been disappointing for green loons, not for educated people in Europe.
“Make no mistake, if we had unabated man-made climate change, we would go through an absolutely horrible period of conflict and migration, until the world’s population started diminishing very rapidly.”Right, the third world war and a new great migration period combined with rapture is right behind the door just because the average temperature may change by a degree in a century.
“The simplest way to think about increasing jobs is to make more stuff and get people to buy more stuff. But my point is that we can’t do that, because we’re running out of resources,” Glover said.Sure, except for reserves for a few centuries when it comes to pretty much any type of a resource we may think of.
She pointed to estimates from scientists and campaigners that if EU consumption patterns were adopted globally, the equivalent of almost three planets would be needed to keep pace with the current rates of resource depletion.Good grief: three planets. She's thinking globally, indeed. We're lucky that we have more than three planets: 8 in the Solar System and 762 of the extrasolar ones. ;-)
Even if it were dangerous for the poorer part of the world to adopt current Europe's living standards, it's something that won't be decided in Europe, so it's completely irrational to criticize Europe for that or to propose the shrinking of the European civilization itself.
“We have to think about alternative ways of using science, engineering and technology to live on the planet in a way that’s rewarding but that uses less resources. I think it’s the biggest challenge for humans.”Well, I would prefer the conventional ways of using science, engineering, and technology.
Even if I agreed that this megalomania of hers isn't a mental disease, and I don't agree with that, she clearly has no credentials to prescribe the "biggest challenge" to other humans in the EU.
But scientific evidence on the need to cut greenhouse gases is sufficient to compel policymakers to act, and Glover believes politicians should be forced to justify themselves whenever they choose to ignore clear scientific findings.Oh, so they need to "justify themselves" whenever they say something inconvenient for the green lunatics' ideology? Very nice.
“Evidence is quite a precious thing. It’s normally produced at a substantial cost, it’s peer-reviewed,. So you have a very robust valuable resource, and people need to be very certain why they would reject it.”That's just bullshit. Evidence or the truth may be found at a cost that is variable that may often be zero, and paying some money to someone doesn't guarantee that he will bring us more accurate and honest results than what he would bring if he were paid less or if he were not paid at all. Sometimes, money predictably reduces the quality of the scientific advise – because of mechanisms one may summarize as corruption and clash of financial interests.
And if she means her peers by the word "peer" – ideologues who suffer from a hopeless degree of megalomania and who would be happy if they could dictate the rest of the EU citizens what is their first priority – one can be pretty sure that a "peer review" is just a method to eliminate the important findings and replace them with lots of bogus ones.
Be ashamed, Ms Grover.
Australian, British, and other readers: the comments you would post via the white Echo form below won't appear outside your country and maybe they won't appear at all! See this blog entry for explanations. Go to the American, dot com, version of this article (note the extra "ncr/" in the URL) to obtain the access to the global fast comments.