Bishop Hill Commissioners commission
Jun 3, 2014 Bureaucrats Via Breitbart, I find an interesting interview with the EU's chief scientific adviser Professor Anne Glover, who is bemoaning the attempts by politicians within the commission to, ahem, "commission" scientific evidence to support their political goals:
“Let’s imagine a Commissioner over the weekend thinks, ‘Let’s ban the use of credit cards in the EU because credit cards lead to personal debt’. So that commissioner will come in on Monday morning and say to his or her Director General, ‘Find me the evidence that demonstrates that this is the case.’”
I had previously thought that the role of a chief scientific adviser was simply to relay the views of the scientific establishment to politicians and to ensure a steady flow of funding in the opposite direction, the former often being a means to ensure the latter. It's therefore interesting to see this suggestion that politicians are getting something useful out of the arrangement too. But you can see how it has become a mutually beneficial arrangement, so we should probably give Glover credit for raising concerns over whether it operates wholly in the public interest. But with the incentive structures of both sides being royally rewarded, it's hard to imagine that there will be much enthusiasm to change things.
Like most CSAs, Glover repeats the conventional wisdom on the scientific subjects of the day (how could it be otherwise?). I wonder if she has ever wondered if the incentive structures of those involved in the evidence-based policy community might have biased a scientific dispute in other areas?
Reader Comments (23)
She won't be around long.
I see that Ursus Bogus appears again.
But note that the article with the Anne Glover interview is from 2012.
You got in just ahead of me, rhoda!
The idea that anything might be intended to operate in "the public interest" is a somewhat quaint one in the present state of politics.
I was reminded only this morning of a quote of Sir Humphrey's, "since 1832, we have been gradually excluding the ordinary voter from government”.
I agree with Rhoda, she will have to be very careful, or goodbye to all those perks.
I think that there is a growing public awareness that scientific endorsement is for hire in this way, which is the main reason why the authority of science is in decline.
The photograph heading the article to which you link could not be more appropriate. A polar bear (population expanding) standing on a small ice floe (sea ice at its maximum extent since satellite data began in 1979).
Both links are the same?
First link should be http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-priorities-2020/eu-twisting-facts-fit-political-agenda-chief-scientist-says-302399
one has to be particularly born the day before to believe expert scientists are appointed to do anything else than support the politician's petty projects
who's paying, in fact?
Would I get opprobrium if I pointed out there has been no statistically-significant atmospheric warming for nearly 18 years and this almost certainly proves the IPCC 'consensus' is wrong, or would it be because I can provide what appears to be the real explanation?
When I were nought but a greenhorn in industry the adage was No one ever got sacked for buying IBM. Repeating the concensus is same safety first approach. Even repeating it's hiding in the deep ocean can fall under the Bigger boys did it and ran away defence.
We know AGW AGW are bogus when the EU Global Warming Commissar Connie Hedegaard says things like "even if manmade climate change theory turns out to be wrong, isn't it better in the long term for us to use less of everything!" Sure fire sign of the lies & deceit promulgated by the PDR of EU! AGW is "Policy", nothing more nothing less!
European Commission - Press release
Appointment of Chief Scientific Advisor
Brussels, 05 December 2011 – President Barroso has today appointed the Commission's first Chief Scientific Advisor, Professor Anne Glover. Professor Glover will provide high-level and independent scientific advice throughout all stages of policy development and delivery. The Chief Scientific Advisor will provide advice directly to the President, and will give regular updates on major scientific and technological developments.
Glover is an intelligent lady, but clueless on climate science. I remember hearing an interview with her on Radio Scotland when she was CSA for Salmond. Think it was with Eddie Stark, she just parroted the consensus view that global warming was the important issue and one which we should all be very concerned about. It is sad to see that even 5 years later she is still peddling the thermageddonist 'we are all going to die by tea-time bollocks':
If only Glover and her fellow scientific advisers would take a little time to look at some recent climate history so that they could put the
recent warming from anthropogenic CO2recovery from the Little Ice Age from into context.‘Find me the evidence that demonstrates that this is the case.’”
Rather more likely is " help me creat some evidence for ...... "
Many years ago a professor of mine, who had been a spy in Israel in 1948, told me that his instructions were never of the form "Fnd out ..." but "Find evidence to support government policy on .... ". He was a successful spy. He used to go to places where terrorists hung out (Irgun and The Stern Gang) and say "I represent British Military Intelligence, have you any information for me ...". This worked well - for a time anyhow.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
A
Cast: EU, chief bureaucrat at the DECC
BH, Government chief scientific adviser
EU: 'Morning, CSA, I'm glad I've bumped into you because the PM has been asking my chap what he should tell the house about carbon capture as he wants to be seen to be actually doing something.
BH: Well, the truth of the matter is that we don't have the science to do it and it's not likely that we will any time soon. But as the opposition are always telling me, my friend the distinguished author, Matt Ridley, never tires of pointing out that unexpected inventions always have come along so I don't doubt we'll be able to capture all the carbon we want in due course.
EU: That's no use to me, man! Call yourself a Chief Scientific Adviser to governmnt! You're appointed to give unequivocal scientific advice that I can use when I want. I need to tell my minister to tell the PM that the CSA advises we can do it - or we can't - and no maybe this or maybe that. We'd have the whole house arguing about it for ever and the poor PM will never get the support required to do anything! You want a new government or something? I doubt you'd be re-appointed if there were to be a change.
Who'd be a Chief Scientific Adviser?
B.
Cast: EU, chief bureaucrat at the DECC
PN, Geneticist, Government chief scientific adviser, not related to Sir PN of the SocRoy.
EU: 'Morning, CSA, I'm glad I've bumped into you because the PM has been asking my chap what he should tell the house about carbon capture as he wants to be seen to be actually doing something.
PN: Gosh! That's not actually anything I know anything about. I could ask about a bit ...
EU: You scientific advisers are paid to know everything about everything scientific, and if you don't know to make it up. So come on man, let's have some imagination and I'll tell my chap to tell the PM what you think.
PN: Oh Dear1 Oh Dear! Od dear! (Slinks off to corner and weeps.)
Who'd be Chief Scientific Adviser?
If CSAs are not actually sock puppets, or do not want to be labelled as such, they have a get out clause. It is the precautionary principle. This is written into the EU treaties and into the UN documents that matter. If there is no actual evidence, just invoke the precautionary principle.
Government scientific advisors are carefully selected; they must be puppets of power and understand their job is first and foremost to support government policy, whatever it is. An unshakeable attachment to the mighty state is an essential personality trait for shortlisting, plus an pessimistic outlook for humanity.
I like this succinct yet understated paragraph from Adam Smith's 'Wealth of nations':
“The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order [of people], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.”
[Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter XI, Conclusion of the Chapter, p. 267, para. 10.]
The Great Global Warming Swindle:
Nigel Calder "If I wanted to do research on, shall we say, the squirrels of the Sussex what I would do, and this is anytime from 1990 to 1996, I would write my grant application saying, 'I want to investigate the nut-gathering behavior of squirrels with special reference to the effects of global warming.' And that way I get my money. If I forget to mention global warming, I might not get the money."
Faraway the chief interest of goverment is government; the more the better.
Heavens, how long does it take for such basics to sink in?
The Greens, for all their worship of "the science", have always assumed this to be the case. If any sceptic turns out to have ever worked for the oil industry they take it for granted his views must be tainted, if not actually bought and paid for. Their own paid consultants on the other hand are a different kettle of fish....