PDA

View Full Version : EU boots its scientific adviser - hires entrails examiner


RJM
1st Dec 2014, 07:19
European Science?s Great Leap Backward - The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/european-sciences-great-leap-backward?intcid=mod-most-popular)

"The complaint against Glover was simple: when providing scientific advice to the commission on a range of issues... ...she invoked data rather than rely on politics or whim..."

The environmental lobby has spoken.

No need to point out the irony of the climate change cult's total reliance on data (and its 97% consensus of the world's best scientists etc).

OFSO
1st Dec 2014, 07:25
Unfortunately, one has to wonder if that mission, launched in 2004, would have been approved today.

As a former staff member I can tell you that the ONLY time ESA has had "trouble" with a project ("trouble" here refers to goalposts and targets being moved or changed, funding, delays in getting a decision, etc) was when the European Commission was involved. Luckily for projects such as Rosetta the ESA doesn't need "approval" from the EU, a fact of which the author of this article is unaware.

RJM
1st Dec 2014, 08:01
ESA may not need the approval of the EC, but does it need its funding, tied or otherwise?

OFSO
1st Dec 2014, 08:17
No. ESA is funded by the Member States who sign up with ESA. And the Member States are not all in Europe. The whole shebang is totally separate from the EU, EC, etc.

I wil resist the temptation to say that's why ESA works so well.

Ooops.

Tankertrashnav
1st Dec 2014, 08:32
I heard Anne Glover recently on The Life Scientific on Radio 4 and was hugely impressed. I was particularly struck by her statement that opposition to GM crops is a form of madness.

Turning away from science and mistrust of scientists is becoming more prevalent and could be fatal to the advance, or even maintainance of current levels, of civilisation.

OFSO
1st Dec 2014, 09:43
We are all the result of mutations, it's just that man is doing in a short period of time what nature would do anyway if it (should that be 'she'?) knew what was required by the biggest and most prolific predator on this planet.

RJM
1st Dec 2014, 14:21
So the EC etc may be a useful mutation?

I've read that the leading entity in the ESA is the German Space Agency. Who else would patiently wait ten years then hit a speeding comet bang on?

radeng
1st Dec 2014, 19:15
From my experience, any time you deal with EC personnel on a technical matter, expect total incompetence and ignorance and you will not be disappointed.

As long as they can speak three languages (preferably English, French and German) fluently, they will rise through the ranks no matter how great their technical incompetence is.

G&T ice n slice
1st Dec 2014, 20:18
Here's the way I think about GM crops:

(1) is big business telling me everything's hunky-dory and perfectly safe?
(2) is the gummint telling me everything's hunky-dory and perfectly safe?

if one, or both, are true, then I can be pretty sure that the word "safe" is not the word that any rational or sane person would be using in the same context.

Let's try some examples

"4 Mile Island is a perfectly safe nuclear reactor"
"Chernobyl is a perfectly safe nuclear reactor"
"Fukushima is a perfectly safe nuclear reactor"
"the minor fire in a chimney at the Windscale presents not danger to the publlic and everything is perfectly safe"

Need I go on?

Lonewolf_50
1st Dec 2014, 20:31
G & T, where the hell is 4 mile Island?
(I thin you may be referring to the infamous reactor incident at Three Mile Island nuclear power generation plant ... ;) )

radeng
1st Dec 2014, 20:48
Had all the milk condemned because of the Windscale fire been made into cheese, by the time it was ready to eat, it would have been harmless.....

Fox3WheresMyBanana
1st Dec 2014, 21:01
Friend of mine was quite happy working on nuclear reactors in Cumbria in the 1980s, but point blank turned down a promotion to Dounreay. Wise man.

Scottish nuclear leak 'will never be completely cleaned up' | Environment | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/sep/21/scottish-nuclear-leak-clean-up)

That would have to be a mature cheese, Radeng ;) A 2 yr old cheddar perhaps.

G&T ice n slice
1st Dec 2014, 21:26
hell is 4 mile Island?

weeelll what the heck, it's only a mile out so it's perfectly safe

I live up here in Cumbria and there are folks round here that still won't buy "local" lamb. I mean, what's an extra leg or two?

Tankertrashnav
1st Dec 2014, 22:39
G & T, where the hell is 4 mile Island?

You never heard of inflation, Lonewolf? ;)

rh200
1st Dec 2014, 22:53
Need I go on?

Not really, not sure what your point is? Those where just industrial accidents, like all industrial accidents there are consequences. In this case the actual physical consequences where relatively minor. Thanks to hysteria and ignorance about radiation, the political consequences where large.

Now some of the other industrial accidents, they really did kill some some people and have lasting consequences. Death tolls in the thousands for instance.

Funny, I thought Chernobyl was starting to be touted as a great environmental success, no humans and nature thriving.:E

Fox3WheresMyBanana
1st Dec 2014, 22:56
4 mile Island is in fact slightly further down 3 mile Island (It's a long Island!)

con-pilot
1st Dec 2014, 23:05
Need I go on?

Might as well, as ignorance never stops. Along with its close cousin Denial.

Capot
2nd Dec 2014, 02:02
From my experience, any time you deal with EC personnel on a technical matter, expect total incompetence and ignorance and you will not be disappointed.Unfortunately for the aviation industry, this holds true, with a few, very few exceptions, in EASA.

It takes attendance at an EASA workshop to appreciate this.

probes
2nd Dec 2014, 03:56
Turning away from science and mistrust of scientists is becoming more prevalent and could be fatal to the advance, or even maintainance of current levels, of civilisation.
could it be that it's because it's hard to tell who's standing behind the science - Knowledge, Politics or Greed?
And for some advances it's hard to say who are right.
Like Tahlidomide, for example.

G&T ice n slice
2nd Dec 2014, 06:37
Quote: Need I go on?

Might as well, as ignorance never stops. Along with its close cousin Denial.

Nope, I can read & understand the literature and make my own informed decision (within the limits of my own intelligence).

But the record of "big business" and "government" when it comes to matters of "the truth" and "safety" means that as soon as anyone associated with either starts to tell me that something is "safe" means that I take this as an excellent indicator that the 'something' is so dangerous it should be immediately taken away and buried under a mountain somewhere.

"Unsafe at any speed" comes to mind...

Or "uncommanded roll" ?

radeng
2nd Dec 2014, 09:25
Capot

>this holds true, with a few, very few exceptions, in EASA.<

The exceptions are generally not the ones who rise up the promotion ladder, being too valuable if kept where they minimise the cock-ups of those above them.