- We don't have time to put the language together and flesh out every crossed t and dotted i of a treaty,
torsdag 5 november 2009
Royal Swedish Academy of Scientific Consensus
I have received answers to my questions to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences KVA concerning the statement of the Academy The Scientific Basis for Climate Change.
However the answers are unclear and I renewed my questions to KVA on Nov 2:
1. Is there scientific consensus on AGW, according to KVA?
2. Has KVA undertaken an independent investigation including measurements and modeling of AGW, or is the Academy relying on IPCC?
The question on scientific consensus is intriguing: If according to KVA there is consensus, then it appears to be pointless for KVA to make a statement. For example, it would be surprising to see KVA making a statement that the Earth is not flat. So, when KVA now makes a statement on climate change, it means that KVA chooses standpoint in an ongoing scientific controversy and non-consensus on AGW, where IPCC is one part. But in order for the statement to make sense as a statement by a scientific academy, KVA must form an opinion independentof IPCC.
My question is if KVA has done that.
KVAs secretary Gunnar Öquist claims that KVA is not a governmental institution or "statlig myndighet", but KVA is listed as such. This means that KVA by Swedish law is obliged to answer questions.
No answers as of Nov 9. But the questions remain.
Meanwhile the US has given up hopes on Global Change Treaty in Copenhagen, once billed by the UN as a last chance to avoid catastrophic global warming:
said John Kerry, who chairs the Senate foreign relations committee.