Do you think you have the necessary expertise regarding AGW to reverse the findings of the NAS?

Question

If you disagree with this...

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf

You have the ability to write them here to notify them of their mistakes...

http://www.nationalacademies.org/cgi-bin/formfeed.cgi

Answer 1

It would be preferable if people weren't so gullible.  That would save us all the trouble of having to write to people telling them that their scare tactics are working on some people.  You really need to hone your ability to see propaganda for what it is.  There is so much equivication about everything.  Their numbers don't jive with others yet they state them as fact.  They state "most" scientists, as if this has meaning. If you are honest, you will agree it has no meaning.  It is an empty statement as much of it is.  It has to be this way because they are pushing an agenda.  Even if you agree with agenda, you need to sharpen your mind and see that people are trying to pull something over on you.  Oh what the use.

Answer 2

Geez the deniers' answers always make me shake my head in disbelief, even after being exposed to them for years.

Insulting the NAS...it just blows my mind.

"The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer."

http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer...

Yet the deniers dismiss their findings so easily, brushing them off with a "they're politcally biased" or "they ignore outside scientists".  You know if the NAS said anything to undermine AGW, the deniers would be endlessly singing their praises too.  Ah but they agree with the scientific consensus, so they must be politically biased just like the other 99% of scientific experts who make up the consensus.

To answer your question - no, I guarantee you that nobody on YA (certainly not any of the deniers here) has the expertise regaring AGW to dispute the NAS's findings.

Answer 3

The Gig is nearly up on the AGW theory. Don't worry though, I'm quite sure they'll come up with another scare tactic based on "science," in the very near future.

Answer 4

Yes i have the necessary ability to write them and state there mistakes.

Do you have the ability to tell all of us including nas what the appropriate or ideal temperature for the planet is supposed to be?

Answer 5

Richard they are scientific "advisors" to the nation.  It takes a frightening amount of ignorance to think that they don't have an agenda.

Follow the money.

Answer 6

I am sure that there have been many experts who have notified them of their mistakes but have been ignored.

Answer 7

astounding.  "Oh yeah, i do.  it's obvious, can't you see that?  it's all about the money -- you know, the money that bush &co pays all those government funded researchers to try to hoodwink the American public that there really is a global warming problem."

pardon me, i'm getting all choked up here.  i just didn't realize that i was in the company of such spectacularly brilliant people -- way to smart to be fooled into going to college, and doing research to save the country, and the world, trillions of dollars.  i'm so embarrassed.

Answer 8

Well considering the historical failures of the NAS to follow scientific method ever I do not hold out much hope for them now. NAS is a joke, a real dirty bad joke.

Subject: Global warming links of less credulous nature

Before you read the news spin on the recent NAS paper, you might want to read Steve McIntyre’s take on this, as his work was the major impetus for the impaneling of the committee. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=715  this includes a link to the report itself. I have found this debate fascinating.

Louis D. Nettles

Answer 9

I'm sure your aware of Snake River and nuclear waste. Wasn't that a recommendation from NAS to the DOE. Credibility isn't one of their stronger attributes.