Question:

How do "skeptics" explain the position of the National Academy of Sciences?

by | earlier

The National Academy of Sciences is the nation's most prestigious scientific organization.

It was established in 1863 by Lincoln. Subsequent presidents (including Bush) have reaffirmed it's status as the nations top scientific organization.

There are about 1800 members. Few receive any funding for global warming. Their mission is:

"...bringing together committees of experts in all areas of scientific and technological endeavor. These experts serve pro bono <free> to address critical national issues and give advice to the federal government and the public."

Their latest report on global warming (which is an excellent and readable summary of the science) is here:

http://dels.nas.edu/basc/climate-change/

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to begin taking steps to prepare for climate change and to slow it. Human actions over the next few decades will have a major influence on the magnitude and rate of future warming."

Tags:

Report

Answer The Question I've Same Question Too

Follow Question

7 ANSWERS

Sort By: Date | Rating

Bob, did you expect to see answers any different than the ones received from the denier club?

Yea Larry, that open revolt is everywhere...in your head!

And what can we say about Mr Gelatin...his theories are about as concrete as his name suggests.

Can't forget John Coleman. People curse weathermen everyday for being wrong, but now he's some sort of hero to deniers. Maybe they should elect him as president of their denier club.

The Voice of Reason - I'm sure he thinks the Sierra club or Greenpeace chose those to head the NAS.
Report (0) (0) | earlier
It's easy Bob.  First, a person like Jello that doesn't understand any science simply lumps all science or psuedo-science throughout history into the same category (whether it belongs there or not) and asserts it's untrustworthy (unless it happens to come from a fringe astro-physicist in Russia, then we should all believe it.

Or, you can do it like Larry attempts.  Repeat a bunch of non-sourced quotes from unknown people and then make a bold assertion (again without proof) about how many scientists don't believe in global warming.  And top it off by mentioning 2 (1 present and 1 former) members of the NAS (neglecting to include the fact that Lindzen (1 of them) actually believes AGW is real, just not catastrophic.
Report (0) (0) |   earlier
They're all in on the hoax, skeptics with little or no science education and background know more about the subject than scientists at the NAS, and the NAS is liberally biased! Oh wait, I almost forgot - eugenics! I'm not sure what that has to do with global warming, but I'm going to throw the word out there anyway.

Am I right or am I right?
Report (0) (0) | earlier
"Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements."

"Rank-and-file scientists are now openly rebelling. James Spann, a certified meteorologist with the AMS, openly defied the organization when he said in January that he does "not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype." In February a panel of meteorologists expressed unanimous climate skepticism, and one panelist estimated that 95% of his profession rejects global warming fears."

In August 2007, a comprehensive survey of peer-reviewed scientific literature from 2004-2007 revealed "Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory."

"Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers 'implicit' endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.  This is no 'consensus,'" according to an August 29, 2007 article in Daily Tech.

In addition, a September 26, 2007 report from the international group Institute of Physics' finds no "consensus" on global warming. Here is an excerpt: "As world leaders gathered in New York for a high-level UN meeting on climate change, a new report by some of the world's most renowned scientists urges policymakers to keep their eyes on the "science grapevine", arguing that their understanding of global warming is still far from complete." The Institute of Physics is also urging world leaders "to remain alert to the latest scientific thought on climate change."

Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, was a highly honored physicist who won the 1973 National Medal of Science for his earlier contributions to the modern quantum theory of the solid state of matter, was an outspoken skeptic of global warming.

Richard Lindzen--professor of meteorology at MIT, highly respected atmospheric physicist, and member of the National Academy of Sciences as well as the special NAS panel on global warming--said in a recent commentary, "I cannot stress this enough--we [cannot] confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide."
Report (0) (0) |   earlier
Who decided it was the "Nations most prestigious scientific organization"?

Only 1800 members, who picks them? It sounds like an elitist organization to me.  Do they actually claim to represent the views of all scientists, are they really that arrogant?

Since they were established by a politician and its status as the nation's top scientific organization has apparently been set by politicians, they sound like a political organization to me.
Report (0) (0) |   earlier
Maybe I shouldn't answer a question with a question but what do you think about John Coleman's view on global warming? He was the founder of the weather channel and has been a weather anchor since 1957. Google him, interesting guy.
Report (0) (0) | earlier
Is it any surprise that a "science organization" that is heavily involved in the pseudo science of Eugenics is also involved in the pseudo science of global warming?

"America's top scientific funding agencies for health and science research are spending millions of tax dollars on research that seeks to control violence through genetic engineering and drugs. In 1992, for example, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council issued a 400 page report titled "Understanding and Preventing Violence." Funded in part by the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. Justice Department, and the National Science Foundation, the report called for more attention to "biological and genetic factors in violent crime." In particular it called for more research on "new pharmaceuticals that reduce violent behavior," and it asked researchers to determine whether male or black persons have a higher potential for violence, and if so, why?"

http://www.sntp.net/eugenics/genetics_1....

I knew the two were linked - that if you believed in eugenics you were more likely to believe in global warming.

Thanks for giving me the initiative to find the link, Bob.

[Edit] Sorry Bob, but the premise that being black is the reason for being violent is just plain racist.  I doubt the thought that the environment ever could be the cause ever crossed their minds.

The NAS has long been associated with eugenics, since the late 1800's, and is the source for many racist ideas and forced sterilization projects that occurred in the 1920's - 1950's.

Their "science" was the source for the book "The Bell Curve" which made the racist claim that white people were smarter than blacks.

This isn't a group you should look up to or even quote lest you be included as a racist by association.

All of the work that this group does should be discredited.  Racism isn't science.  It's a cancer that kills objectivity.
Report (0) (0) |   earlier