Would the National Academy of Sciences support a theory with "no science", or "no proof"?

Question

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

Answer 1

Good Question Bob, but in all honesty, when is this going to ever end?  Why must Science these days somehow become so controversial?  It's as if Science has become superstition or something, and it's these darn dillusional skeptics who are giving Science a bad name, when all of us owe so much to it, where would we be without Science?  It just makes me ill and I'm growing so tired of it... I fear I may go on a rant here, defending Science if you will.

With regard to AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming~ i.o.w. influenced by human activities), where all this seems to be going according to the answers given so far, I can say this, no other theory which, let alone any which was a widely disputed over the past century whenever it was ever brought up, has turned a 180 and gained such overwhelming support from as many scientists as this issue has.  Not only does NAS acknowledge and support it now, but so do ALL major scientific groups and organizations the world over.  All of them. [1]

It would be another story if say only one or two followed it, or just NAS did, etc.  But that's not what we're seeing here.  It doesn't make logical sense to claim that most of the scientists in the world will stake their reputation on pseudo-science theories, not unless there are fewer of them, and therefore, a demand to be heard... i.e. MIT Richard Lindzen who we all know has become a rich man, not from anything incredible he's done, but rather, for being a 'voice' in the Global Warming skeptic camp for which he has been well compensated and his research well funded [2]... it pays for people in his position to say it's not real these days, not the other way around.  

Which brings me to the quote posted by 'Larry'...

Richard Lindzen - "I cannot stress this enough--we [cannot] confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide."

Read between the lines Larry… Lindzen is a smart man, he says things like this knowing full well that evidence clearly shows that CO2 has not 'clearly' been the driving factor in climate on any measure for as far back as ice core data goes (over 600,000 years) [3].  

But that's not the issue here.  We're talking about something very UNUSUAL occurring with regard to the climate, something which there is no evidence in nature on it's own can explain... except for perhaps, 55 million years ago (paleo-eocene thermal maximum or PETM) [4] and 250 million years ago (The Permian–Triassic (P–Tr) extinction event, informally known as the Great Dying) [5], and so on.  

These events were clear cases of sky rocketed CO2 levels that did in fact clearly indicate being the driving factor of rising temperatures (so that blow Lindzen's theory to pieces, you just have to go back far enough), and the resulting devastation to life on the planet as well.  That's what we're seeing NOW.  And again, nothing natural (without the influence of man) explains the increasing and sudden warming today other than, the even more significant, rising CO2 levels.  Which by the way, those ice core samples also indicate, something more important than just the correlation (equilibrium) between temperature and CO2, despite CO2 not haven been a significant drive of temperature... and that being the point here... is that now, it is different, much different.  There no longer is this equilibrium or balance... and that is very important evidence that something is very wrong today.  Not to mention, this is a crutial fact 'conveniently' left out in skeptic charts which try to ignore the most recent data spikes (refer to the 'second' installment of the 'Swindle Debate' - part 1... the link to part 0 is at the very end of this)

For the first time in over 600,000 years, as far back as the most accurate historical atmospheric data show us, never before now, has the correlation between CO2 and temperature been so inconsistent and off the charts as is the case today.  CO2 levels are significantly higher now.  370-380 ppm compared to less than 300 ppm in the last 650,000 years [3].  That jump can only be explained by one thing, humans burning fossil fuels into CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

And say what you want about the MWP (Medieval Warming Period)... yes, they grew grapes and made wine in England back then, well guess what, that's a booming business once again, there now are over 65 major vineyards in England today and growing [6], and the buck doesn't stop there... Siberia, Alaska, the Northwest Passage [7], North Pole [8] and Antarctica, Canada, Greenland, Iceland... are all 'the new frontier', how can you not notice this?? (not you Bob, speaking still to 'Larry' and the so-called skeptics)  

When have you heard from Lindzen or any other AGW skeptic/scientist that Greenland is NOT melting at an alarming rate and gaining momentum as time goes on? [9]  The answer is, you don't, they would lose that argument hands down.  And I'm not referring to when you hear a seemingly clever skeptic claim that the ice sheets are expanding... well duh, they are melting, losing mass and spreading out like molasses, what do you think is going to happen?  

Why do you deniers fall for this stuff?  It's not about expansion... it's about mass, and Greenland is losing ice mass on an unprecedented scale in a very, very short amount of time on the geological scale... this my friends, is just some of what scientists (not deniers and dillusionists, skeptics for profit or just plain stubborn people) have had to weigh in their conclusions... that it is abundantly clear, we're seeing something happen which hasn't happened for 10s of millions of years... meaning, it's NOT normal.  We know that, but you use this simple fact to spin it a hundred ways why that's supposed to mean it's not a concern somehow, I find that to be quite disturbing, or humorous not sure what to make of that usually, just that it's ridiculous.  

So first you GW (increasinly converting to AGW) skeptics have to get over whether Global Warming is happening or not, because evidence only supports it is indeed happening, and ironically, would actually be much worse, if it wasn't for Global Dimming [10] which is caused by numerous factors, but pollution being one of the main ones (factors which blot out the sun's energy).  So you see, this isn't just some theory anymore, it's certainly not a conspiracy or hoax.   The world is going through some major changes and most all of us have been observing this for the last several decades.

The people who want you to believe it is not real... why don't you find out first whether or not it 'pays' for them to be that way?  And whether you believe this or not, there are people screwed up enough in this world, that they really don't care about the future and the lives of the unborn, they only care about the present and themselves.  And sadly, as long as this well funded deception is being pushed by corporate interests, the following things will be certain... war in the Middle East will continue, Gas prices will continue to soar, and Oil companies will continue to milk us for every penny as long as they can.  

Supply and demand you say?  Again, clever.  Can't blame, say... Exxon-Mobil for breaking their own record 3 years in a row for highest annual profit margins of any corporation on the planet (Exxon-Mobil literally netted, not grossed, over $40,000,000,000.00 in one year, and that's just ONE oil company [11], compare that to #2 in profits which was just a modest 22 billion, and that being GE).  Yeah, we must just want a lot more oil these days.  Uh, wrong, more people are stepping up efforts to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels today than they have for decades.  10 years ago, you couldn't even get your hands on an alternative fuel automobile for example, and today, we have wind and solar farms, unlike anything we have ever imagined...

So why then, are we are paying more at the pump? and it's not because oil is diminishing... are you deaf and blind?  There has been more oil discovered in just the past few years then there has been for a very long time, and oil companies are s******g around with whatever legislation they can, and going anywhere the can, taking advantage of the melting permafrost and ice shelves and increased technology, and they are going after these profitable oil fields hand over foot.  Yes, there's demand, but you're again, foolish for believing the supply has gone anywhere but up the past few years.  

So why then... are gas prices still well over 100% higher than they were when Bush took office? [12]  It's not just taxes either...  

The problem is, oil is abundant, we all are forced to remain dependent on it, the oil companies can put whatever price they want on it and we'll be helpless to do anything about it other than pay up and therefore, oil is today's gold rush, still, and more so than ever but the inevitable truth is, it will someday run out, and worse yet (for the oil profiteers), it will be rendered obsolete.

You are completely a fool if you believe, that out of the $100,000,000,000.000 plus (that's a nice big number) that oil companies have *profited* each year, that not 1 percent (10 million dollars or more) of that isn't being used to create the illusion that Global Warming or AGW is not real, or somehow, still under debate.  Or that they aren't using any of it to influence government policy.  CEI, and the George C. Marshall Institutes, are prime examples of what we do know about [13], and they do a lot to confuse policy on this issue, just imagine what we don't know about.  These companies are so enormously rich and powerful (and tapping my phones right about now with their Patriot Act bs [14]), so what i

Answer 2

"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."

______________________________________...

Environment

National Academy: Earth's Climate History Mixed

by Richard Harris

NPR, All Things Considered, June 22, 2006 · The National Academy of Sciences weighs in on a feud over global warming. At issue is a study that found the earth is hotter now than it's been in a thousand years. Some use that as an argument that global warming has already pushed the world into extreme climate territory.

The academy panel does not dispute that humans are changing the climate, but it said the Earth's climate history isn't as certain as it is sometimes portrayed.

______________________________________...

The Nobel Prize committee gave Al Gore an award for his so called "documentary", An Inconvenient Truth, in spite of all the errors and speculation.

Answer 3

NAS is a quasi-governmental agency that doles out research money ( congress doesn't want to hear from tens of thousands of post grads looking for money).  Or did I miss something, did they build their own National Laboratory?

Answer 4

According to Cindy, the National Academy of Sciences is out to make money or take over the world. She's deep in the rabbit hole.

There is a problem when mainstream science is dismissed by layman opinion and beliefs. Considering science has contributed to everything in our daily lives, to not defer to science in this regard, and science polices itself rather well, is a symptom of a society more interested in beliefs rather than fact.

Answer 5

Would the National Academy of Sciences support a theory with "no science", or "no proof"

yes they do it quite often.  

Man made global warming and Humans evolving from lower life forms,

Just to point out a few.   for the mountains of evidence that we constantly hear about, when examined are nothing but ..... dust.

Any group that can not earn their keep, but instead must suck off the tax payers dime as this group does, can not, should not, ever be trusted to provide unbiased truth.

Answer 6

No!

Obviously the booklet contains "science" and "proof"

Answer 7

They won't even support theories WITH proof- Loch Ness, Big Foot, Crop Circles, Elvis is still alive etc...

LOL

Answer 8

YES for the same reason why Clinton lied about his affair with Monica.... He had everything to gain and, in his mind, nothing to lose.

Remember, science went up for sale with this global warming scam.

Answer 9

So where is the proof of catastrophic AGW? Are you saying we have a 100% understanding of the earth's climate?  Do we have a full understanding of all of the feedbacks?  

The trends is only alarming is taken during the last 30 years.  If you see this lecture by Christy, there is no alarming trend over hundreds or thousands of years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWpH0lmc...

Look at the correlation between the sun and temperatures over this last century.  

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Refere...

(page three)

The statistic probability makes it improbable that the sun plays no role in climate change.  Look at the levels, the levels are still high.  As a scientists you should know the difference between levels and trends.  The trend is slightly down, but the levels are still very high.  How can the sun cause the early 20th century rise in temperatures (as you have said in the past), and even though levels are higher you claim that it has no effect on late 20th century warming.

The only reason why they do that because In order to build up your numbers and get catastrophic warming you have to have to attribute all of the late 20th century warming to co2.

Answer 10

They may annoy the swastika children, but I doubt they are there to support anything, just to present data and comment on it.

Answer 11

Why not?  Aren't they involved in the "science" of Eugenics?  Aren't they searching for the genes in black men that make them violent?  Isn't this the same "science" that gave us laws preventing blacks from marring whites?

The NAS's track record in science is very specious.  I wouldn't fund their research with my money, as they appear to pursue science that fits their political agenda rather than objective facts.

[Edit] Let's not forget that even mass murderers get Nobel Peace Prizes.

Answer 12

Only if it was politically expedient to do so.