National Academy Of Sciences Chimes In

[ajmplanner]

The NAS has issued a report confirming the AGW hypothesis based on the work of their committeee charged with studying the issue. Here's a link to an article talking about it. Politicians can now claim that one of the most prestigious scientific organizations, the NAS, is on board the AGW bandwagon. Case closed! Cap and Trade, here we come!

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/r..._conc.html

[Mike Davis]

It is time for a name change: NAPS National Academy of Pseudo Scientists!
NARCS: National Academy of Regurgitated Corruption!
NAWT: National Academy of Wishful Thinkers!
NAGS: National Academy of Grant Seekers!
NACCS: National Academy of Cargo Cult Scientists!
NAPR: National Academy of Predetermined Results!

[strogoff]

Thank you very much for this article, ajmplanner. It shows how uninformed the world is.

First of all, I would like to add a link to other thread in this forum: http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-734.html . We are discussing there the latest positions of Royal Society and NAS.

The NAS reports you´re talking about: http://americasclimatechoices.org/ . I have not read them and I think that I won´t.

Why??? Because I know that they are a botched summary of IPCC AR4.
How I know this?? . H/t Derek: Climategate Reloaded. You have there an e-mail conversation of some NAS angelical scientists planning what to do against increasing skepticism in society. One of their concerns resulted in an open letter in Science: Climate Change and the Integrity of Science 255 signed (NAS >>> 1300 members). The other result are these wonderful reports, which Fred Singer, again, perfectly describes: The National Academy Lays a $6-Million Egg

EXCERPTS (e-mails):

On Feb 27, 2010, at 8:58 PM, Steve Carpenter
<<mailto:XXXXXXXX@XXXX.XXX
XXXXXXXX@XXXX.XXX wrote:
Colleagues,
Paul raises an important point about the need
for NAS to speak out on grave issues. Dave
Schindler and Bill Jury point out that
scientists in personal conversation with the
public have great impact. I agree, and I
think our efforts as NAS members are better
spent supporting the speech of such scientists
vs. using our trivial personal funds for ephemera such as newspaper ads.
We need a report with the authority of NAS
that summarizes the status and trends of the
planet, and the logical consequences of
plausible responses. The report should be
short, factual and written for a broad
audience. Necessary technical material should
appear in an appendix that refers to key
sources such as IPCC-4, Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, and any new peer reviewed
syntheses that appeared after these most
recent global assessments. NAS would not
conduct new synthesis or new research to
produce this report; rather we would summarize
and affirm the key points. The report should
be accompanied by a speakers’ guide, excellent
graphics and slides for use by speakers. The
report and supporting materials should be freely available on the internet.
Such a report would meet recent calls from
many sources for a nimble, authoritative
updating process to supplement or even replace
massive international assessments. See for
example the 11 February issue of Nature;
similar ideas for reforming the global
assessment process have been circulating in
grey literature of the political science and
assessment communities for a long time, in
response to concerns about the vulnerabilities of the assessment process.
A “Synthesis of Syntheses” with the authority
of NAS would generate press attention and
provide talking points, graphics and slides to
ourselves and many of our colleagues outside
NAS who are meeting personally with the
public, 'where the rubber meets the road'.
My two cents worth – thanks for an important discussion.
Steve

On Feb 27, 2010, at 9:34 PM, David Tilman wrote:
I like Steve's suggestion. I feel that we would
have the greatest impact with a factual
re-evaluation of the evidence done as an NRC
fast and short report. In that way there is no
need for an NAS formal consensus. It would seem
wise to have the panel not include IPPC members.
Dave

[Derek]

I can make my 35 now down to 34. Thank you Strogoff.

Mike Davis wrote.
It is time for a name change: NAPS National Academy of Pseudo Scientists!

Brilliant Mike, spot on.

[ajmplanner]

Rather than start a new thread I post this quote I came across today here for it sums up the whole political environment:

From H.L. Mencken:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

From a longer article "Climate Alarmism Takes Off In A New Direction" Available here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/c...ff_in.html

[Sunsettommy]

(06-08-2010 03:43 PM)Mike Davis Wrote:  It is time for a name change: NAPS National Academy of Pseudo Scientists!
NARCS: National Academy of Regurgitated Corruption!
NAWT: National Academy of Wishful Thinkers!
NAGS: National Academy of Grant Seekers!
NACCS: National Academy of Cargo Cult Scientists!
NAPR: National Academy of Predetermined Results!

This is real good!

[Sunsettommy]

Quote:Thank you very much for this article, ajmplanner. It shows how uninformed the world is.

The world has no valid excuse to be so ignorant.It is not that hard to read up on the subject and to find good sources of skepticism in the blogs and forums.

I find that most people are too lazy to learn and that is why they can be easily fooled by the Al Gore's and James Hansen's of the world.

It is a depressing experience when I have to deal with one of these fanatical AGW believers in a blog sparring.They are so full of ad homonyms and bullcrap.I wonder if they realize what a fool they are in doing it?

[Derek]

(06-10-2010 08:06 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  [quote]
It is a depressing experience when I have to deal with one of these fanatical AGW believers in a blog sparring.They are so full of ad homonyms and bullcrap.I wonder if they realize what a fool they are in doing it?

I often feel the same, as do many of our regulars here, I would suggest.
The positive thing about this for us is that, we "go in" and try to discuss / question.
Then we are met with "ad homonyms and bullcrap". What SST taught me, was not to descend to their level.
Just keep on going reasonably - resist the temptation to respond.
This is working I think because the "discussions" are left elsewhere, and
people are beginning to read and see through the AGW believers.
Then they become skeptical, some even come here..

I think it will "snowball", once simple, plain arguements are exposed (and understood),
such as the AGW "belief" in expert opinion must be taken as "the truth".

It is simply (the skeptical poster) having the strength to leave a blog / forum discussion
at a point where you have apparently "lost" the discussion to "ad homonyms and bullcrap",
but have won the reasoning.

They are mental / reasoning "tank traps" for AGW "believers" and followers.
The more with links back to here the better.