By David Wojick
You would think the National Academy of Sciences understands science, but you would be wrong. Their President just approved a report the conclusion of which is scientifically impossible!
The report is jointly from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine or NASEM. Titled “Effects of Human-Caused Greenhouse Gas Emissions on U.S. Climate, Health, and Welfare” this squirrelly tome is a formal comment on EPA’s proposed repeal of the 2009 Endangerment Finding. It is also a reply to the Energy Department’s recent report supporting this repeal. In both reports the focus is the adverse effects, if any, of our CO2 emissions.
The NASEM report’s preposterous conclusion is most clearly stated in the last paragraph of its lengthy Summary, to wit: “In summary, the committee concludes that the evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused GHGs is BEYOND SCIENTIFIC DISPUTE.” (Emphasis added)
Beyond scientific dispute? This fundamental claim is wildly false on two levels to the point of absurdity.
First of all it is a basic principle that nothing is ever beyond dispute in science. In fact many of the greatest advances involved challenging then overthrowing widely held beliefs. That is what made them great.
Second a belief cannot be beyond dispute if it is disputed and the alarmist claims made in the NASEM report are not just disputed, they are widely disputed. In some cases such as wildfires and floods there is a huge amount of written dispute.
In other cases the NASEM claims are based on single study speculation which is simply widely dismissed as silly. Here are some amusing examples: “….health impacts of climate change, including on mental health, nutrition, immune health, antimicrobial resistance, kidney disease, and negative pregnancy-related outcomes.”
I leave it to others to dispute the specific claims in this report. Skeptics publish amusing long lists of all the bad things speculated by climate alarmists. This report is just such a list so it will not be hard to dispute these specific claims.
It is worth noting that CFACT filed comments with NASEM when this report was proposed specifically pointing to the widespread debate on this topic. See those comments here.
The deeper issue is that this absurd report certifies that the National Academies can no longer be trusted to advise the Federal Government which was their original mission. The report gives this statement of mission:
“The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS AND ADVICE to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.” (Emphasis added)
Clearly NASEM is no longer fit for purpose. Ideally Congress should revoke its charter. At the least the President should issue an executive order instructing the federal agencies not to use NASEM. It has long been standard practice for agencies launching new programs to run them by NASEM for approval. This practice should stop.
Mind you this would not kill NASEM as I think they already get more funding from left wing foundations than from the Federal Government. What it would do is make clear that NASEM has become a left wing NGO that cannot be trusted to objectively analyze policy issues.
Give us more tax money-
Former world leaders call for fossil fuel taxes to fund global climate action
“Former” ?? 36! including Ban Ki-moon
Ask me if I give a schist?
Having spent careers digging into a hole of irrelevance, these former world leaders decided now was a good time to dig harder!
Yes, the science is so thoroughly settled that they need billions and trillions more research funding.
Koonin’s “Unsettled” should be an antidote to the “settled science” fallacies. Maybe before Linda McMahon disbands the Department of Ed, she can mandate that the book be required reading for every high school science student.
Nothing about the climate scare is settled. Not the “humble human influence”, not CO2 as a pollutant, not the models, the runaway heat issues, the hurricanes and torrential rains, not sea level rise, and not the claims of a coming apocalypse. He picks these memes apart disects the “chimera of carbon free”. He ends on a positive note with some common sense suggestions to fix the mess we’re in.
I liked Koonin’s book so much I gave several copies to friends. It should also be read by any so called climate scientists- they’d learn a great deal! 🙂
Koonin’s book,”Unsettled” is filled with logical fallacies and data distortions — it;s an unreliable source of scientific information.
Such as?
Translation: It disagrees with what I believe, therefore it is trash and must be ignored.
It is no longer called the climate scare. It has been upgraded to climate crisis.
With “warming” replaced by “boiling,” despite the seas generally being a good way to experience hypothermia even with a wetsuit.
Not exactly groundbreaking stuff when you think about it. That sentence you quote….
In summary, the committee concludes that the evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused GHGs is BEYOND SCIENTIFIC DISPUTE.”
Well, I could summarise that in just four words: The science is settled. You could stretch that to seven by adding: so, shut up. You could make that nine with a well placed expletive. But isn’t that the gist of it?
Wonder if the Engineering portion is actually Social Engineering. I wonder if they also condone the notion that men can get pregnant, women have willys, and puberty blockers are completely reversible.
From the story of the Trojan horse we get the saying: beware Greeks bearing gifts. It should be: beware Trojans, they’re complete idiots.
Every agency, institution and organisation has been infiltrated. And they work at it from within. The Engineering part, in my opinion, is what the schools and universities currently do; social engineering as per critical theories etc.
Maybe more accurate to say ‘beware of gifts bearing Greeks’.
Whenever committees decide something is “beyond dispute”, I like to see the results of the vote of the committee. Usually, no one on any committee thinks the same way and the vote is divided.
Since there was no mention of this in the article, we can only assume that the vote was 100% based on the press release.
Whenever 100% all vote the same way, you have a political opinion and nothing more.
In some nations- 97% of the votes just happen to be for the dictator.
Afterwards, the 3% cannot be found.
The science is indeed beyond dispute. Just as evolution or the theory that the earth orbits the sun is settled science.
Don’t know much about science, do ya?
Give him a break! He’s peddling as fast as he can.
Fascinating how a hypothesis, with no evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it, has become something that no one may question.
Evolution is not settled beyond dispute. It is strongly supported, true.
The earth does not orbit the sun. The current science identifies the Barycenter as the focus of the orbit.
All of the so called scientific establishments have been run primarily by politicians since their inception.
The reason for this is simple, those who can do, those who can’t seek power to justify their egos.
Makes sense to me. Especially if you accept the proverb that anywhere there is a large amount of cash available under one roof, someone will figure out how to steal it. I’d have to add… and that person is usually a politician.
Two more “government agencies” spewing the same lies, just different names attached.
It is not the lie, but the tyrannical dogma.
That’s what ” beyond dispute” really means.
Yep, and that dogma is entirely based on lies. 😉
The National Academy of Sciences beclowns itself again. I dub thee the National Academy of Deniers (NAD). We cheer on your esteemed efforts at pseudoscience: “Go NADs!”
Gonads?
Cute, funny, and accurate. I do so love puns, and the worse the better.
Another organization that clearly needs not one more penny of taxpayer money.
ZERO THEIR BUDGET!
Net Zero? We can hope! 🙂
In this case, absolute zero.
I see what you did there. Well met! 🙂
“In fact many of the greatest advances involved challenging then overthrowing widely held beliefs.”
List some.
Only now… has the science been so settled.
Heliocentricity…
Phlogiston…
Helicobacter pylori…
Quantum mechanics…
Continental drift, for one.
The continental drift was successfully held back and ridiculouled for 4 decades iirc
by experts with the mindset of climate scientists.
And there was nothing to gain from it.
Now imagine how hard those will fight who make a living with climate fear and can not do any other job.
If those claims about harm for human health were only 5% true,
greenhouse workers would have a life expectancy of 10 years
and those in the ISS and Submarines who have to deal with 5000 ppm wouldn’t make it a week.
+ if co2 were so dangerous as they claim it would have been commen knowledge for 100 years and not a modern byproduct of AGW.
I can sympathize with those who resisted the theory of continental drift. Until a mechanism was proposed that could power the movement of whole continents, the idea that the continents could go sliding around on the earth’s surface does sound a bit far fetched. The evidence in support of the theory built slowly.
I’m not at all satisfied with density/gravity as a force for lateral movement. Best I can think of is the lateral force of radial plumes, if they can be other than randomly canceling out. Any thoughts?
Of course, once latitudinal motion is established, lateral force is well known (kinetic energy, or Coriolis, if you prefer).
The match between Africa and South America- the shorelines and geology are so good- it just had to be true.
Then when the started finding identical fossil in S. America and Africa, the case became even more solid.
Then the discovered the mid-Atlantic ridge and used magnetic surveys to discover that the Earths changing magnetic fields left identical marks on either side of the ridge as the Atlantic expanded.
Flat earth. Cause of gravity (Newton vs Einstein).
A few years ago, I read a little about “flat earth” beliefs. Why? Well, I knew of Eratosthenes’ measurements almost 3,000 years ago. Modern flat Earth belief originated with the English writer Samuel Rowbotham (1816–1884). His ideas were taken up by the Christian Catholic Apostolic Church in 1914 and were promoted widely. [Wiki has pages.]
Pretty well the entire body of current scientific knowledge.
Almost nothing we think we know about physical reality came to us fully-formed and utterly novel.The previous understanding may have been preposterous, even zany, but there was almost always something before.
(I wince slightly at using the word “knowledge” above. I don’t consider there is any such thing, unless we redefine “knowledge” to be shorthand for “our best current conjectures”.)
I would be content to see the phrase “then overthrowing” deleted from the post you quote though.
You might be interested in these: https://sciencesensei.com/31-initially-rejected-scientific-discoveries-that-transformed-our-world/
or this list: https://www.grunge.com/376144/famous-scientific-theories-that-were-proven-wrong/
Your skepticism seems to imply science is static.
EVERY single new scientific discovery overthrows widely held beliefs!
At the moment of a new discovery, only one person understands the correct science, and the consensus of everyone else on the entire planet is wrong.
Oh dear, I feel a “what did the Romans ever do for us….” moment coming.
Long time ago…but the names of Galileo, and Giordano Bruno, would be on the list. You are quite ignorant of science history.
Evolution.
Even within evolutionary theory, the dynamic exists. Gradualism was challenged by punctuated equilibrium due to the unfitness of transitional forms. If it takes millions of years for a fin to become a leg, the beastie can neither swim nor run. Indeed, evolution, while compelling, still has some hurdles to overcome.
For that conundrum, the proposed solution is that the transitional forms lived in shallow water where they had need to both swim or walk, depending on water level.
Like all ad hoc modifications, that has limited ability to rescue the theory, and it remains speculation. It is unlikely to ever be anything more or to satisfy Popper’s rules of theory strength.
It’s neither adhoc, not a modification of the theory. It’s an explanation that satisfies the complaint that you raised.
It is precisely an ad hoc modification, a speculation to overcome a specific potential weakness in the theory, that being the fact that such a form change would require a special set of conditions in isolation for an extended period of time, or a significant number of dominant heritable changes would have to happen quite suddenly, to overcome selective pressure. I made no complaint; the explanation might be true, but it is certainly no more than a convenient guess with its own limitations in situ.
Don’t misunderstand me, I find the theory of evolution compelling, with a large body of circumstantial evidence in its favor. I am simply pointing out that it is incomplete, largely unfalsifiable, unlikely to be demonstrated in practice, and hardly settled in its particulars.
In the dim past it was certain that a man’s spirit entered the woman and that is how she got pregnant.
Then there is genetics.
Blood letting to cure disease.
I am not going to waste any more time entertaining you.
The world is flat.
The world is the centre of the universe.
Air travel is imposible.
I remember reading a re-print of an article that claimed that since the fastest a man could blow air out his lungs was around 30 miles per hour, if any carriage tried to travel faster than that, everyone on board would suffocate because they wouldn’t be able to exhale.
Bumble bees shouldn’t be able to fly.
Does your doctor still use leaches to purify your blood ?
Does the Sun still revolve around the Earth.?
To add to the medicine theme, germ theory overthrew an awful lot of prior “knowledge”.
Ulcer is caused by excessive acid.
All government science is rife with incompetence & corruption as Ike warned:
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of scientific-technological elite.” Dwight Eisenhower
All big budget science suffers from the same problem.
Perhaps it should be renamed National Academy of Seances?
As an engineer for 30 years and someone who likes to look up facts and references online I had bever heard of The National Academy of Engineering.
Generally, a decision has to be made early in bachelor’s degree engineering education – do I invest in learning for its own sake and get a math/physics PhD, or do I run off and make middle class income running someone else’s software with just a bachelors or masters? For the master’s option, usually the determining factors were “how is the job market on my graduation date” and “how much does a masters add to net career salary minus education cost, and when is the projected breakeven point?”
My point is, I’m surprised that the scientists would allow engineers to have an academy. We dumbly work at converting elegant learning into ugly practical products and ask childish questions like “so what?”.
My favorite story regarding the difference between engineering and scientific mind sets.
Scenario: Long corridor, scientist at one end, engineer at the other. Beautiful lady at the exact midpoint.
Rules. A bell will ring once every 5 minutes. Each time the bell rings, both the scientist and engineer can move exactly half way to the woman.
The bell rings once, the engineer moves, the scientist doesn’t.
The bell rings again, same things happen.
After the bell rings for the third time, the engineer calls out to the scientist, “Why aren’t you moving?”
The scientist responds. According to the rules, we can only move half way to the woman, as a result, we can never actually reach her.
To which the engineer responds. That is technically true. However, at some point we will be close enough that the difference no longer matters.
Actual practicing professional engineers typically belong to engineering associations in their specific fields — mechanical, electrical, civil, chemical, industrial, heating/refrigeration/air conditioning, etc. While many of these organizations have boards dominated by academics (i.e. Ph.Ds who teach rather than actually practice), the rank and file members tend to more circumspect. I think the fact that making a claim in an engineering project not backed up by clear empirical evidence can result in disciplinary action including revocation of license would make most engineers avoid the climate cult.
None of my engineer colleagues whom I’ve talked to about the subject over the last few decades have held alarmist views.
After 30 years, I’d noticed there were PE’s. I had not noticed there was a National Academy of Engineering. What does it do?
Also Re “None of my engineer colleagues whom I’ve talked to about the subject over the last few decades have held alarmist views.”, same here. That’s another reason I’d expect them to have been excluded from the National-Academy-making business.
No idea. Was a member of NSPE, ASME, ASHRAE and ASCE. Mostly for access to their standards and magazines at member prices. NES appears to be mostly place for politically connected to gather government largesse.
The list of members of the NASEM review panel is entirely climate change activists with deep involvement in the scam. There are no credentialed engineers, no qualified statisticians, no uninvolved objective meteorologists, physicists, geologists or astrophysicists.
Not one of the panel members could possibly agree with the conclusions of the DOE report without be kicked out of the club, losing their job and/or funding and being accused of selling out to big oil. The entire exercise was nothing more that pitifully transparent joke.
St. Greta of Thunberg: Update
Greta Thunberg and the members of her freedom flotilla have been blasted by Abba on repeat after radios on board the vessels were hijacked.
The Global Sumud Flotilla (GSF), which believes the incident to be the work of an Israeli attack, were subjected to hours of relentless playing of ‘Lay All Your Love On Me’ by the Swedish pop band
https://www.gbnews.com/news/world/greta-thunberg-flotilla-hijacked-radios-blast-abba-gaza
There’s nothing like a bit of Eurovision!
Now that sounds like genocide. The Israelis are trying to get everyone on the boat to commit suicide.
“Take a chance on me” or “Why did it have to be me”?
They are technologically ignorant. Getting every frequency on the radio to receive the same transmission…. well, they believe they can open a humanitarian corridor that ends on a beach with not docks or cranes or anything useful (including fuel for the ships).
It happened before in 2010 with much of the same propaganda.
Saw a sign supporting the topical “blockade runners” in Portland yesterday. Someone in an expensive city left their tree-wrapped enclave to hang a painted bedsheet to support a faraway cause that MUST be more crucial than helping the dozens of homeless drug addicts they had to step over to hang their sheet.
I understand the desire to help people, but you don’t have to look 10 thousand miles away to find someone that could use a hand.
With far away causes, you don’t have to worry about getting your hands dirty. You can spend a few hours expressing your outrage, then get on with your life.
The sign says the NAS was incorporated in 1863. This status provides certain legal protections and benefits, such as limited liability for the owners regarding the company’s debts and obligations.
Who are the owners? Because they have limited liability, the recourse is laughter and sarcasm.
DuckDuckGo’s “Search Assist” offers several journals the publish things such as NAS’s work: McSweeney’s Internet Tendency, The American Bystander, and The Hard Times. {I am not familiar with this literature.}
All of these professional organizations’ leaderships were taken over by Marxists, while all the professional people they represent were too busy to become involved in the management of the organizations. Might be a good idea for industry to allow service on a professional board to be paid at the salary the individual would make in industry for a short period of time, like a year or two. In the long run, it would benefit everyone to keep these boards in the hands of real productive professionals rather than ideologues.
Philosophically, nothing in science is ever beyond dispute. Practically, a lot of things in science are beyond dispute. Plate tectonic theory, general relativity, evolutionary theory, the germ theory of disease, all of these things are beyond dispute for all practical purposes. The weight of evidence in their favor is simply too great that anything less than a complete overturning of the entire existing body of scientific knowledge about the known universe is going to substantively challenge them.
That doesn’t mean you aren’t allowed to question those ideas, it means you shouldn’t give a lot of weight to the people insisting that they’ve singlehandedly refuted them.
The relationship between CO2 and global climate is not one of those theories.
It certainly is one of those theories. Overturning this idea would entail abandoning most of modern physics.
Your idea of the physics is nothing like the science. Increasing CO2 creates a small forcing but the system is sufficiently complex and chaotic that this forcing need have no measurable ebffect.
Forcing (and forcing function) is an abused word, hijacked by the climate syndicate, redefined and repurposed.
That tiny “forcing” is actually a bogus theoretical calculation, based on dodgy radiative effects only, so totally irrelevant in the Earth’s atmosphere.
You’re making kind of a murky generalization. Doubling CO2 produces a forcing of 3.7 W/m^2. All else being equal, this would drive a warming of the climate of about 1 degree. This is derived from first principles and is uncontroversial. Overturning this simple derivation would indeed require supplanting most of modern physics.
Yes but that is an abstraction not a prediction, like how far you can throw a feather in a vacuum. All else is far from equal. For example a small change in clouds could easily nullify the forcing.
Given that the system is chaotic there must be a strong nonlinear negative feedback as that is the necessary condition for nonlinear dynamics. Chaos is a powerful form of stability the price of which is unpredictable oscillation. The models largely ignore this making the chaos far too small and adding conjectured positive feedbacks.
CO2 sensitivity is not a prediction.
I’m not offering predictions, I’m saying that your assessment is vague. You say “CO2 has a small forcing.” It has a known forcing that arises from fundamental physics. The forcing is large enough to be visible above natural variation. The forcing is enough to cause exactly the projected climate changes.
Of course this forcing “need have no measurable effect.” Nor does natural selection need have a measurable effect on speciation, nor does mantle convection need have a measurable effect on tectonic plate motion. These aren’t arguments.
“Doubling CO2 produces a forcing of 3.7 W/m^2.”
NO, it doesn’t. !
That is a fallacy based on scientific misunderstanding of atmospheric and molecular activity.
As you say, all else is never equal, out here in the real world, negative feedbacks are dominant, so the actual forcing works out closer to 0.2 to 0.3C.
The statement was that CO2 controls climate. Showing that a doubling of CO2 is going to result in a small amount of warming does not show that CO2 controls the climate. In fact it shows just the opposite. That CO2 is a tiny, bit player in the climate drama.
It really is sad when your proof actually ends up disproving your case.
Imagination is a wonderful thing, it truly is.
The statement was that CO2 provides significant climate forcing, enough to drive large scale global climate change. This is proven beyond question by fundamental physics of the climate.
Facts are facts, even if they are different from what your handlers tell you to believe.
That was not the statement that I made, the one you responded to.
Ah, there’s the rub! What is important is the net effect from all the inter-related feedback loops. You need to examine your unexamined assumptions.
What works at 100% concentration does not work at 0.04’ish concentration.
Overturning this ides would entail EMBRACING all of modern physics.
Fascinating, a theory with absolutely no evidence in support of it and massive amounts against is one of those theories that nobody should question?
Do you make a habit of making delusional statements, or does WUWT just bring out the stupid in you?
Wish I was allowed to say that. 🙂
Well he’s not limited so I don’t see them. I also have never seem him berating people with the obviously stupid statement the way I seen you.
“obviously stupid statement “
You mean facts you don’t like ??
How leftist of you. !!
Block him. Oh, sorry. That would interfere with site monetization…
Fascinating how climate alarmists actually believe that everyone who disagrees with them is in it for the money. When in fact the big money goes to the alarmists.
You should try responding to things I’ve actually said instead of words you’ve put in my mouth, thanks.
The words you actually said were even dumber.
The two main pillars of “modern physics” are General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM).
NB : These two theories are mathematically incompatible. The search for a “Quantum Theory of Gravity” has been ongoing since (at least ?) the 1950s, without success so far.
In QM the theoretical value of the “fine structure constant” has been experimentally verified to 10 or 11 decimal places.
All experimental tests of GR to date have given an “appears to be correct … not (yet) disproven” result, though these are often limited to around “only” 4 or 5 decimal places due to the distances involved ranging from 8 light-minutes (light deflection by the sun, the precession of Mercury) to billions of light-years (black-hole collisions detected by LIGO, the latest red-shift observations by the JWST).
.
IPCC AR6 WG-I assessment report, Box SPM.1.2 on page 12 (part of “Box SPM.1 : Scenarios, Climate Models and Projections”) :
As the IPCC reminds us in section 1.5.4, “Modelling techniques, comparisons and performance assessments”, on page 221 :
When it comes to checking just how “accurate” the climate models are you don’t need to look further than Figure 7.19, “Global mean temperature anomaly in models and observations from 5 time periods”, on page 1009 :
.
Attempting to make people infer that the level of support from actual empirical data / experimental measurements for “the relationship between CO2 and global climate” is anywhere near that of GR, plate tectonics, evolution or the germ theory is ludicrous.
.
PS : See also …
So I’m sure you advocate abandoning both theories entirely and ignoring any knowledge gained from either.
Modeled ECS is not the only measure of the strength of the theory, or even of the skill of climate models in representing the system. Your argument is quite muddle-headed.
Speaking of being muddleheaded, here comes AJ he is either incapable or unwilling to understand what others have said.
Pointing out that two theories are currently incompatible is not evidence that they both must be abandoned, not is it evidence that one of them may be wrong.
For example, Einstein’s general theory of relativity may have replaced F = MA, but it didn’t “overthrow it”. The reason for that is F=MA works perfectly fine in the world where we live, with non-relativistic masses and speeds.
GR works fine in the world of the large and QM works fine in the world of the really small. GR does not work in the world of the small and QM breaks down when trying to describe the world of the large.
Scientists in both camps are working on their respective theories trying to make each work in both realms. So far neither has been successful.
It’s still possible that both theories are correct, just different forms of the same larger theory. Just like F=MA is a form of GR, just specialized for the world of the large and slow.
You “woke again” worshippers in the Church of Warming obviously accept anything your climate oracle, computer models, prophesize that shows you have no knowledge of simple mathematics and certainly not partial differential equations.
The relationship between CO2 and “global warming” isn’t a theory. It isn’t even an hypothesis. It is merely a supposition, if even that.
It barely qualifies as conjecture.
It’s conjecture based on model constructs.
Nothing more.
Even worse, those model constructs have basically no relation to what actually happens the Earth’s atmosphere. !
It is a pre-ordained conclusion the pseudo science works desperately to prove.
Philosophically, nothing in science is ever beyond dispute.
Too many time you have espouse “settled science.”
BS alarm is sounding with high decibel levels.
Nothing in science is beyond dispute. Dogma is another matter.
Then why do physicists continue to test relativity, after more than a hundred years, if it is “practically” beyond dispute?
Finally someone had the balls and the platform to tell the Western world they were naked. I believe this will have a definite impact no matter how hard the Marxists try to minimize it.
Why do “we” (not me) keep calling them left wing, as if they have some nicey nicey beliefs. They’re frauds, parasites, phony witch doctors.
Michael Mann is in this bogus Academy, which says it all ….
Lots of good people are members. The members are not the problem that is the management. NAS President McNutt is a leading alarmist.
Management usually comprises people who can’t actually do the work.
So they have the time to write this nonsense.
Is this the same NAS that inducted Michael E Mann into its academy last year?
I only ask, to gain some sort of perspective on just how out of sync with the principles of science they are.
You can pretty much write off all of the papers issued by any major US association if they discuss a topic that the Left has a vested interest in. Look at the AMA and their total refusal to even allow meaningful trials by physicians of Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin for the treatment of Covid. Also their refusal to address the dangers of sex changing hormone treatments given to children too young to make rational choices is abhorrent I did not hear any Pediatric or Psychiatric .association denouncing this practice either.
Very nice. I see no reason to keep these organizations. Get rid of them. If we determine that there is a need for some form of them we would be better off creating an outfit specifically intended for that need. The take away here is that these guys are distracting us from the main issue. Can added CO2 cause catastrophic global warming? The answer is no they know the answer is no but are unwilling to debate it as long as the idea can be used to gain more power and control. Get rid of them.
Agreed with a refinement. This should have been done with the EPA and many others. The end game definition. Short lived with a specific goal to achieve and clear metrics that define when the end has arrived. Then disbanded.
Too many transition to self-perpetuating bureaucracies that create make work and fake issues to justify their existence.
If you tell me I’ll be fired as soon as I start the lawnmower, I’ll never start the lawnmower.
You missed the point. There needs to be an exit strategy defined and that can be a pre-defined time period as well as demonstrated progress.
I got the point. “Exit strategy” implies the job ends. Nope.
Horse paste…lol
“the evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused GHGs is BEYOND SCIENTIFIC DISPUTE”
This is probably one of the most idiotic sentences ever written !
Firstly, there is no “current” harm from any release of CO2. The use of fossil fuels has increased the human life span , probably even doubled it. The whole of modern civilisation exists because of fossil fuels.
Secondly.. the future? A real Nostra-dumbass moment.
This coming from a so called “Science Academy” really make you wonder about the sanity and IQ of those producing such a garbage statement.
Science by consensus? Adding CO2 to air doesn’t make it hotter, delusional committee dreams notwithstanding.
“Second a belief cannot be beyond dispute if it is disputed”
nailed it!
Nothing is beyond scientific dispute. More than a hundred years since Einstein proposed his theory of relativity, scientists are still testing it. More commonly, paradigms reign for several decades, and then improvements are made that pulls the rug out from under what seemed like an idea that was beyond scientific dispute, as plate tectonics replaced the geosynclinal theory.