|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/19/2008 9:54:49 AM
|
|
|
rhippie
Posts: 576
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Rich The Hippie
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: StephK
Study says global warming not worsening hurricanes
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer 1 hour, 39 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Global warming isn't to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic, concludes a study by a prominent federal scientist whose position has shifted on the subject.
Not only that, warmer temperatures will actually reduce the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic and those making landfall, research meteorologist Tom Knutson reported in a study released Sunday.
Well there you go again StephK. How could you be so bold as to post something written by a research meteorologist on the subject of GW! I mean, for Pete's sake, this guy might actually know what he's talkin' about!!!
_____________________________
Stand up for what's right....even if you're standing alone
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/19/2008 10:01:58 AM
|
|
|
StephK
Posts: 1799
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Southwest Louisiana
Status: offline
|
I know, that poor meteorologist even had to change his position on the matter. He's obviously an objective scientist.
_____________________________
Stephanie
Religion has accepted the monstrous heresy that noise, size, activity and bluster make a man dear to God. To a people caught in the tempest God says, `Be still, and know that I am God.' ~AW Tozer
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/19/2008 10:04:01 AM
|
|
|
freakofnature
Posts: 739
Joined: 1/17/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Apology not accepted.
Ha...lol...Okay.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/19/2008 10:05:26 AM
|
|
|
rhippie
Posts: 576
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Rich The Hippie
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lizahana
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
I'm just pointing out that, just because someone does not believe man made global warming is a reality does not mean that he does not want to "curb pollutants" or "recycle."
I do think that we should take care of the environment and I do not take a position on whether or not man made global warming is a reality. However, when I see people who take a more liberal position on the subject matter act as though they are more concerned about the environment than those who take a more conservative position, and when I see people like 1dblthnk02 making silly stereotypical statements like "Conservative websites disagree with Al Gore; therefore, they need not deal with the scientific merits of global warming. Instead they seek only to discredit Al Gore" and when I see them constantly being unfair to conservatives, I find it very hard to take the liberal position seriously. I know conservatives who also think that mainstream sources have no clue about whether or not man made global warming is a reality and they recycle, they teach their children to always recycle and save energy because it's good for the environment, etc... Conservatives do think they should take care of the environment just as well as liberals, so please don't act as if you are somehow more concerned about the environment than conservatives. When I see this kind of unfair attitude, it makes it more difficult for me to take the liberal position seriously. I want to be fair to the liberal position, but I also expect those who take a more liberal position to be fair to the conservative position as well. Otherwise, it will only make it more difficult for me to take the liberal position seriously.
Bettawrekonize,
Um, because our government depends on them:
Now, if you don't think the NAS is important - good for you - our government certainly does. I disagree with you and have good reasons to do so.
Why is our government so reliable when it agrees with our position but is totally unreliable when it doesn't? As an example the NAS supports GW therefore it is an acceptable source but the folks that oppose abortion/Iraq/tax cuts (or any other position) are not acceptable because we disagree with them?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lizahana
BTW, curbing pollutants, car emmissions, IMHO, will help prevent global warming - but you may not believe that - but as long as you agree that it needs to be done, I have no quarrel with that. And, I have some conservative friends that also take steps to take care of the environment. However, not many, but some; my other conservative friends make it blatantly clear that they do not recycle, try to curb using their big gas guzzlers.
Peace and God bless,
And how many of your liberal friends don't recycle, don't curb their gas guzzlers or do anything else to take care of the environment? Or is it just your conservative friends?
_____________________________
Stand up for what's right....even if you're standing alone
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/19/2008 10:09:53 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
We've seen a lot of people's conclusions on what the data means but no one has put forward the answers that would convince me AS A SCIENTIST that their conclusions are valid.
. . . On either side of the issue? C'mon-- it doesn't take a genius to at least weigh in on the likelihood of one or the other based on a preponderance of the evidence.
quote:
I'm not star-struck by a bunch of Hollywood celebrities and Al Gore with a bunch of scientists that don't know how to put forth scientific data in a web-site.
Nothing like fact-barren ad hominem to bolster your reputation as a scientist . . .
I am not star-struck, either.
And, no, I am not a scientist. I'm also not a computer programmer, yet by some inexplicable miracle I am able to understand and utilize my pc.
How do you account for that?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/19/2008 10:19:05 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
How could you be so bold as to post something written by a research meteorologist on the subject of GW!
No, the subject wasn't global warming per se, but rather whether or not greenhouse gases are increasing hurricane activity.
quote:
I mean, for Pete's sake, this guy might actually know what he's talkin' about!!!
Too bad you didn't actually read the article's comment by someone who knew what they were talking about when they said, "I think global warming is a big concern, but when it comes to hurricanes the evidence for changes is pretty darn tiny."
While I find this article very interesting, it still does not explain the very real increase in hurricane activity in the North Atlantic over the last century, especially the last fifteen-or-so years.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/19/2008 10:33:04 AM
|
|
|
StephK
Posts: 1799
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Southwest Louisiana
Status: offline
|
Part of the increase in activity could be due to satellite detection of the fish storms. You know those storms that form and never hit land.
_____________________________
Stephanie
Religion has accepted the monstrous heresy that noise, size, activity and bluster make a man dear to God. To a people caught in the tempest God says, `Be still, and know that I am God.' ~AW Tozer
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/19/2008 12:50:35 PM
|
|
|
radiorobert
Posts: 35
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
While I find this article very interesting, it still does not explain the very real increase in hurricane activity in the North Atlantic over the last century, especially the last fifteen-or-so years.
You see, this is the crux of the issue that I can't get my mind wrapped around when it comes to the wacko environmentalists.
It's as if you guys 'know' what the right type of weather is.
There is NO perfect weather. Period.
There seems to be this paradox of contradiction when it comes to the GW position. On one hand you seem to want to protect nature from us. While, at the same time, you have a problem with how nature is acting and want to protect us from nature. So, if nature is doing this naturally, you're still against it b/c you want to control the weather, while at the same time leaving it alone. It makes no sense!
You are not entitled to a certain type of weather pattern!! 
That is pure evidence of man wanting to control nature. Wanting to be GOD!!!
Bottom line, global warming is NATURAL. There's nothing we can do about it. Whether it gets colder or hotter.
There is no PERFECT climate!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/19/2008 6:15:29 PM
|
|
|
rhippie
Posts: 576
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Rich The Hippie
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
How could you be so bold as to post something written by a research meteorologist on the subject of GW!
No, the subject wasn't global warming per se, but rather whether or not greenhouse gases are increasing hurricane activity.
I guess my problem is that I don't understand the written word as well as you do. The very first sentence in the article says "Global warming isn't to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic, concludes a study by a prominent federal scientist whose position has shifted on the subject.
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
I mean, for Pete's sake, this guy might actually know what he's talkin' about!!!
Too bad you didn't actually read the article's comment by someone who knew what they were talking about when they said, "I think global warming is a big concern, but when it comes to hurricanes the evidence for changes is pretty darn tiny."
And it is sad that you did not read the article when it said "Another group of experts, those who study hurricanes and who are more often skeptical about global warming, say there is no link. They attribute the recent increase to a natural multi-decade cycle.
What makes this study different is Knutson, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's fluid dynamics lab in Princeton, N.J."
But then I guess the folks that work for NOAA don't know anything either since they seem to disagree with your position concerning the effect of GW on hurricanes. Oh btw these are the same guys that believe GW is impacting the climate negatively; they just don't think that the increase in hurricanes is one of the results of this change.
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
While I find this article very interesting, it still does not explain the very real increase in hurricane activity in the North Atlantic over the last century, especially the last fifteen-or-so years.
_____________________________
Stand up for what's right....even if you're standing alone
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/19/2008 8:23:12 PM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2010
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
We've seen a lot of people's conclusions on what the data means but no one has put forward the answers that would convince me AS A SCIENTIST that their conclusions are valid.
. . . On either side of the issue? C'mon-- it doesn't take a genius to at least weigh in on the likelihood of one or the other based on a preponderance of the evidence.
Preponderance! 150 years of reliable data compared to 4.5 billion years of INFERENTIAL (aka, SUBJECTIVE) analysis. When you are measuring in ppm my friend your methods better be pretty darn accurate!
_____________________________
Three Nails to protect us!
And Justice for all!
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/20/2008 7:19:12 AM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 982
Joined: 4/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'm just pointing out that, just because someone does not believe man made global warming is a reality does not mean that he does not want to "curb pollutants" or "recycle."
quote:
I do think that we should take care of the environment and I do not take a position on whether or not man made global warming is a reality. However, when I see people who take a more liberal position on the subject matter act as though they are more concerned about the environment than those who take a more conservative position, and when I see people like 1dblthnk02 making silly stereotypical statements like "Conservative websites disagree with Al Gore; therefore, they need not deal with the scientific merits of global warming. Instead they seek only to discredit Al Gore" and when I see them constantly being unfair to conservatives, I find it very hard to take the liberal position seriously. I know conservatives who also think that mainstream sources have no clue about whether or not man made global warming is a reality and they recycle, they teach their children to always recycle and save energy because it's good for the environment, etc... Conservatives do think they should take care of the environment just as well as liberals, so please don't act as if you are somehow more concerned about the environment than conservatives. When I see this kind of unfair attitude, it makes it more difficult for me to take the liberal position seriously. I want to be fair to the liberal position, but I also expect those who take a more liberal position to be fair to the conservative position as well. Otherwise, it will only make it more difficult for me to take the liberal position seriously.
quote:
Bettawrekonize,
Um, because our government depends on them:
Now, if you don't think the NAS is important - good for you - our government certainly does. I disagree with you and have good reasons to do so.
quote:
Why is our government so reliable when it agrees with our position but is totally unreliable when it doesn't? As an example the NAS supports GW therefore it is an acceptable source but the folks that oppose abortion/Iraq/tax cuts (or any other position) are not acceptable because we disagree with them?
Well, I'm pro-life and I don't support the Iraq war because, again, I'm pro-life; and I like my tax cuts. I'm not sure why you're bringing this up since this is not what the thread is about. Do the issues like abortion, war, tax cuts have an advisory board, rhippie? I have not heard of one.
The NAS is precisely that for our government - an advisory board for the president, congress. And, the NAS reflects what the NOAA, the EPA, NASA, the IPCC, governments across the glob etc are all saying - that a significant part of global warming is human-caused.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lizahana
BTW, curbing pollutants, car emmissions, IMHO, will help prevent global warming - but you may not believe that - but as long as you agree that it needs to be done, I have no quarrel with that. And, I have some conservative friends that also take steps to take care of the environment. However, not many, but some; my other conservative friends make it blatantly clear that they do not recycle, try to curb using their big gas guzzlers.
Peace and God bless,
quote:
And how many of your liberal friends don't recycle, don't curb their gas guzzlers or do anything else to take care of the environment? Or is it just your conservative friends?
Well, you have to understand - most of my friends that are liberal, I met when I was in college obtaining my BS degree in natural resources (environmental sciences) - following that they were in 'environmental-type' classes - most (if not all) of my liberal friends are environmentalists. So, most of them are environmentally responsible (~ half already have hybrids). I mean, one could argue that you attract like-minded people, correct?
Peace and God bless,
< Message edited by Lizahana -- 5/20/2008 7:25:31 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/20/2008 8:18:17 AM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2010
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
"Global warming isn't to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic, concludes a study by a prominent federal scientist whose position has shifted on the subject.
Repeated this because you didn't bold "a prominent federal scientist" since the pro-GW crowd seems to think these people are infallible demi-gods who know everything!
But since he doesn't tow the GW party line, he must be some babbling kook! 
BTW, why did he shift his position? Because more data became available that didn't agree with his original premise (aka, assumption, hypothesis). I wonder how many other GW "facts" will be put asunder when more data becomes available. Sounds like the ozone hole crises all over again!
Sounds like people are making assumptions with too little information available. Preponderance of evidence? I think not!
< Message edited by mapachito13 -- 5/20/2008 8:27:28 AM >
_____________________________
Three Nails to protect us!
And Justice for all!
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/20/2008 9:22:20 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: StephK
Part of the increase in activity could be due to satellite detection of the fish storms. You know those storms that form and never hit land.
No, you are refering to an improvement in detection, not an actual increase in activity. So are you insinuating that scientists are not smart enough to take better detection methods into account?
quote:
ORIGINAL: radiorobert
It's as if you guys 'know' what the right type of weather is.
There is NO perfect weather. Period.
1. I am one guy, not "you guys."
2. I did not invent global warming, nor did I come up with the data that indicates it.
3. This isn't about "perfect" weather, but simply about whether or not greenhouse gases are raising the temperature of the earth-- period.
Measurable changes in the weather, including increased hurricane activity, would logically follow in a global warming scenario. The article raises the issue as to whether the recent increase in hurricane activity has anything to do with global warming, but does not deny that global warming is "a big concern."
The article also fails to account for the increase. If increased hurricane activity isn't a symptom of the greenhouse effect, then what is it a symptom of?
quote:
So, if nature is doing this naturally, you're still against it b/c you want to control the weather, while at the same time leaving it alone. It makes no sense!
No, not "control the weather," but rather try to not contribute greenhouse gases. How is this duplicitous or illogical?
quote:
Bottom line, global warming is NATURAL. There's nothing we can do about it. Whether it gets colder or hotter.
"Just ignore the problem and maybe it will go away. Even if it doesn't, it's not our fault, so who cares."
Now there is an intelligent, moral response to the situation: just ignore the facts and refuse to acknowledge our part in it.
Really good; straight out of Conservativism 101.
Global warming is likelier manmade than it is "natural." If it wasn't, then there would be no point in debating it, now would there.
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
I guess my problem is that I don't understand the written word as well as you do. The very first sentence in the article says "Global warming isn't to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic, concludes a study by a prominent federal scientist whose position has shifted on the subject.
We both read it right. The problem is that you misidentified global warming as the subject, when hurricane activity was the actual subject.
quote:
And it is sad that you did not read the article when it said "Another group of experts, those who study hurricanes and who are more often skeptical about global warming, say there is no link.
I read that. Where did you get the idea that I did not?
quote:
Oh btw these are the same guys that believe GW is impacting the climate negatively; they just don't think that the increase in hurricanes is one of the results of this change.
Hello?! I just said that.
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
Preponderance! 150 years of reliable data compared to 4.5 billion years of INFERENTIAL (aka, SUBJECTIVE) analysis. When you are measuring in ppm my friend your methods better be pretty darn accurate!
You seem to be indicating that 150 years of accurate information is less reliable than 4.5 billion years of inferential analysis. I hope I am reading you wrong . . .
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 5/20/2008 9:30:09 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/20/2008 10:05:20 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
I can only think of one global warming that matters. It will all burn up in the end!
Shall we be irresponsible in the meantime? . . .
"And in that day did the Lord GOD of hosts call to weeping, and to mourning, and to baldness, and to girding with sackcloth:
And behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen, and killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine: let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we shall die."
Isaiah 22: 13
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/20/2008 11:20:33 AM
|
|
|
davemiller7
Posts: 720
Joined: 3/5/2008
From: NC via NY
Status: offline
|
Oh, good grief!
-Dave
_____________________________
The Prayer of Protection
The light of God surrounds me,
The love of God enfolds me,
The power of God protects me,
The presence of God watches over me.
Wherever I am, God is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/20/2008 11:47:33 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
Hey, c'mon! I thought that I was pretty good getting Isaiah in there and everything . . .
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/20/2008 2:12:55 PM
|
|
|
bob97
Posts: 1775
Joined: 6/24/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.
Link
Interesting!
Bob
_____________________________
The LORD clears the road for me!
The LORD is my high ridge, my stronghold, my deliverer!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/20/2008 5:57:50 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bob97
More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.
Is this by chance the same petition as already addressed in post # 393, pg. 16 of this thread?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/20/2008 7:22:53 PM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 982
Joined: 4/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bob97
More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.
Link
Interesting!
Bob
The National Academy of Sciences dismisses this petition, called Oregon petition:
"The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.
In particular, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a major consensus study on this issue, entitled Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1991,1992). This analysis concluded that " ...even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. ... Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises." In addition, the Committee on Global Change Research of the National Research Council, the operating arm of the NAS and the NAE, will issue a major report later this spring on the research issues that can help to reduce the scientific uncertainties associated with global change phenomena, including climate change..."
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998
And in fact, this is the NAS position on global warming:
"Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that
have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (see Figure 1). Greenhouse gases, such as
carbon dioxide, have increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution, mostly from the burning of fossil
fuels for energy, industrial processes, and transportation. Carbon dioxide levels are at their highest in at least
650,000 years and continue to rise."
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf
And there is wide criticism of the Oregon petitions signatures:
"In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
“ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."
Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "It's fake," he said.[15]
”
In 2005, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[16] ”
In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[17] ..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
Peace and God bless,
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/20/2008 7:46:50 PM
|
|
|
bob97
Posts: 1775
Joined: 6/24/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
quote:
The National Academy of Sciences dismisses this petition, called Oregon petition:
I'm sure that Al Gore will dismiss it also...does that make Gore right?
Bob
_____________________________
The LORD clears the road for me!
The LORD is my high ridge, my stronghold, my deliverer!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/21/2008 7:53:15 AM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 982
Joined: 4/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bob97
quote:
The National Academy of Sciences dismisses this petition, called Oregon petition:
I'm sure that Al Gore will dismiss it also...does that make Gore right?
Bob
LOL! What is with the obsession with Al Gore?! LOL! I mean, it's almost like when people can't think of anything else to say, they bring up the 'alleged' poster boy of the push to curb global warming & this somehow adds fuel to their arguement? ... honestly, I don't know why you brought Al Gore up - I did not... 
...anyway...
The NAS is part of the Federal Advisory Committee to advise the President and Congress on matters of science, technology:
"Approved, July 14, 1870
An Act to authorize the National Academy of Sciences to receive, and hold trust funds for the promotion of science, and for other purposes
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the National Academy of Sciences, incorporated by the act of Congress approved March third, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, and its several supplements be, and the same is hereby, authorized and empowered to receive bequests and donations and hold the same in trust, to be applied by the said Academy in aid of scientific investigations and according to the will of the donors.
Approved, June 20,1884
An Act to amend the act authorizing the National Academy of Sciences to receive and hold trust funds for the promotion of science, and for other purposes."
And in 1997, there was another ACT put into law "to amend the Federal Advisory Committee Act to clarify public disclosure requirements that are applicable to the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Public Administration."
http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_incorporation
The NAS is part of the Federal Advisory Committee and has to follow guidlines under the ACT of the same name:
http://www.gsa.gov/gsa/cm_attachments/GSA_BASIC/without_annotations_R2G-b4T_0Z5RDZ-i34K-pR.pdf
"The Academy's service to government has become so essential that Congress and the White House have issued legislation and executive orders over the years that reaffirm its unique role."
http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_main_page
And again, this is the NAS position on global warming:
"Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that
have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (see Figure 1). Greenhouse gases, such as
carbon dioxide, have increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution, mostly from the burning of fossil
fuels for energy, industrial processes, and transportation. Carbon dioxide levels are at their highest in at least
650,000 years and continue to rise.
...
Human activities are changing
climate.
In May 2001, the White House asked the
National Academy of Sciences to assess our
current understanding of climate change
by answering some key questions related
to the causes of climate change, projections
of future change, and critical research
directions to improve understanding of climate
change. Climate Change Science: An
Analysis of Some Key Questions (2001)
concluded that “changes observed over the
last several decades are likely mostly due
to human activities.” Additional evidence
collected over the past several years has
increased confidence in this conclusion."
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf
Peace and God bless,
< Message edited by Lizahana -- 5/21/2008 2:00:23 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
