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
