National Academy of Sciences: A bunch of fakes!!!

[skookerasbil]

Know how the AGW crowd always throws out the NAS ( National Academy of Sciences ) as being the organization that provides definitive proof of global warming??!!!!

Turns out........and this was a shocker to me.........only 5 of the 23 scientists involved in crafting the position paper in 2012 had a Phd!!!







Talk about a WTF moment s0ns??!!!!


By comparison, the National Meteorological Society members.........almost universally skeptics, have a far, far higher percentage of Phd level scientists in their group that publishes!!!


So.....next time the AGW crowd talks about "real scientists", try not to poop your pants from laughing too hard!!!

Shock Poll Meteorologists Are Global Warming Skeptics - Forbes

 

[bodecea]

I think it's typical for someone from the Right to be against science and what it stands for.

 

[TheOldSchool]

 

[Billy_Bob]

I just posted this in the other thread but its apportiate here too...

"In contrast to the AMS survey, where all respondents are AMS meteorologists, a majority have Ph.D.s and fully 80% have a Ph.D. or Masters Degree, position statements by organizational bureaucracies carry little scientific weight. For example, a position statement recently published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and frequently cited as the “definitive” indication of scientific consensus on global warming was authored by a mere 23 persons. Of those 23 persons, only five had Ph.D.s in a field closely related to climate science, an equal number (5) were staffers for environmental activist groups, two were politicians, one was the EPA general counsel under the Clinton administration and 19 of the 23 had already spoken out on behalf of global warming alarmism prior to being chosen for the panel. Clearly the scientific weight of the NAS statement pales in comparison to the AMS meteorologist survey."


OUCH!!!

NAS is Pal Review for the AGW faithful and the EPA...

Source

 

[skookerasbil]

I think it's typical for someone from the Right to be against science and what it stands for.

WTF s0n.............62,000 posts!!! Whats up with that?


Nobody cares bout the opinions of people with pronounced OCD issues..........not even sure they have a category of "hyper-partisan" for folks like that!!

 

[skookerasbil]

I just posted this in the other thread but its apportiate here too...

"In contrast to the AMS survey, where all respondents are AMS meteorologists, a majority have Ph.D.s and fully 80% have a Ph.D. or Masters Degree, position statements by organizational bureaucracies carry little scientific weight. For example, a position statement recently published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and frequently cited as the “definitive” indication of scientific consensus on global warming was authored by a mere 23 persons. Of those 23 persons, only five had Ph.D.s in a field closely related to climate science, an equal number (5) were staffers for environmental activist groups, two were politicians, one was the EPA general counsel under the Clinton administration and 19 of the 23 had already spoken out on behalf of global warming alarmism prior to being chosen for the panel. Clearly the scientific weight of the NAS statement pales in comparison to the AMS meteorologist survey."


OUCH!!!

NAS is Pal Review for the AGW faithful and the EPA...

Source

Dang Billy..........missed that. Didn't mean to jack your thread. Brilliant find my friend!!!

Fuggers are a bunch of phonies.

 

[ScienceRocks]

North Korea and Haiti is also against science. You republicans suck.

 

[Porker]

I think it's typical for someone from the Right to be against science and what it stands for.

Even the expert conservative scientists are against shit that's made up in the name of science just to make some quick money. Of course you ignorant liberal bastards will believe anything algore tells you.

 

[ScienceRocks]

We wouldn't be a super power if it wasn't for them. Do I agree with everything they push? fuck no. This is a loser.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think it's typical for someone from the Right to be against science and what it stands for.

Even the expert conservative scientists are against shit that's made up in the name of science just to make some quick money. Of course you ignorant liberal bastards will believe anything algore tells you.

Who is making things up? Maybe we don't understand the entire system as of yet but to be against science? That is like siding with the ISIS it is so stupid.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think it's typical for someone from the Right to be against science and what it stands for.

WTF s0n.............62,000 posts!!! Whats up with that?


Nobody cares bout the opinions of people with pronounced OCD issues..........not even sure they have a category of "hyper-partisan" for folks like that!!

And you sure as fuck don't have any room to talk you hyper-partisan hick. Now go back to your horse you amish fuck.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think it is ok to disagree with global warming through using real science to dispute it, but to shit on all science and ask for the destruction of our entire scientific infrastructure? That is a no go.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I think it is ok to disagree with global warming through using real science to dispute it, but to shit on all science and ask for the destruction of our entire scientific infrastructure? That is a no go.

You've posted real science somewhere?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I think it's typical for someone from the Right to be against science and what it stands for.

Even the expert conservative scientists are against shit that's made up in the name of science just to make some quick money. Of course you ignorant liberal bastards will believe anything algore tells you.

Who is making things up? Maybe we don't understand the entire system as of yet but to be against science? That is like siding with the ISIS it is so stupid.

Obama and the left cant even define RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM... how the fuck are you morons going to fight it if YOU cant define it?

 

[Old Rocks]

I find that when I read an article like that, no matter whose side it is taking, go to the source. And here is the source;

http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cw...02-AMS-Member-Survey-Preliminary-Findings.pdf

So, what did the paper state?

Is global warming happening?

89% yes

Is it caused by human activity?

59% yes, 11% combination of human and nature, 23% believed not enough informatin to determine the degree of human or natural causation.

Will it be harmful?

38% very harmful
38% somewhat harmful
12% harms and benefits about equal
2.4 % beneficial

Are you worried about the affects of climate change?

30% very worried
42% somewhat worried
28% not worried

Should the AMS take a role in educating the public and policy makers on this issue?

Yes, public, 82%
Yes, policy makers 85%

The link takes you to the original article. Read it for yourself. Looks to me like the author of the article in Forbes took considerable liberties with the truth concerning what this article stated.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"A recent survey of American Meteorological Society members shows meteorologists are skeptical that humans are causing a global warming crisis. The survey confirms what many scientists have been reporting for years; the politically focused bureaucratic leadership of many science organizations is severely out of touch with the scientists themselves regarding global warming issues.

According to American Meteorological Society (AMS) data, 89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming."

Old Crock misses the facts and promotes conjecture...

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think it is ok to disagree with global warming through using real science to dispute it, but to shit on all science and ask for the destruction of our entire scientific infrastructure? That is a no go.

You've posted real science somewhere?

Lot more then a scum bag like you. Anyone that fights to break our science institutions is nothing short of a traitor.

 

[Old Rocks]

"A recent survey of American Meteorological Society members shows meteorologists are skeptical that humans are causing a global warming crisis. The survey confirms what many scientists have been reporting for years; the politically focused bureaucratic leadership of many science organizations is severely out of touch with the scientists themselves regarding global warming issues.

According to American Meteorological Society (AMS) data, 89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming."

Old Crock misses the facts and promotes conjecture...

30% very worried, 42% somewhat worried.

Nice way to lie, asshole. You never bother to post your sources. I posted mine, and you did exactly what the Forbes author did, told a lie by not telling the whole truth.

 

[orogenicman]

Know how the AGW crowd always throws out the NAS ( National Academy of Sciences ) as being the organization that provides definitive proof of global warming??!!!!

Turns out........and this was a shocker to me.........only 5 of the 23 scientists involved in crafting the position paper in 2012 had a Phd!!!







Talk about a WTF moment s0ns??!!!!


By comparison, the National Meteorological Society members.........almost universally skeptics, have a far, far higher percentage of Phd level scientists in their group that publishes!!!


So.....next time the AGW crowd talks about "real scientists", try not to poop your pants from laughing too hard!!!

Shock Poll Meteorologists Are Global Warming Skeptics - Forbes

So what you are saying is that the local weather man trumps PhDs in climate science? Bhwahaahahahahahaha! You really have drowned in the kool aid, bubba.

 

[Old Rocks]

What he seems to be saying is that the NAS policy board should consist of Phd climate scientists to the exclusion of all the other science disciplines. A very strange position.