The DittoTards don't care what the National Academy of Science says because they are stupid enough to believe their MessiahRushie's
lies about the NAoS. And he has to Lie about the NAoS. Of course he knows he can get away with lying about the NAoS because he knows CON$ are too lazy to search out the truth for themselves.
Here is an example from the Romney rant this thread references. When the caller who asked Romney the global warming question got past LimpTard's
call screener to give the pathological liar
the context for the Romney question, Stuttering LimpTard
first interrupts him to call it a hoax and when the caller tries to get him to back up his hoax claim LimpTard
cuts him off the air in mid sentence and lies about the NAoS.
June 8, 2011
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Mike in Hanover, New Hampshire. Welcome, sir, to the EIB Network. Great to have you here.
CALLER: Thank you, Mr. Limbaugh.
RUSH: Hi.
CALLER: I was actually quoted by you yesterday. I was the person who asked Mr. Romney at the town hall meeting about his position on global warming. And you, unlike almost everybody else, actually did me the courtesy of quoting some of my questions before you gave the answer. Anyway, I read the transcript that you provided, I read the transcript of your show yesterday --
RUSH: Yes.
CALLER: -- and just had a few comments on it.
RUSH: Go ahead. Fire away.
CALLER: Well, sir, first of all --
RUSH: Let me first, by the way, here's his question. This is the guy who asked Mitt Romney at his announcement meeting, the question was, "Nearly all other candidates suggest that there's no scientific consensus on climate change. Some insist it's not even occurring. We can't have a meaningful discussion about solutions until there's agreement about the problem. Will you, sir, state now that under a Romney administration, global warming will be accepted as reality, and this reality will form the foundation for all climate energy policies?" That's the question and you're the guy that asked it.
CALLER: Right. Right.
RUSH: Okay.
CALLER: Prior to that question, however, I provided a bit of context. If you don't mind I'd like to read that piece, too. First of all, I wanted to specify the difference between policy and science. I said that how to deal with climate change is a policy issue; science of climate change is not. Anyway, my question was not about policy, that is, how do we mitigate global warming, do we do cap and trade or carbon credits or whatever, but it was about the recognitions of science. And I specifically quoted from a 2010 National Academy of Sciences report, and two quotes here. The first is, they concluded -- and, by the way,
the National Academy of Sciences, as you know, is considered the Supreme Court of science in this country. It was founded in 1863 by Abraham Lincoln, and it's charged with giving the Congress unbiased scientific information. Now, their conclusion was, quote, "A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems."
RUSH: Then they've lost all credibility. It's a bogus claim.
CALLER: Let me go on.
They then went on to say, "Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found wrong is vanishingly small. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities. And then I asked my question, so that's the context of the question. Your response was that there was evidence even in the last year that established this whole premise of manmade global warming is a hoax.
RUSH: Right.
CALLER: I don't know where you're getting the hoax from, sir. I mean
I'm looking at --
RUSH: It's called the University of East Anglia in England and the Hadley Centre for Climate Change Research where they basically made it all up, pure and simple. It's a hoax. There's nothing true about it.
END TRANSCRIPT
RUSH:
The National Academy of Science also vouched for Global Cooling back in the 1970s.
Now as you can see LimpTard
cut the caller off in mid sentence to spew his lie, and then after the commercial break he told one more lie without the caller to expose it, so I will now. Here is actually what the NAoS said in the 1970s!!!!!!!!!!!!
Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment
Summary and Conclusions
When it is assumed that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is doubled and statistical thermal equilibrium is achieved, the more realistic of the modeling efforts
predict a global surface warming of between 2°C and 3.5°C, with greater increases at high latitudes. This range reflects both uncertainties in physical understanding and inaccuracies arising from the need to reduce the mathematical problem to one that can be handled by even the fastest available electronic computers. It is significant, however, that none of the model calculations predicts negligible warming.
The primary effect of an increase of CO2 is to cause more absorption of thermal radiation from the earthÂ’s surface and thus to
increase the air temperature in the troposphere. A strong positive feedback mechanism is the accompanying increase of moisture, which is an even more powerful absorber of terrestrial radiation. We have examined with care all known negative feedback mechanisms, such as increase in low or middle cloud amount, and have concluded that the oversimplifications and inaccuracies in the models are not likely to have vitiated the principal conclusion that
there will be appreciable warming. The known negative feedback mechanisms can reduce the warming, but they do not appear to be so strong as the positive moisture feedback.
We estimate the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to be near 3°C with a probable error of ±1.5°C.
