National Academy of Sciences To Assess Global Warming Data
This strikes me as both sensible and necessary:
Seeking to resolve a scientific dispute that has taken on a rancorous political edge, the National Academy of Sciences said it had agreed to a request from Congress to assess how well researchers understand the history of temperatures on earth.
The study by the academy, an independent advisory body based in Washington, will focus on the “hockey stick,” a chart of past temperatures that critics say is inaccurate. The graph gets its name because of the sudden, blade-like rise of recent temperatures compared with past epochs.
Like most conservatives, I’m very, very skeptical of most claims by environmentalists, who always seem to carry a lot of left-wing, anti-capitalist baggage. However, the implications of extreme global warming are simply too important to allow political considerations to continue to color the debate. If it’s true – IF it’s true – that we are approaching a point of no return, future generations won’t be around to forgive us. We’ve got to get this one right…and the fact that Kyoto was not the answer doesn’t prove there is no problem…
Hi Mark,
John Kerry has a much, much, better chance of being elected President than the chance of the Global Warming dispute being resolved out of Washington.
Recent studies from space indicate more sunlight is being reflected back into space and away from the earths surface now than when it has been previously measured.
I am a big fan of economic modeling. Economics is not science like gravity is science, but modeling does make certain predictions. I once had a professor who claimed he could model using up to 30 different factors, but every time he applied his model, one of the factors would change, which meant that his predictions were constantly changing.
The global atmosphere seems to me to be very similar to economic modeling. We can make predictions based on our understanding of the factors, but we still don’t understand all of the factors enough. Additionally, the earth seems to have a self balancing mechanism built in. For example, as the earth heats, clouds are formed, which cools the surface. The more soot that is released in the air creates more clouds which creates more rain which cleans the air. Cold air replaces hot air at the surface and hot air is cooled as it rises.
The earth, our society, and our generation faces some real problems. One of our problems is the extreme environmentalists. Global warming should be very low on the list.
This sounds like an excellent idea.
Of course, their eventual conclusion will be fair, balanced, and inconclusive. It won’t come close to ending the political debate, but perhaps it will rein in some of the more outrageous “facts” usually cited.
Oh boy, now the federal government gets yet another chance to study what no scientist on the entire planet even questions. We clearly need the NAS to sort out a dispute between scientists and right-wing nutjobs.
I’m still waiting for the new Ice Age some of these exact same people were predicting in the 70′s based on the exact same data.
“Oh boy, now the federal government gets yet another chance to study what no scientist on the entire planet even questions. We clearly need the NAS to sort out a dispute between scientists and right-wing nutjobs. “
Or perhaps a National Academy of Psychology to study why a person smart enough to use a keyboard makes such inane statements.
“I’m still waiting for the new Ice Age some of these exact same people were predicting in the 70’s based on the exact same data.”
Yes, and let’s not forget the legions of doomsayers that told us of the coming extinction of our species due to the population “time bomb,” that was alleged to be plunging the earth into extreme hunger and poverty. Granted, there is still widespread poverty that continues to be a malevolent force in the 3rd world, but these are due to political concerns, not overpopulation per se.
“Or perhaps a National Academy of Psychology to study why a person smart enough to use a keyboard makes such inane statements.”
Another option would be to google the search terms of “Trolls, origins of…”
Ryan-
Can you give a clear, concise statement of what you believe that “no scientist on the entire planet even questions.”
First, for dmac – I’m not a troll. I just happen to not be as insanely stupid as most of my political fellow travelers on this global warming business.
For Clint – That global temperatures are rising and that both natural and human factors are necessary to explain the trend. There is no scientific debate about this. The uncertainty in the models is based on economic and demographic uncertainty about the future, not anything in the science of climate change. I know the far right likes to pretend that Joe Schmo of the Hollywood Upstairs Meterology School is the same as the world class geologists at major research universities, but can we please cut the crap?
(Snarky note: If people think George Bush has polticized science, they should see the so-called “conservatives” who got him elected.)