National Academy of Sciences were asked to answer the following questions.

1. To identify the principal premises on which our current understanding of the question [of the climate effects of CO2] is based,

2. To assess quantitatively the adequacy and uncertainty of our knowledge of these factors and processes, and

3. To summarize in concise and objective terms our best present understanding of the carbon dioxide/climate issue for the benefit of policymakers.

Instead of answering the questions, they came up with a question within this statement.

Quote:

A complete assessment of all the issues will be a long and difficult task. It seemed feasible, however, to start with a single basic question:  If we were indeed certain that atmospheric carbon dioxide would increase on a known schedule, how well could we project the climatic consequences?

Comment from Willis Eschenbach

Quote:

Oooookaaaay … I guess that’s now the modern post-normal science method. First, you assume that there will be “climatic consequences” from increasing CO2. Then you see if you can “project the consequences”.

Not even NAS can answer the unanswerable. You cant make BS into gold, you cant make a lie into the truth (without more lying, but will be short term).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/07/under-the-radar-the-nas-report

This coming from a so called nation academy of science. Oh my, what has science turned in to. Pseudo me thinks.

Progressives lol is a speed chess genius no doubt!
I bet he even has the jew-fro to prove it!

...................................................NOT!!

  :D :D  ::)

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 9^th, 2012 at 6:24pm:

National Academy of Sciences were asked to answer the following questions. 1. To identify the principal premises on which our current understanding of the question [of the climate effects of CO2] is based, 2. To assess quantitatively the adequacy and uncertainty of our knowledge of these factors and processes, and 3. To summarize in concise and objective terms our best present understanding of the carbon dioxide/climate issue for the benefit of policymakers. Instead of answering the questions, they came up with a question within this statement. Quote: A complete assessment of all the issues will be a long and difficult task. It seemed feasible, however, to start with a single basic question:  If we were indeed certain that atmospheric carbon dioxide would increase on a known schedule, how well could we project the climatic consequences? Comment from Willis Eschenbach [quote] Oooookaaaay … I guess that’s now the modern post-normal science method. First, you assume that there will be “climatic consequences” from increasing CO2. Then you see if you can “project the consequences”.

Not even NAS can answer the unanswerable. You cant make BS into gold, you cant make a lie into the truth (without more lying, but will be short term).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/07/under-the-radar-the-nas-report

This coming from a so called nation academy of science. Oh my, what has science turned in to. Pseudo me thinks.[/quote]

I think there is psuedoscience in your link,not even a cite or any references for his claim i guess he just expects people to have faith.

Do you have a link to back up these claims?

I had a look at the National Academy of Sciences website it appears they have about 970 documents on climate so which document should we be looking at?

Could it be this one?
http://dels.nas.edu/Report/America-Climate-Choices-2011/12781

Another lame-ass thread based on BS from the deniers.

When will it end.  ::)

Destined to fail even under the weakest analysis.

pause button politics, lol!