Home » Climate change, Global Warming » Heartland Institute on NAS Climate Report

Heartland Institute on NAS Climate Report

Your tax dollars being used against you:
—————————————

NAS Climate Report: ‘Partisan, Closed Minded’

The National Academy of Sciences Thursday reasserted its opinion that the Earth’s climate has warmed to crisis levels and that human activity – the burning of fossil fuels – is the primary cause.

In its 869-page report, the NAS, a group of American researchers that advises the U.S. government, urged Congress to adopt specific policy measures to halt the undesirable effects of global warming.

James M. Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute, finds the NAS membership is fatally comprised of global warming activists who are pursuing a political agenda and ignoring competing scientific data. Taylor was project manager for the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change that concluded a three-day meeting in Chicago May 18. The conference was attended by more than 700 climate scientists, economists, policy makers, and opinion leaders.

You may quote from this statement or contact Taylor directly at jtaylor@hear[email protected], 941-776-5690.


“What do global warming activist groups such as the World Wildlife Fund, the John Heinz III Center, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and Susanne Moser [cq] Research & Consulting, Santa Cruz, California have in common? They are all partisan and largely discredited groups that nevertheless form the core of the National Academy of Sciences panel that just released a predictably alarmist and unsubstantiated report on global warming.

“The unaffiliated scientists on the panel are no more objective or credible. Stanford University’s Pamela Matson, who chairs the panel, has for years been pushing global warming alarmism and global warming activism. Last fall she sent a letter to Congress defending the fraudsters at the heart of the Climategate scandal, claiming the emails that documented the manipulation and destruction of scientific evidence were being ‘misrepresented’ by ‘opponents of taking action on climate change.’

“Vice Chair Thomas Dietz shows even less objectivity than Matson. ‘Global warming is unequivocal, and is largely caused by human action,’ Dietz previously wrote in a magazine called The Solutions Journal. It is hard to imagine that a scientist who has publicly staked out such an inflexible position would at the same time look at competing scientific theories with objectivity and an open mind.

“When our federal government funds partisan, closed-minded reports compiled by activists representing only one side of a controversial issue, it is no wonder the federal government has lost the trust and respect of everyday citizens. Moreover, the fact that the authors of these biased reports are presenting them as justification for more federal grants and taxpayer subsidies should come as no surprise to anyone.”

James M. Taylor
Senior Fellow, Environment Policy
The Heartland Institute
[email protected]
941-776-5690

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

16 Responses to Heartland Institute on NAS Climate Report

  1. Just checking: This is the same Heartland Institute that does paid advocacy work for ExxonMobile, right? The same Heartland Institute that works closely with the tobacco industry to dispute scientific findings on the medical dangers of smoking, right?

  2. thornton: We believe in letting lots of voices be heard. Yes, there’s plenty of sin to go around. The NAS, by the way, has also formally denounced ID. You may cheer that, but to the ID community it shows that lots of bright scientists are easily bent by ideology.

  3. thornton,

    You are making a political argument over a scientific issue. Science is not a political process.

    The climategate emails can’t be misrepresented – they are what they are. Global warming alarmists are acting as politicians, not scientists. The facts regarding climate change do not support the alarmists’ position.

    Just because the Heartland Institute is a paid advocate for ExxonMobil and the tobacco companies doesn’t prove them wrong. The politicization of science only serves to us move away from facts and evidence and argue opinions.

  4. Dr. Dembski, it certainly is a pity you are forced to grab at the coattails of tin-foil-hat wearing AGW deniers in a convoluted attempt to show how ‘Big Science’ is holding back ID. The enemy of your enemy is your friend I suppose. But is it really worth flushing the remaining bit of your scientific integrity down the loo to try and score cheap points for the frankly flat-lining ID hypothesis? Wouldn’t it be better to have ID do some actual research, present some actual positive results to the mainstream scientific community? You can only yell “Conspiracy!! Oppression!!’ without evidence so many times before people stop listening.

  5. Thorton your a pretty smug guy for a person living his life engulfed in a lie.

  6. thornton: You seem to allow that I haven’t lost the last vestige of credibility. Let me help you take the final step by removing you from this forum.

  7. We believe in letting lots of voices be heard. Yes, there’s plenty of sin to go around.

    Nonetheless, when it comes to climate skepticism surely it would be better to point the microphone at, say, Steve McIntyre or Andrew Montford in preference to confirmed rogues?

  8. thornton: You seem to allow that I haven’t lost the last vestige of credibility. Let me help you take the final step by removing you from this forum.

    One of Duke Ellington’s many elegant songs goes “The song is ended but the melody lingers on”. thornton may be expelled, but the words are flying in the wind:

    Wouldn’t it be better to have ID do some actual research, present some actual positive results to the mainstream scientific community? You can only yell “Conspiracy!! Oppression!!’ without evidence so many times before people stop listening.

  9. Cabal cosigns this question:

    “Wouldn’t it be better to have ID do some actual research, present some actual positive results to the mainstream scientific community?”

    Actually Cabal what is funny, about the whole thing, is simply by you writing your post you have given positive evidence for Intelligent Design, since we have never seen purely material processes generate functional information as you just did. Are you now an ID conspirator?

    ——————

    The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel – Null Hypothesis For Information Generation – 2009
    To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis.
    http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf
    http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag

    Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design
    http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

    The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds
    Douglas Axe
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2010.1

    Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness
    Ann K Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F Fahey, Ralph Seelke
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2010.2

    What I find interesting Cabal is the hundreds, if not thousands, of peer reviewed papers that though not directly endorsing ID, certainly support the ID position:

    Here are two recent articles:

    Human genome at ten: Life is complicated
    Excerpt: Just one decade of post-genome biology has exploded that view. Biology’s new glimpse at a universe of non-coding DNA — what used to be called ‘junk’ DNA — has been fascinating and befuddling. Researchers from an international collaborative project called the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) showed that in a selected portion of the genome containing just a few per cent of protein-coding sequence, between 74% and 93% of DNA was transcribed into RNA2. Much non-coding DNA has a regulatory role; small RNAs of different varieties seem to control gene expression at the level of both DNA and RNA transcripts in ways that are still only beginning to become clear. “Just the sheer existence of these exotic regulators suggests that our understanding about the most basic things — such as how a cell turns on and off — is incredibly naive,” says Joshua Plotkin, a mathematical biologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
    http://www.nature.com/news/201.....4664a.html

    Nature Reports Discovery of “Second Genetic Code” But Misses Intelligent Design Implications – May 2010
    Excerpt: Rebutting those who claim that much of our genome is useless, the article reports that “95% of the human genome is alternatively spliced, and that changes in this process accompany many diseases.” ,,,, the complexity of this “splicing code” is mind-boggling:,,, A summary of this article also titled “Breaking the Second Genetic Code” in the print edition of Nature summarized this research thusly: “At face value, it all sounds simple: DNA makes RNA, which then makes protein. But the reality is much more complex.,,, So what we’re finding in biology are:

    # “beautiful” genetic codes that use a biochemical language;
    # Deeper layers of codes within codes showing an “expanding realm of complexity”;
    # Information processing systems that are far more complex than previously thought (and we already knew they were complex), including “the appearance of features deeper into introns than previously appreciated”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....of_se.html

    Cabal have you seen this movie that details the not so subtle hostility facing any scientists who dares question “the party line”?

    Expelled
    http://video.google.com/videop.....896741579#

  10. So the NAS is doubling down. What fun! If time proves them wrong, armageddon.

  11. bornagain77:
    Like your stuff. Keep up the good work.

    I’m glad to see others are finally getting into David Abel’s work. He is, imo, the clearest of all the ID implying scientists, though I don’t know to what extent he actually supports the ID hypothesis.

    Much of his work can be found here in case you didn’t know: http://lifeorigin.info/

  12. The NAS – National Assailants of Science.

  13. “What do global warming activist groups such as the World Wildlife Fund, the John Heinz III Center, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and Susanne Moser [cq] Research & Consulting, Santa Cruz, California have in common?”

    To quote William_Shakespeare, my reaction is summarized by Cesar:
    “For Brutus is an honorable man;
    So are they all, all honorable men”
    Dave W

  14. Thornton,

    AGW deniers actually have a lot of science to back them up. Can you explain why Mars is warming up? Is it anthropogenic too? Do the Mars rovers give off too much carbon dioxide?

  15. The computer simulations on which AGW alarmism are primarily based have been empirically falsified by the fact that they predicted the exact opposite of what has occurred during the last decade.

    Computer simulations and scientific consensus have become an ersatz sacred scripture of the religion of scientism. When the phrases “scientists say” and “computer simulations demonstrate” are uttered, everyone is expected to genuflect and acquiesce under threat of excommunication, even when the claims are transparently absurd and empirically unverified or even falsified.

  16. A bit late – but I have been unable to comment for a few days.

    <emWhat do global warming activist groups such as the World Wildlife Fund, the John Heinz III Center, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and Susanne Moser [cq] Research & Consulting, Santa Cruz, California have in common? They are all partisan and largely discredited groups that nevertheless form the core of the National Academy of Sciences panel that just released a predictably alarmist and unsubstantiated report on global warming

    Virtually every other NAS in the world agress with the US NAS. Have these discredited groups formed the core of all of them?

Leave a Reply