Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: 17th November 2017, 18:44

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The WSJ versus the NAS
#1
The WSJ versus the NAS

Nov. 3, 2017


Statement on Wall Street Journal Op-Ed on National Academies’ Review of Climate Science Special Report

An op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal questions the conclusions of a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine analysis, issued earlier this year, of a draft of the federal government’s U.S. Global Change Research Program’s Climate Science Special Report (CSSR).  The National Academies’ analysis -- authored by a committee of 11 renowned experts and subjected to the Academies’ rigorous independent external peer-review process -- is a comprehensive assessment of the draft CSSR.  The analysis provides more than 100 pages of comments on the draft CSSR with the intention of improving the accuracy of the final version of the CSSR, released by the federal government today.   The National Academies stand by their analysis.  In particular, we stand by the committee’s conclusion that the CSSR chapter on sea-level rise accurately reflects the current scientific literature.  Scientists have high confidence in recent estimates of sea-level rise, because multiple lines of corroborating evidence are available, including data from satellites, tidal gauges, and a global array of thousands of profiling floats.  Together these lines of evidence provide strong support for the conclusion that sea-level rise is accelerating because of the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, along with continued thermal expansion of ocean waters.  The committee’s analysis of the draft CSSR can be read here.

Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail [email=[email protected]][email protected][/email]



http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...40a3575f19
Reply
#2
RE: The WSJ versus the NAS
There was an extraordinary episode of Cosmos with NdGT in which he detailed the guy who finally beat the lead industry.  The same shit we are used to seeing.  They hired their own "scientist" to claim that breathing lead was good for you and trotted him out whenever someone was coughing too much!

Similar to the tactics used by the tobacco industry.  Same as the NFL and concussions/CTE.  Same as the energy companies claiming "what pollution?"

They'd gladly kill us all if it meant making another dollar.

Reply
#3
RE: The WSJ versus the NAS
Fantastically short sighted when you think about it.  If they ever managed to kill us off.....who would pay for their poisons...?

Selling a slightly -less- poisonous product is garuanteed to rake in more profit in the long term. The tobacco industry needed to transition to weed. They were already perfectly positioned -and- they had the labor force. Plus, you can charge more.

Wink
Eat em up beat em up then switch sides.


Reply
#4
RE: The WSJ versus the NAS
The biggest problem with our economy.  There is no long-term planning.  Everything is "what do the stock analysts want this quarter."

Reply
#5
RE: The WSJ versus the NAS
(6th November 2017, 21:57)Minimalist Wrote: There was an extraordinary episode of Cosmos with NdGT in which he detailed the guy who finally beat the lead industry.  The same shit we are used to seeing.  They hired their own "scientist" to claim that breathing lead was good for you and trotted him out whenever someone was coughing too much!

Similar to the tactics used by the tobacco industry.  Same as the NFL and concussions/CTE.  Same as the energy companies claiming "what pollution?"

They'd gladly kill us all if it meant making another dollar.

Ditto for Big Tobacco who, for decades, denied the association between smoking and cancer, lung cancer, in particular.  There's always some "expert" whom can be paid enough money to say anything.  Just look at ID, or the Discovery Institute.
Reply
#6
RE: The WSJ versus the NAS
(7th November 2017, 00:23)Jehanne Wrote:
(6th November 2017, 21:57)Minimalist Wrote: There was an extraordinary episode of Cosmos with NdGT in which he detailed the guy who finally beat the lead industry.  The same shit we are used to seeing.  They hired their own "scientist" to claim that breathing lead was good for you and trotted him out whenever someone was coughing too much!

Similar to the tactics used by the tobacco industry.  Same as the NFL and concussions/CTE.  Same as the energy companies claiming "what pollution?"

They'd gladly kill us all if it meant making another dollar.

Ditto for Big Tobacco who, for decades, denied the association between smoking and cancer, lung cancer, in particular.  There's always some "expert" whom can be paid enough money to say anything.  Just look at ID, or the Discovery Institute.

Big T actually had it easy, because most of the best early work on the problems of smoking and its links to lung cancer were done by Nazis, and the research was either buried for its deep unethicality, (e.g. vivisections on KZ prisoners) or because they were ideologically no longer "sound" (it was after the war after all).
You see, one thing is: I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing.
I think it's much more interesting to live not knoing than to have answers which might be wrong.
Richard Feynman
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Google Deepmind versus Thought Curvature ThoughtCurvature 3 133 5th September 2017, 05:31
Last Post: Hammy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)