http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...763608402.htmlThe National Academy of Sciences, a group of elite American researchers that advises the U.S. government, on Wednesday issued an 869-page report reasserting mankind's role in altering the climate and calling for specific policy measures to help forestall undesirable effects.
The report, requested by Congress 2008, essentially supports the main findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body whose most recent report released in 2007 was criticized for containing several errors.
On the basis of a double standard sure.
IPCC uses grad students under professors in accreditation and is 'politicized' but someone having a conflict of interest by taking money from the oil lobby gets a pass. Its called cognitive dissonance and its typical of those with your disorder. You have your preset conclusions and you will get to them 'logically' any way you can.
You are a case study on abnormal psychology.
That link says that the gradient is zero. You say its trending cooler. So is the link wrong or are you wrong?
I mean if you are going to post contradictory things try not doing it in the exact same post.
So a group of scientists, selected by the democrat held congress of the time, when the democrats want to have more authoritarian control over us, is your proof?
So you are saying not to trust the National Academy of Sciences?
You guys are unbelievable.
Oh and dumbass, it was requested by Congress. They did not select the scientists.
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/21/7405.fullPNAS
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Skip to main page content
Info for Authors
Editorial Board
About
Subscribe
Advertise
Contact
Feedback
Site Map
Election to the National Academy of Sciences: Pathways to membership
Bruce Alberts , President
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Sciences, and Publisher, PNAS
Kenneth R. Fulton , Executive Director
Every spring, in late April or early May, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) elects new members. Membership in the NAS is a widely recognized sign of excellence in scientific research, but most scientists are not familiar with the process by which members are elected. This lack of information is certainly not intentional; no one gains when the elections are shrouded in mystery. However, the election's successive ballots have become more complicated over time, in part reflecting the rapid expansion of scientific fields. The complexity reflects a consensus process designed to ensure that an individual, or small group of individuals, cannot have an undue influence on the election. In this editorial, we attempt to shed some light on this poorly understood process. In addition, we describe recent efforts to make it more welcoming, especially to women and to younger scientists.
Consideration of a candidate begins with his or her nomination. Although many names are suggested informally, a formal nomination can be submitted only by an Academy member. Each nomination includes a brief curriculum vitae plus a 250-word statement of the nominee's scientific accomplishments— the basis for election—and a list of not more than 12 publications. The latter limit helps to focus on the quality of a nominee's work, rather than the number of publications. Once a nomination has been prepared, it is sent to the chair of one of the Academy's 31 discipline-based Sections, e.g., chemistry, cellular and developmental biology, or mathematics (for a complete list, see www.nas.edu/sections).
Each Section has its own procedures for identifying potential candidates and for winnowing the list through successive ballots of Section members. Some of these procedures are simple and straightforward; others are lengthy and complex, involving screening panels, caucus ballots, and other mechanisms. And variations occur when candidates are nominated by two (or more) Sections. But, as illustrated in Fig. 1, all Section procedures culminate in two mandatory ballots—named, for reasons lost in history, the “Informal” and “Formal” ballots. Successful candidates then go forward as nominees for consideration by increasingly broad segments of the membership, beginning with the six discipline-based Classes into which Sections are grouped.
Fig. 1.
View larger version:
In this window
Download as PowerPoint Slide
Fig. 1.
Flow chart of the member nomination and election process. 1, Optional, as specified by Sectional procedures; 2, subject to modification by Sectional procedures; 3, an intersectional candidate must receive at least 25% on each Section's Informal Ballot to advance to Formal Ballot and at least 50% of total Formal Ballot vote to become a Nominee; 4, Voluntary Nominating Group (VNG); 5, Temporary Nominating Group (TNG), which conducts informal and formal ballots subject to the same rules as Sections.
Candidates can also be nominated by a group of members by pe ion (a Voluntary Nominating Group or VNG) or by a special group appointed by the NAS Council to search for candidates in a specific field or set of fields (a Temporary Nominating Group or TNG). In 2003, on the recommendation of the ad hoc Committee on Nomination and Election in the 21st Century, the Council appointed six of these TNGs—one for each of the six Classes: Physical and Mathematical Sciences; Biological Sciences; Engineering and Applied Sciences; Biomedical Sciences; Behavioral and Social Sciences; and Applied Biological, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences. These TNGs were charged with identifying and nominating younger candidates, both men and women; the work of the TNGs also has stimulated the nomination of women and younger members among the Sections.
The Academy's bylaws specify the maximum number of members who can be elected annually (currently 72), and each year the NAS Council determines the number of members that can be elected from each Class. In allocating these Class quotas, the Council takes into account the current size of the Academy and the areas in which it might grow.
In early February, six Class Membership Committees—each of which is composed of representatives of all Sections in that Class—meet to discuss the relative merits of all of the nominees who have survived voting in the Sections. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the nominees of VNGs and TNGs are also placed in the mix.
The end product from each Class Membership Committee is a rank-ordered list of nominees, composed of 150% of the total number of members that the Class is permitted to elect. Nominees who cannot be placed on the list because of this upper limit will be automatically considered again by the appropriate Section for the next year's election.
The rank-ordered lists of nominees for the six Classes comprise a “Preference Ballot,” which is sent to all Academy members in early March, along with each nominee's biographical material and information about his or her standing on the Formal Ballot. Members are required to vote for a minimum number of candidates in all six Classes— not just their own—for their ballot to be valid. The results are tabulated for presentation during the business session at the Academy's annual meeting in late April. Members attending the annual meeting vote on the “Final Ballot,” which contains the names of the 72 nominees who received the highest number of votes on the preference ballot, up to the maximum number permitted in each Class. The remaining nominees appear on a second list and—like those not ranked by the membership committees earlier in the process—are automatically reconsidered the following year by their nominating sections.
Although the final list is voted on as a group, any member at the meeting may request that a name be removed for discussion and a subsequent separate vote. Such “challenges” are very rare.
The new members elected each year are introduced and welcomed to the Academy by their colleagues at the annual meeting the following April. For the past 2 years, newly elected members have been 56 years old, on average. A list of the members elected this year can be found in the supporting information, which is published on the PNAS web site.
One might ask whether the end result of this election process is worth the large amount of time and effort that is devoted it. Why does it matter that the 2,000 members of the Academy are so carefully chosen? There are at least two answers to this important question. First, in principle, each member should serve as a role model for defining excellence in science for the next generation of scientists in his or her field. Second, it is this Academy—along with its sister organizations, the National Academy of Engineering and the Ins ute of Medicine—that supports the enormous public service efforts of the National Research Council, our “operating arm.” Known as the National Academies, this four-part organization is chartered to provide extensive policy advice to our national and state governments. The issues addressed cover a vast range—from stem cell research and the status of postdoctoral fellows and young investigators in the biological sciences to the dangers of arsenic in drinking water and of future climate change. By producing an average of more than one report every working day, the National Academies have greatly increased the wisdom of public policymaking.
Election to the NAS confers editorial responsibilities for this, the Academy's official journal, established in 1914 as a journal for members to publish their own important work and the work of others. In 1995, PNAS introduced direct manuscript submission, whereby any author—member or nonmember—can submit his or her work directly to the journal. All papers published in PNAS are evaluated and approved by an NAS member; the PNAS editorial office secures the appropriate editor for direct submissions.
To honor newly elected members, the journal publishes brief biographies that accompany a research report in the journal, thus providing examples of role models of excellence in science. The journal has an open archive policy, with all articles made freely available to everyone on the web 6 months after publication. The PNAS web site receives nearly 2 million hits per week and conveys groundbreaking research to the scientific community and the lay public.
You two disgust me.
They are like paid expert witnesses in court. They provided what they were asked to provide. You can find experts that will disagree with them. They are not unbiased scientists.
They get their money from partisan political players.
You're an idiot. You have no clue and are just making up.
They get their money from partisan political players.
This doesn't look unbiased to me:
Election to the National Academy of Sciences: Pathways to membership
The National Academy of Sciences members do no cush thing. this is ing ignorant and baseless.
I just showed you how they were selected and you will note Congress is not in the article. The salaries paid out by the NAS are independent of Congress and are paid out by the Academy.
This is just stupid, WC, and for all of your talk of how I should expect better of people you should do better than this.
Its shameful. Its one thing to be stupid but being without honor is contemptible.
I just posted that, dolt.
Biased to what? All the scientists in the Academy? I just posted that and point to me the part of the selection process that says 'political.'
You started off saying Congress picks them. Show me that part.
When it comes to scientific integrity, the Academy is the standard.
"National" Academy...
Considering this has been a very partisan issue, do you really believe they are going to bite the hand that asked them for the work?
They were given a task that already started with a biased premise.
This is ing dumb.
They don't have to care. It was founded by Abe Lincoln and is not going anywhere.
They could have come back and said that AGW was a crock of and that would have been the scientific standard. Congresses and presidents come and go but the Academy remains.
They have even less of a conflict than SCOTUS because their membership and selection process is completely independent of any branch of government.
You are grasping at straws because you do not want to accept what they are saying but when people talk about AGW consensus they are the American standard.
It is what it is.
They were asked to review the state of climate science. They did and said it was right on.
Deal with it.
I read it was something more pointed.
I take it was from the same place you read that Congress selected scientists for the Academy?
They were asked what research indicated and what should we do about it.
NAS could have said we should do nothing. they could have said research indicated that there was no AGW.
They didn't.
Further you need to look again at the 2008 Congress that requested the NAS to do the review and make recommendations.
I'll give you a hint: it wasn't a Dem majority.
But by all means keep on trying to throw against the wall.
Even the DoD which is not exactly known for its liberal bias holds the same position as the academy:
http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Edi...NIBrd_ST_U.htmThe generals and admirals there already see how climate change is affecting their operations and their strategic planning. The Navy sees melting ice caps as both a threat to security and an opportunity for increased mobility. The Marines see rising sea levels and increased coastal storm activity as complications to amphibious landing plans. Army and Air Force training on land and in the air are affected by the devastating wildfires that have been ravaging the Western U.S.
The Southwest region of the U.S. in particular is a critical zone for Defense Department readiness, providing large land areas for its installations and a climate amenable to year-round exercises on land, sea and air.
But this region faces a wide range of likely interacting threats from climate change -- including higher temperatures in an already hot area, increased severity of droughts and floods, radically altered fire regimes and sea-level rise on the California coast -- that make it particularly important to train Defense Department managers on how to prepare for and adapt to the changing operational environment. The department got a preview of this in summer 2011 when Arizona's Monument Fire burned right up to the doorstep of the Army's Fort Huachuca. In short, the Southwest presents an intensified suite of climate-change impacts that Defense Department facilities are likely to experience.
Researchers from a wide range of fields at the University of Arizona -- from computer climate modeling and fire ecology to hydrology and social sciences -- have recently been selected by the Defense Department to help managers at Southwestern Defense facilities understand the risks they face with a changing climate and learn how to adapt to these risks. In a way, our approach is just a modern version of the agricultural extension model that was developed for land-grant universities such as UA. In this case, instead of working with farmers and sharing the latest crop-science research, we are working with base commanders sharing the latest regional climate-change information.
At the same time, we will never be able to provide perfect forecasts of the coming climate-change effects. Defense Department managers will need to deal with this constant uncertainty by becoming more adaptable. There is support for thinking about how to be more adaptable at high levels in the Pentagon, but there isn't a lot of clarity on exactly how to be adaptable.
As a biologist, I know something about adaptability from studying the 3.5 billion-year history of dealing with unpredictable threats and changes by life-forms on Earth, and I've been asked to share some of the unclassified secrets of natural adaptability with security agencies such as the Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security.
Fortuitously, Defense now has a well-trained force for implementing adaptable strategies among its ranks in the form of the young officers who have led soldiers and Marines into battle almost continuously for the last 10 years.
To these officers, the need to adapt to climate change won't seem foreign, but simply another challenge they need to overcome to survive and thrive. The job for scientists working on climate-change issues will be to provide these adaptable leaders the tools they need to make the decisions that will allow their forces to continue to adapt in the future.
Rafe Sagarin is an ecologist at the University of Arizona. He is a Guggenheim Fellow and a former AAAS Congressional Science Fellow. His books, "Natural Security" (2008, University of California Press) and "Learning From the Octopus" (April 2012, Basic Books), outline in full the multidisciplinary development of the linkages between biological evolution, adaptation and security.
You need to wake the up.
LOL...
Par for the course, getting your facts wrong again.
And who is their Commander-in-Chief?
Do you even know?
My argument about using students was not one of corruption but rather incompetence. I can only imagine what someone like you would say if we presented a "science" report written by students that cited 5,587 press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, student theses, newsletters, discussion papers, and literature published by energy advocacy groups.
Do you have any evidence of corruption with Dr. Idso's non-profit organization?
Last edited by Poptech; 05-27-2012 at 08:01 AM.
Why would they say do nothing, and risk their jobs? Climatologists that go against the flow of politics get fired.
Why would they say their is no AGW when there is?
The $64 million dollar question is how much of GW is AGW. Not if AGW is real or not. We all know it's real.
All the scientists in the academy signed that report?
How many did this? Your "consensus" represents how many scientists?
LOL...How many did this? Your "consensus" represents how many scientists?
Consensus...
LOL...
I missed that.
Fuzzy...
Scientific consensus once had it that the world was flat. The heretics who challenged the accepted political view were treated real harsh. I'll bet today, if you disagree with the idea that AGW is the cause of our seen warming, that you cannot get work at any government subsidized facility as a climate scientist.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-27-2012 at 08:07 AM.
All the scientists of the academy vote on membership. Try harder to keep up next time.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
