'The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the UK’s Royal Society: 'The current CO2-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially irreversible on human timescales.' - 'Even if emissions of greenhouse gases were to suddenly stop, Earth’s surface temperature would not cool and return to the level in the pre-industrial era for thousands of years,' according to the joint publication. Global surface temperatures would stay elevated for a thousand years and sea levels would continue to rise for centuries — even after temperatures stopped rising.''
Morano: 'The organization [NAS] is virtually 100% dependent on government funding. So when they do a study like this – and they've done other studies in the past – you know the outcome of these studies before they do them.The actual funding quote from new study is: 'The sudden changes in the climate is full of uncertainties. The world can prepare by better monitoring,' Morano offers. 'And it goes on [to say that] because of budget cuts and aging satellites, we have fewer measurements than we did a few years ago.'
'When the NAS is advocating for a carbon tax, it's not too surprising that all [their] reports are going to fall in line.'
'The 200-page report by the National Academy of Sciences looked at warming problems that can occur in years instead of centuries. The report repeatedly warns of potential 'tipping points' where the climate passes thresholds, beyond which 'major and rapid changes occur.' - 'The report says abrupt changes like melting ice in the Arctic Ocean and mass species extinctions have already started and are worse than predicted.'
NAS study shills for more climate funding!
'The scientists said the issue of sudden changes is full of uncertainties, so the world can better prepare by monitoring places like Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets more. But because of budget cuts and aging satellites, researchers have fewer measurements of these crucial indicators than they did a few years ago and will have even fewer in upcoming years'
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is all about politics and funding these days:
AP's Borenstein quotes Prof. Wuebbles: 'Donald Wuebbles, a University of Illinois climate scientist who wasn't part of the academy study, called it important, especially the call for better warning systems'
But no mention that Wuebbles has been writing reports for alarmist pressure groups Union of Concerned Scientists for a decade. See here.
'Scientific societies like the AGU, are important sources of support and credibility for climate catastrophe. Scientists are the inventors of the catastrophe theories as well as the beneficiaries of the cash and attention that such theories generate' -- 'The AGU has an official position statement on global warming...currently being rewritten by a committee of 14 people'
Chris McEntee, AGU executive director 'had spoken formally during her presentation about having AGU lead an effort involving major scientific societies in 'educating' Congress...including strategic targeting of specific legislators. 'It's not something the old AGU would do,' Rutgers' Alan Robock said from the floor, but McEntee's statements received overwhelmingly favorable reaction from those in attendance'
American Meteorlogical Society Background: 'This statement provides a brief overview of why we want more money now, and why we will continue to want more money in the future. It is based on a highly-partisan selection from the scientific literature, presented as though science were based upon the ancient logical fallacy of argument from 'consensus'
A: There are things that are changing beyond recognition right now from climate change, and that makes me really sad. And to me, grieving is an important part of the process of acknowledging that. It does draw from my experience of losing a dear friend to cancer, who died at 37. ... it shouldn’t take a terminal diagnosis for life on Earth to wake us up to the urgency of working for climate stability." ...
“My dispassionate training,” the Lund University researcher writes, has “not prepared me for the increasingly frequent emotional crises of climate change,” or how to respond to students who come to her to share their own grief. ... I have pretty much stopped flying for work. It hasn’t meant I can’t be a productive researcher. I have collaborations and projects, but I try to focus on work that doesn’t require so much travel or is easier to reach by train. The only flight I haven’t yet given up is going back to the U.S. to see my family."
Dr. Matt Briggs points out that most attribution claims are based around comparing simulations of the climate today to simulations of the climate as it might have been without human activity. But as he explains, this approach has a fundamental problem: “We simply have little or no idea what the climate would have been without human activity. Moreover, we can’t ever know what it was like.” ...
“In order to attribute individual weather events to humankind, scientists need a perfect model of the climate. They do not have this. Therefore, claims that we are responsible for any particular weather event are at best overconfident, if not plain wrong.”