NHTSA Sets MY 2011 CAFE Standards; Estimates Industry-Wide 27.3 mpg
Smith Electric Vehicles US Selects Kansas City for Electric Truck Assembly Plant; Newton Model to Be First

National Academies to Hold “Summit on America’s Climate Choices”

In response to a request from Congress, the National Academies have initiated a suite of studies called America’s Climate Choices designed to inform and guide the US response to climate change. More than 90 experts from government, academia, and the private sector have been selected to serve on the steering committee and four focused panels.

These volunteer experts will produce a series of consensus reports, to be released in late 2009 and 2010, that will provide policy advice and practical guidance for taking action in response to climate change. Panels include:

  • Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change
  • Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change
  • Advancing the Science of Climate Change
  • Informing Effective Decisions and Actions Related to Climate Change

On 30-31 March 2009, in Washington, D.C., the National Academies will host The Summit on Americas Climate Choices. The Summit provides an opportunity for study participants to interact with major thought leaders and key constituencies to frame the questions and issues that the study will address. The agenda for the Summit is available here.

The Summit will be webcast.


The Goracle


More than 90 experts from...

Please be sure to publish funding sources of these so-called experts. It will be interesting to see if they make big money, and have fat retirement plans, by spreading fear about the always changing climate.

How many or these "experts" will be from the well substantiated science side of the Global Warming® (now rebranded Climate Change® so whichever way temperatures go one is correct) debate that shows that AGW is a fraud?

Will this simply be a continuation of the AGW "science" - whose foundation is built on name calling and refusing to debate the matter? More than likely, yes.



Well, you know what's coming. And you can't say it is not earned. The AGW story is fast unraveling with editors around the world running stories about the preponderance of science that quarantines Hansen and Algor to the has-bin.

Even the high priest of the NY Times Science section Andy Revkin admits that Freeman Dyson, Princeton skeptic and world renowned scientist "May be right."

At last perhaps we can get on with the hard work addressing poverty, hunger, health and population.


Will S

You denialists work hard on your spin, but never really produce much evidence of anything. Even FoxNews can see the handwriting on the wall.

Antarctic Ice Sheet Likely to Collapse, New Data Show

Ice in East Antarctica a Bigger Threat Long Term

Scientists Warn of Catastrophic Sea Level Rise

Only 50-50 Chance of Saving Planet From Warming Catastrophe, Scientists Say

etc, etc,...

The Goracle


Excellent, Will S! Only slight name calling and somewhat of a willingness to discuss. I'm proud of you!

See, also:

The 'Global Warming Three' are on thin ice

Remember when global cooling was the biggest fear?

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

The counter AGW article list goes on and on...

Like I said in my first post: "Please be sure to publish funding sources of these so-called experts. It will be interesting to see if they make big money, and have fat retirement plans, by spreading fear about the always changing climate."


Will S

So you quote Christopher Booker (promotes Intelligent Design, and denies health effects from asbestos, etc), George Will (conservative pundit), and Pravda??

Funding sources for scientists, wanting to know if they'll make big money, etc? You seem to forget that scientists don't go into their respective field to get rich, unlike oil drillers and coal operators. The fossil fuel industry is over $4 trillion per year. THAT, my friend, is where the money is...

The Goracle


You quote Fox News. Enough said.


Will S

And FauxNews is a conservative news outlet! Supposed to be on your side!

You're fond of talking about $$$$$. Follow the money trail from the $4 trillion fossil fuel industry; that's where the real action is, buying up pundits and operatives to pepper the blogsphere with articles and comments...


Wait. Dyson... a skeptic of what?
That guy proposed carbon sequestration in the 70s. He does disagree with the IPCC, but only because he doesn't like their models. He does think that the main cause of warming is CO2 released from burning oil/gas/coal. Apparently he doesn't like the term global warming, but only because he says that warming due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere will be more likely to occur in less humid areas (e.g. the arctic).
Of what exactly is he a skeptic?

The comments to this entry are closed.