More

Climate Scientists Told To 'Stop Speaking In Code'

Climate Scientists

By KARL RITTER   05/ 4/11 01:35 PM ET   AP

COPENHAGEN, Denmark -- Scientists at a major conference on Arctic warming were told Wednesday to use plain language to explain the dramatic melt in the region to a world reluctant to take action against climate change.

An authoritative report released at the meeting of nearly 400 scientists in Copenhagen showed melting ice in the Arctic could help raise global sea levels by as much as 5 feet this century, much higher than earlier projections.

James White, of the University of Colorado at Boulder, told fellow researchers to use simple words and focus on the big picture when describing their research to a wider audience. Focusing too much on details could blur the basic science, he said: "If you put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it will get warmer."

Prominent U.S. climate scientist Robert Corell said researchers must try to reach out to all parts of society to spread awareness of the global implications of the Arctic melt.

"Stop speaking in code. Rather than 'anthropogenic,' you could say 'human caused,'" Corell said.

The Arctic has been warming twice as fast as the global average in recent decades, and the latest five-year period is the warmest since measurements began in the 19th century, according to the report by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program – a scientific body set up by the eight Arctic rim countries.

The report emphasized "the need for greater urgency" in combating global warming. But nations remain bogged down in their two-decade-long talks on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

The World Bank's special envoy for climate change, Andrew Steer, said the new findings "are a cause for great concern." The sea rise will affect millions in both rich and poor countries, but would particularly affect the poor, he said, because "they tend to live in the lowest lying land and have the fewest resources to adapt."

Steer said bank studies showed the costs of major flooding events on infrastructure and the economy could run into billions of dollars.

"It is clear that we are not on track in the battle against climate change," he said.

Bogi Hansen, an expert on ocean currents from the Faeroe Islands, said one problem is that scientists can come off as unsure about conclusions because they are reluctant to talk about anything with 100 percent certainty.

White, the Colorado scientist, agreed. At a news conference later Wednesday, he said those opposed to reining in fossil fuels "sow the seeds of doubt that give the people the impression that ... unless every single one of us lines up behind an idea, that decisions can't be taken."

The AMAP report will be delivered to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the foreign ministers of Canada, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Russia, at an Arctic Council meeting in Greenland next week.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

COPENHAGEN, Denmark -- Scientists at a major conference on Arctic warming were told Wednesday to use plain language to explain the dramatic melt in the region to a world reluctant to take action again...
COPENHAGEN, Denmark -- Scientists at a major conference on Arctic warming were told Wednesday to use plain language to explain the dramatic melt in the region to a world reluctant to take action again...
Filed by Travis Donovan  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 4,007
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (31 total)
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
07:11 AM on 05/15/2011
Will PT put the new Watts paper on his list?

We are all in great suspense.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
B Wood
01:04 PM on 05/15/2011
Not sure, will Watt try to remove any youtube videos that indicate his "paper" might be a crock??
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
06:33 PM on 05/14/2011
Scientist: no trend in diurnal temperature variation.

Plain English:

I have good news and bad news.

Bad news first. It's getting hotter.

But here's the GOOD news. It still cools off at night.

Hat tip to Anthony Watts and his team of hundreds of volunteers.
photo
Marlyn
Always wrong, but never in doubt.
03:59 PM on 05/28/2011
"It still cools off at night." ???

... but not as much as it used to.
photo
Greg Mirsky
Riga dimd, Riga dimd, Kas to Rigu dimdinaj?
06:10 PM on 05/14/2011
If you cannot explain your professional area in simple terms you are not experienced enough. Using professional jargon, lingo is often sign of novice.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean land-ocean temperature 1880 to present
06:27 PM on 05/14/2011
An alternative view, from a Nobel Prize winner:

"If I could explain it to the average person, I wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize."
Richard P. Feynman
photo
Greg Mirsky
Riga dimd, Riga dimd, Kas to Rigu dimdinaj?
07:36 PM on 05/14/2011
You got me! ;)
07:51 PM on 05/14/2011
Some other views from Nobel Prize winners,

"I'm a skeptic. ...Global Warming it's become a new religion. You're not supposed to be against Global Warming. You have basically no choice. And I tell you how many scientists support that. But the number of scientists is not important. The only thing that's important is if the scientists are correct; that's the important part." - Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize in Physics (1973)

"The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it’s unimportant, but because it’s beyond our power to control." - Robert Laughlin, Nobel Prize in Physics (1998)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
GOP is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!
10:44 PM on 05/12/2011
Too much attention is being paid to Poptech. Just correct his misinformation and move on. He, no doubt, relishes all the attention. His cut and paste commentary is simply not worth so much attention.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean land-ocean temperature 1880 to present
11:02 PM on 05/12/2011
Know your enemy, and know yourself, and you will always be victorious. ~Sun Tzu
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
GOP is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!
12:13 PM on 05/13/2011
His lack of ideas is not worth the commentary.  He simply cuts and pastes.
07:42 PM on 05/14/2011
It is not possible to"correct" my irrefutable facts with misinformation, lies and strawman arguments. That is illogical.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
GOP is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!
08:31 PM on 05/14/2011
Sure, just more spam and talk.
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
01:43 AM on 05/15/2011
Tell us an irrefutable fact!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robco1
12:24 PM on 05/12/2011
When are the deniers going to address the evidence?

A PR firm made this denial model for Big Tobacco, then exported the model to the fossil fuel lobby. http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024233595-3602.html

In 1998 the American Petroleum Institute picked up on the model and sold it to their stakeholde­rs. http://preview.tinyurl.com/API-Disinform

And Frank Luntz sold it to the GOP in 2002. http://www.ewg.org/project/luntz-memo-environment

Today they do it online with astrotruff bloggers http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/12/13/reclaim-the-cyber-commons/

...and even software posing as people... http://www.desmogblog.com/are-climate-deniers-and-front-groups-polluting-online-conversation-denier-bots

And here is who they are doing it for: http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/02/david-koch-industrations-acid-rain-climate-denial-polluter-front-groups/

Exxon claimed not to have signed on. Then they did everything they could to execute the plan anyway... http://centerforinvestigativereporting.org/articles/themanipulationofscience

So will any of the online deniers here address any of the evidence that they are sock puppets in a disinformation campaign? Or will they try to ignore it and re-post their often-debunked talking points?

Don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain!
12:53 PM on 05/12/2011
I fully support someone's right to smoke cigarettes. At least tobacco does not cause brain damage like marijuana.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:17 PM on 05/12/2011
LoL

You call that a symmetrical rebuttal?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robco1
03:17 PM on 05/12/2011
That's right. Try to avoid the topic when exposed. Don't engage in a conversation about the TASSC memo, or the API memo, or the Luntz memo. Whatever you do, don't talk about the online activist engagement tactics, or Koch's ham-handed astroturfing projects.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

http://centerforinvestigativereporting.org/articles/themanipulationofscience
http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/02/david-koch-industrations-acid-rain-climate-denial-polluter-front-groups/
http://www.desmogblog.com/bonner-and-associates-long-and-undemocratic-history-astroturfing
01:42 PM on 05/12/2011
Denier-bots? Persona management software? That's just scary.

"There are a variety of social media tricks we can use to add a level of realness to all fictitious personas." I'm going to put on my tinfoil hat here and start worrying about the future of our democracy should the Republicans try to convince us that on-line voting is a safer, more efficient way to hold elections.

Thank you Robco, as usual you provide a wealth of good info.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robco1
03:20 PM on 05/12/2011
Thanks for the complement! Steven Cobert had me in stitches explaining the whole HB Gary vs. Anonymous episode. His analogy is very, um, vivid...

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/375428/february-24-2011/corporate-hacker-tries-to-take-down-wikileaks
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robco1
12:10 PM on 05/12/2011
900 skeptic papers? 9 out of 10 of the most prolific authors work for Exxon. Surprise, surprise.

"Dr Sherwood B Idso is the most cited academic on the list, having authored or co-authored 67 of the 938 papers we analysed, which is seven percent of the total.

Idso is president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a thinktank which has been funded by ExxonMobil. Idso has also been linked to Information Council on the Environment ( ICE ), an energy industry PR campaign accused of "astroturfing".

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-exxon-links
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robco1
12:47 PM on 05/12/2011
"Sceptic organisations have been successful in dumping large lists into the public domain to suggest that there is significant scientific divergence from the consensus. This is partly due to the fact it is time consuming analysing such lists.

Luckily, there are now free tools online which help you interrogate this kind of data. The screen-scraping website NeedleBase can turn the long list of papers into a single database, while the free data-processing tool Google Refine allows for a rapid analysis.

This is the process used here. Because the screen-scraping process is a little rough around the edges the citation numbers may vary slightly. But they give a clear picture of the structure of the list, which in this instance has been very revealing. Should you wish to examine it, you can download the raw data here." http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-exxon-links
01:00 PM on 05/12/2011
There is nothing to suggest as the existence of the overwhelming number of peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments against AGW Alarm is irrefutable,

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean land-ocean temperature 1880 to present
07:19 PM on 05/12/2011
Great work!

And great tools to know about -- NeedleBase & Google Refine.
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
08:15 AM on 05/12/2011
PT: tell us what's in one of the papers on your list. You pick.
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
08:41 PM on 05/12/2011
Don't know what's in ANY of them?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
GOP is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!
10:36 PM on 05/12/2011
That is the exact same question I asked him many times and he could not do it.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
10:38 PM on 05/12/2011
Poptech knows they are all of peer reviewed...

Because all of them "can be" peer reviewed!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/climate-scientists-conference-2011_n_857588_87410332.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:56 PM on 05/11/2011
Since PopTech's concerns are social and economic by his own admission; it seems appropriate that he discuss economics, and the models of human behavior upon which they are based.

I made the claim that tangible wealth is finite in a very critical sense; the "abstractions" of currency and its purchasing power are capable of exceeding the ecological capacity to service it. This is because we are unable to translate ecological value into economic value with any understanding beyond commodification of items in a mall. PT's economic ideology insists such valuation is reasonable, and thus it seems obligatory that he tell us why the natural world has no value beyond fodder for selfish indulgence.

I also think its useful to take the opposition's ideology to its conclusions; so we should note how PT's worldview ultimately relies on the liquidation of biological capacity itself. That is indeed what we are seeing all over the world, and it is driven by the worst actor forcing a race to the bottom by the undue influence of wealth concentration.

The model of human behavior upon which denier economics is built was initially called 'Homo-Economicus" It posited an "enlightened" agent acting in the interests of others by acting selfishly. The construct has been demolished by research in almost every regard. PT's economic ideology proceeds from a gross simplification and distortion of the human condition. It persists because Objectivists, Social Darwinists and other such stunted individuals can escape the just sentences of their ignorance with wealth.
01:53 AM on 05/12/2011
Provide the objective criteria for determining "selfish indulgence".

Your silly obsession with labeling rational self-interest - "selfishness" demonstrates your use of emotion over logic in your arguments. The Malthusian orthodoxy has been repeatedly debunked.

Your "conclusions" are farcical distortions taught by economically illiterate professors in universities. For instance chickens are no where near extinct because we consume them. The more demand for chickens the more that are raised. This simple example completely debunks your nonsense.

Reality has completely demolished your fantasies as increased economic freedom and economic growth is directly related to a higher standard of living,

http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/9FBCE9FEA7CE1967A1285DBC73B3FC87.gif

For someone who spews so much phsycho-babble you sure are incredibly ignorant of economics.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:15 AM on 05/12/2011
Your kind of rational self interest is code for unenlightened selfish interest. That can be defined by the harm it imparts to others and the natural world. In other words, efficacy establishes the definition of selfishness.

Your "presumptions" are farcical pathologies taught by ideologues who's only credentials are their exposure by right wing media. Your chicken example merely illustrates that your brand of economics preserves only what can be eaten lol; it does not approach debunking my claim. How does your economic ideology apply value to species destroyed by habitat liquidation and subsequent loss of productivity? How does your economic system value the stability and genetic capital of an ecology thousands of layers deep?

Reality is actually condemning your views in the form of feedback loops from physicality itself; ACC is just the biggest one so you're all in.

Standard of living is not the same as quality of living. The former is used to convert the latter into justification for material largess, above and beyond the essentials and the developmental imperative. Quality of living does not rise after modest standards of living, so your insistence that selfishness cannot be defined is wrong in this regard as well as the harm it exports.
11:24 AM on 05/12/2011
Unbridled economic growth is an illusion. A bubble. Sooner or later, we will be handed the bill.
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
10:09 PM on 05/11/2011
PT: tell us your story about how Christopher Monckton demanded that two United States Senators apologize to ExxonMobil.

Please PT tell us about that paper on your list. Does the story have a happy ending?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean land-ocean temperature 1880 to present
11:37 PM on 05/11/2011
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k77xr06628851331/

In case PT is having trouble remembering which Monckton paper on his list is about demanding that two United States Senators apologize to ExxonMobil.
01:30 AM on 05/12/2011
It is not my story but the paper is a good read. I highly recommend it.
01:55 AM on 05/12/2011
Have you read the McKitrick & Michaels paper

http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2004/26/c026p159.pdf

That appears in your list? I asked you to comment. So here is attempt #2.

They only get R^2 of around 0.3 for the attempts to create a model for human influence on temperature records. Presumably to show and urban effect on the temperature record. Can you explain why R^2 is so low and not up near 0.9 like the recent 1.^ C/century temperature rise since 1960?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Inconceivable!
07:50 PM on 05/11/2011
JunkScienceCuteCritters iinsists that urban heat islands are responsible for the apparent trend in temperatures. I asked the following questions, which she appears to have accidentally forgotten to answer. So, as a courtesy, I am re-posting them. I try to be helpful.

---------------------------

If UHI is a real problem, why do the satellite trends match the ground-bas­ed trends so well? Heat islands in space maybe?

http://bit­.ly/jTVRqf

Why is the greatest warming in places like Canada, Alaska, and Siberia? Lots of big urban areas screwing up the readings there?

http://dat­a.giss.nas­a.gov/gist­emp/2010no­vember/fig­1.gif

Why is there virtually no difference between the trends from the full USCHN and from the 70 stations Anthony Watts identified as "good" or "best"?

http://www­.ncdc.noaa­.gov/oa/ab­out/respon­se-v2.pdf

It's time to put up or shut up.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:54 PM on 05/11/2011
That post will stand in stark contrast to the coming denial.
10:04 PM on 05/11/2011
Why do deniers insist on repeating things that are so easily proven wrong?

Because they know that repetition increases memory retention. In sales and marketing, statistics show that a potential customer will have to be introduced to a sales message about seven times, on average, before making a decision.

And because the real facts are not on the deniers' side, they have to resort to using tricks like repetition to snare their 'customers'.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
01:39 PM on 05/11/2011
The Univ. of Colorado's satellite data sources confirm that the hysterical IPCC and NASA "climate scientists" claims of current, dangerous, "accelerating" sea level increases are entirely without merit. In actuality, these claims were past predictions generated from the failed "expert" climate models.

Just how bad were these predictions? In viewing this next graph, the rate of sea level increase leveled off in 2003 and in subsequent years declined (decelerated) - h/t Hockey Schtick. Not a single IPCC-NASA-NOAA ocean expert/scientist/model predicted this outcome. Not a single politician/bureaucrat/Hollywood celebrity predicted this outcome. The actual outcome was the direct opposite of what the "consensus" human experts and computer models predicted.-C3 headlines
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean land-ocean temperature 1880 to present
02:20 PM on 05/11/2011
It looks like just about the same magnitude of decrease that occurred ~1998.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

That turned out to be only a short-term fluctuation, and that is why we use larger data sets for trends, Richard. You have just presented a fluctuation that lasts less than one year, and you have asserted that it is a trend.

That is not true.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
09:00 PM on 05/11/2011
Then how about this one, ten years of data compared to another ten years of data?

"Local sea level has dropped since 1990s"

Monday, April 4, 2011 at 12:01 a.m. San Diego Union-Tribune

...the average sea level at La Jolla measured with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography tide gauge was 81.8 centimeters for the 1980s (1980-1989), 84.6 cm for the 1990s and 82.9 cm for the 2000s (relative to mean lower low water, the point of reference used on tide tables).

Therefore, local sea level was 1.7 centimeters lower on average in the decade of the 2000s than during the decade of the 1990s.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
09:28 AM on 05/12/2011
Richard2: "Then how about this one, ten years of data compared to another ten years of data? 'Local sea level has dropped since 1990s' "

As documented by Church and White (Surv Geophys, 2011):

"Since the start of the altimeter record in 1993,
global average sea level rose at a rate near the upper end of the sea
level projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s
Third and Fourth Assessment Reports."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h2575k28311g5146/fulltext.pdf

-------------------------------------------

Hey R2,

Speaking of your climate denial,

Care to explain why according to you aren't Creationists aren't science deniers?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean land-ocean temperature 1880 to present
09:17 PM on 05/11/2011
Great, cherry-pick the west coast, since cherry-picking the past few months didn't work out for you.

It's old news that sea-level rise due to thermal expansion is non-uniform, just as warming is non-uniform.

Please stop trying to deceive people, Richard.  We've all been through this with you many times already. Everybody knows that you know that the stuff you say isn't true.
This American
An end to all this nonsense
01:32 AM on 05/12/2011
Well not quite everybody.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
08:10 AM on 05/11/2011
I want to see this Monckton paper that everyone is talking about these days.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
11:27 AM on 05/11/2011
The abstract for Monckton's article that is on Poptech's list of purported "peer reviewed" "papers" is very short and devoid of any scientific content - here it is in full:

"3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, is a member of the British House of Lords. He is a former British journalist. This statement is addressed directly to Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and to Senator John D. Rockefeller (D-WVa)." [1]

Monckton's "paper" is a 'viewpoint' (aka commentary or OpEd) article, and according to Poptech there are 'viewpoint' articles on his infamous list that are peer reviewed "Because these can be and you have not demonstrat­ed otherwise." [2]

Well that just settles it then, doesn't it - by Poptech's definition Monckton's "paper" must have been "peer reviewed".

One wonders however how Monckton's claim that he is a member of the House of Lords survived peer review given that the House of Lords has explicitly stated that Monckton "is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords." [3]

But hey, if Poptech says that articles on his are "peer reviewed" because they "can be" peer reviewed then Monckton's article must have been peer reviewed... right?

--------------------------------------
[1] http://www.springerlink.com/content/k77xr06628851331/

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/climate-scientists-conference-2011_n_857588_87410332.html

[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/apr/20/monckton-mp-general-election
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/11/lords-climate-christopher-monckton
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
01:33 PM on 05/11/2011
So, it seems that this Monckton, not a real Lord according to the House of Lords, is a complete poseur? And this charlatan is the first guy the Republicans call in as their climate science witness?

It is no wonder Lord Poptech celebrates Monckton. Proptech could promote himself and he would be no more valid than Monckton.

thanks
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
10:40 PM on 05/10/2011
Did you know Muller gave a big thank you to Anthony Watts for creating a need for the BEST study so that it could prove that the BEST study wasn't really needed?

That's my story and I'm sticking with it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean land-ocean temperature 1880 to present
10:52 PM on 05/10/2011
That's about right.  I'd say it was more a demonstrative show of "professional" courtesy toward a pathetic unprofessional, just to be totally sure to outclass Watts in every way.  But tomato, toe-motto, y'know.
10:47 AM on 05/11/2011
A study from a group that only has two projects. One project is to spray us all with chemicals. The other is to create yet another fake temperature record to justify it.

http://www2.novim.org/joomla/index.php/projects/climate-engineering
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
01:39 PM on 05/11/2011
Would you say the entire government is in on the conspiracy?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
03:18 PM on 05/11/2011
And it don't stop. Dearpa dearp!
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
09:32 PM on 05/10/2011
PT I defended you as well as I could.

But frankly I am very skeptical about what Reed posted.

Please set the record straight and tell us what is in Monckton's paper.

All fence-sitters are eagerly waiting your guidance. It's kind of uncomfortable up there.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
To interject reason
Time wounds all heels....
09:44 PM on 05/10/2011
My butt s startin' to hurt !!!!
09:52 PM on 05/10/2011
No comment.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
09:05 PM on 05/10/2011
National Academy of Sciences, 2010
----------­­­--------­-­-­------­--­--­----­---­---­--­----------­----------

What is Known about Climate Change

Science has made enormous progress toward understand­­­ing climate change. As a result, there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documentin­­­g that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities­­­, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels.

Global warming is closely associated with other climate changes and impacts, including rising sea levels, increases in intense rainfall events, decreases in snow cover and sea ice, more frequent and intense heat waves, increases in wildfires, longer growing seasons, and ocean acidificat­­­ion. Individual­­­ly and collective­­­ly, these changes pose risks for a wide range of human and environmen­­­tal systems. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon­­­, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternativ­­­e explanatio­­­ns.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science-Report-Brief-final.pdf
This American
An end to all this nonsense
01:37 AM on 05/12/2011
If the organization was properly labeled it would be the National Academy of Stooges. (scientists in the service of a socialist future)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dardedar
Not here to play patty cake...
01:49 PM on 05/14/2011
Pretty pitiful when you are reduced to a baseless attack the most prestigious scientific organization in the country.