The National Academy of Sciences Thursday reasserted its opinion that the Earth’s climate has warmed to crisis levels and that human activity – the burning of fossil fuels – is the primary cause.
In its 869-page report, the NAS, a group of American researchers that advises the U.S. government, urged Congress to adopt specific policy measures to halt the undesirable effects of global warming.
James M. Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute, finds the NAS membership is fatally comprised of global warming activists who are pursuing a political agenda and ignoring competing scientific data. Taylor was project manager for the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change that concluded a three-day meeting in Chicago May 18. The conference was attended by more than 700 climate scientists, economists, policy makers, and opinion leaders.
You may quote from this statement or contact Taylor directly at [email protected], 941-776-5690.
“What do global warming activist groups such as the World Wildlife Fund, the John Heinz III Center, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and Susanne Moser [cq] Research & Consulting, Santa Cruz, California have in common? They are all partisan and largely discredited groups that nevertheless form the core of the National Academy of Sciences panel that just released a predictably alarmist and unsubstantiated report on global warming.
“The unaffiliated scientists on the panel are no more objective or credible. Stanford University’s Pamela Matson, who chairs the panel, has for years been pushing global warming alarmism and global warming activism. Last fall she sent a letter to Congress defending the fraudsters at the heart of the Climategate scandal, claiming the emails that documented the manipulation and destruction of scientific evidence were being ‘misrepresented’ by ‘opponents of taking action on climate change.’
“Vice Chair Thomas Dietz shows even less objectivity than Matson. ‘Global warming is unequivocal, and is largely caused by human action,’ Dietz previously wrote in a magazine called The Solutions Journal. It is hard to imagine that a scientist who has publicly staked out such an inflexible position would at the same time look at competing scientific theories with objectivity and an open mind.
“When our federal government funds partisan, closed-minded reports compiled by activists representing only one side of a controversial issue, it is no wonder the federal government has lost the trust and respect of everyday citizens. Moreover, the fact that the authors of these biased reports are presenting them as justification for more federal grants and taxpayer subsidies should come as no surprise to anyone.”
James M. Taylor
Senior Fellow, Environment Policy
The Heartland Institute