Talk:National Academy of Sciences

message: Richard S. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, was one of eleven members of the National Academy Sciences panel on climate change. As a result of what he considered misrepresentation by the media of the resulting report by that NAS panel, Dr. Lindzen published an analysis/opinion piece that appeared in a number of publications, including the June 11, 2001 The Wall Street Journal. Sad to say, his critical remarks were nowhere noted in the scientific press (at least in the 50 or so journals to which we subscribe, including Nature and Science), which continued to report on the NAS panel as if there were a consensus and that that consensus was in support of the Kyoto Treaty. Dr. Lindzen says otherwise.
According to Dr. Lindzen, CNN's Michelle Mitchell was "typical of the coverage when she declared that the [NAS] report represented a 'unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room.'" Lindzen's response: "As one of 11 scientists who prepared the report, I can state that this is simply untrue." For example, he notes that far too much public attention has been paid to the "hastily" prepared summary than to the body of the report. "Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; )2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But -- and I cannot stress this enough -- we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions."
Dr. Lindzen noted that the NAS panel was asked to evaluate the work of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, focusing on the Summary for Policymakers, the only part ever read or quoted. He concludes that "Within the confines of professional courtesy, the NAS panel essentially concluded that the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government." He feels that "Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitalister (talk • contribs) 
: Your link is broken, and the "lifeservices.com" domain is not in use. You might want to replace that with a functional link so people can get a look at what kind of scientists Durk and Sandy are.
: As it stands, your appendix </sup>(diff)</sup> is insufficiently specific and worded as a vague negation of that which preceeds it.
:# The suggestion that Global Warming skeptics comprise "a large part of the scientific community" is misleading.
:# The sentence is made grammatically confusing by that phrase. I doubt "The statement [referring to the Joint Declaration On Global Warming] stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is [...] still disputed by a large part of the scientific community", which is how that sentence now parses.
: Also, please sign your Talk Page contributions. Typing four tildes (~~~~) will do this for you automatically. edgarde 14:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More on CNN misrepresentation of NAS report

message: What exactly is the relation between the foundation of the USNAS and the Civil War? How come the latter created a need for the earlier? //Halibutt 08:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Civil War

message: Two sentences are highlighted with either italics or bold.  This sentence is in italics: "hurriedly wrote the bill incorporating the Academy, including in it the name of fifty incorporators".  This sentence is in bold: "Without examining it or debating its provisions, both the Senate and House approved it, and President Lincoln signed it."  What is the reason to highlight these sentences?  Which Wiki policy describes the selection of sentences for highlight? All in all, the Overview section seems to be a citationless, negative critique masquerading as an overview. evo 19:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Highlighting a Negative POV

message: It seems reasonable to me that only controversy about the general operations or overall policy of the USNAS would go in this article--e.g. a charge that it has frequently been too deferential to administration views, or, conversely,  that it has not been responsive enough to Administration concerns.   But controversy over one particular issue, or one particular report, should go in the article on the issue, or on the article for the report if there is a specific article for it.  Dealing with the NAS role in the global warming controversy belongs with the articles on the global warming controversy.  Discussion of the role of its reports in gun control belong with that topic--and similarly for other topics. As I see it, otherwise would be undue weight in this very general article. DGG 06:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: appropriate place for controversy

message: In 2005, an editor moved this article from National Academy of Sciences to United States National Academy of Sciences (see ) in order to "Make title less US-centric."  This seems ill-advised to me--similar to moving Royal Academy to United Kingdom Royal Academy.  The title is now neither the common or the official name. The largest number of articles still link to National Academy of Sciences rather than directly here, with more being redirected from National Academy of Science, National Academies of Science, National Academies of Sciences, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, National academy of science, and National Academy of Sciences, USA.  Is there any opposition to moving it back?  If other nations have organizations named Foo National Academy of Sciences, we can deal with it through the normal disambiguation processes.--Hjal 10:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed--the title of the organization in National Academy of Sciences. If it became necessary to qualify it, it would be with a (United States) at then end--at one time the British abbreviation of the Journal was in fact proceedings of the national Academy of sciences (U.S.)--the first rule of qualification and abbreviation ,etc, is not to change the first letter of the name.  But since this is  rather far reaching move for a long-established name,, please     follow the full  procedure at WP:RM listing it on the page there -- Its really rather pointless since almost nobody looks at WP:RM to check, but do it so nobody can complain. Moving it back may have some technical problems in terms of pre-existing pages, but i can deal with that part. There will however be many redirects to change, and some help will be appreciated there. DGG (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to National Academy of Sciences?

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject class rating

message: Consider adding this information:
nationalacademies
--92.229.186.54 (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Kansas Denied Use of National Science Education Standards

message: The introduction to this states that the members serve "pro bono". However, the report on the problems with the FDA [was described as costing $1.8 million dollars. The 2009 Omnibus Act said that "the Secretary of Energy shall provide funding to the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an inventory of the energy development potential on all lands currently managed by the Department of Energy" . I don't think the NRC committees really serve pro bono. Where did this pro bono stuff come from? II | (t - c) 02:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro bono? Where's the money?

message: "Edward C. Pickering (1846-1919) was the youngest scientist elected."
his lifetime (1846-1919) is not significant information. how old was he and what year was it?99.147.192.189 (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pickering

message: Isn't http://www.nas.edu/ needed since different domain?   99.190.85.197 (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain request.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

text: After looking at the web sites, http://www.nas.edu/ is the web site of the National Academies, one of which is the National Academy of Sciences.  Others include the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the message from Arthur. http://www.nas.edu/ is the URL for whole set of U.S. National Academies, while http://www.nasonline.org is the specific one for the National Academy of Sciences. -- SchreyP  (messages) 11:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Orangemarlin question?  99.190.86.115 (talk) 06:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't http://www.nas.edu/ needed since different domain?  

message: See Talk:National Academy of Sciences#Requested move +mt 20:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Above link is no longer valid. Due to the move the discussion can now be found at Talk:National Academy of Sciences (disambiguation)#Requested move. -- SchreyP  (messages) 21:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related move request 

message: It should be noted that in 1992 the NAS decided NOT to admit Carl Sagan as a member. Sagan published over 500 scientific papers in a 39-year career, and worked tirelessly to promote a scientific worldview, writing many books widely read by the public and which moved many youngsters. Whether the NAS decision (and the reasoning/politics of it) deserves a place in this article, the fact needs to stay afloat. Particularly as science, which has been so instrumental in US success, becomes less and less relevant in the decisions being made in the US ... while climate change faces us squarely in the face. Twang (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sagan

message: The NAS had an incredible role in the civil war as one reader asked about.. I was pleased to put this picture together for the article.. please review it and I propose to move it into the mani article shortly.. Thanks 
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress as a private, nonprofit, self-governing membership corporation
for the furtherance of science and technology, required to advise the United States federal government upon request within the Academy's fields of competence. The Academy, ..."although a national organization chartered by Congress, is not a governmental agency and receives no direct federal appropriations for its work". The Academy retains full control over the selection and appointment of study committees members and operates under its own procedures and rules. The Academy assumes ..."full responsibility for assuring the objectivity of its studies and reports."   Preface of the book, Accessed at Google Books 
Its very first act in 1864 was to consider the subject of decimalization as part of the “Uniformity of Weights, Measures, and Coins, considered in relation to domestic and international commerce”.  Accessed at Google Books That first year, the academy received requests for services for six projects;two by application from the Treasury Department (One for the decimialzation project discussed above but also measures to prevent counterfeiting Union currency), one from the Oﬁice of United States Weights and Measures, of the same Department, and three by application from the Navy Department, or, under its authority, from the Bureau of Navigation.  Accessed at Google Books 
The US Navy requested advice on protecting of the bottoms of iron vessels from corrosion by sea-water and the correction of the compasses of naval vessels, especially of iron vessels and of iron-clads. Accessed at Google Books The Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution placed the laboratory under his charge at the disposal of the Academy Committee. The Academy reported two important practical results in its first year of operations during the American Civil War: one, eliminating one of the two binnacles in the pilot-house of the iron naval vessels, each interfering with the other in its use; and second, the compass corrections on twenty-two iron or iron-clad vessels, or of wooden vessels in which the local attraction was found to be inconvenient, from the presence of engines and boilers, of iron rigging, and other iron works. Accessed at Google Books The Academy performed this research on US Navy vessels in the course of construction, especially the three-turreted iron-clads, the USS Roanoke, and of the monitor USS Passaic (1862).
Under its corporate charter, the Academy established the National Research Council in 1916, the National Academy of Engineering in 1964, and the [[Institute of
Medicine]] in 1970. Accessed at Google Books Prior to 1970, the Academy's work was in response Federal agencies requests rather than the United States Congress. Although Congressional requests are addressed to some of the more significant public policy issues related to science and technology sometimes the Academy contracting directly with the congressional committees for studies. The United States Congress passes legislation that directs cabinet officers or agency heads of the US Federal Government to enter into contractual or grant arrangements with the Academy. Studies undertaken for the government by the constituent units of the Academy usually are funded out of appropriations made available to federal agencies.  Accessed at Google Books
 Accessed at Google Books 
Risk Engineer (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed rewrite of Summary section due to missing material on status and organization changes...  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on National Academy of Sciences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229155642/http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_building to http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_building
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100215071321/http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf to http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There are several scientists (e.g. Alexandre Chorin, Paul Garabedian) who have been awarded this NAS prize which is given every three years to scientists who make outstanding contributions to research.. I wonder why this award is not listed here. Hodsha (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Academy of Sciences' Award in Applied Mathematics and Numerical Analysis