You may use this thread for general comments about the Proposed Position Statement. If there are specific items you wish to comment on in more detail, feel free to start a new thread.

I can certainly appreciate the work it must of taken to reduce a very complex issue into this well-crafted statement. One point that struck me, the first point listed, "(1) that Earth's climate is changing" could be interpreted to mean that prior to this recent change, Earth's climate was stable, unchanging. With the focus on educating students and the general public, it might be useful to indicate that our climate has dramatically changed in the past (in fact, "change" is its normal operating mode), and that the recent climate change, has not yet reached (if it ever will) the magnitude of past climate changes. This provides an element of time into the statement which is signature characteristic of the geosciences.

"... NAGT strongly supports and will work to promote education in the science of climate change, the causes and effects of current global warming, and the immediate need for policies and actions that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases."

Given our incomplete understanding of all of the processes, inputs, and feedbacks involved with climate, given the naturally dynamic nature of climate (see Reed Schwimmer's comments above), and given the fact that many noteworthy meteorologists and climatologists disagree with the IPCC position, why is there an "immediate need for policies and actions that reduce" emissions? What if our incomplete understanding leads to actions that do little if anything to moderate our impact thus far? What if they have drastic consequences in other aspects of life and society? What if our policies are poor yet set in bureaucratic concrete that will likely never be changed? Considering that projections vary widely and include positive as well as negative outcomes, it seems prudent to learn more about climate before inflicting too many unintended consequences upon humanity.