The document makes for interesting reading. It is structured in the form of consensus science's answers to 20 questions about human-caused long term global climate change. Most of these Qs and As serve to explode standard denier myths, but denial and public knowledge generally is not addressed. Policy is mentioned only very briefly at the end. The overall goal is, to describe, in brief and everyday "layman's" terms "the science of climate change, with both its facts and its uncertainties" as a "basis to inform" the policy choice between pro-actively reducing CO2 emissions, doing-nothing to reduce them and adapting new climates never seem before in the history of the human species, or doing nothing to reduce emissions, but seeking to recapture them through new (mostly theoretical) geo-engineering schemes.

When I googled, I found this on about 100 different science or climate blogs. No or few mentions in the denialosphere, however, interestingly. The lack of controversy may also explain what seems to be minimal coverage so far in the mainstream newsmedia.

Anti-science poster graphicconception's "answer" here is silly. As if anyone would have seriously expected a 36 page brochure to provide "extra information" beyond what is in the many thousands of pages IPCC reports. IPCC, a couple of minutes on google will show, compiles very extensive and detailed surveys intended for "policymakers." The new 36 page NAS RS report is a concise overview intended for an educated general public.

There have been numerous joint statements for the world's science academies. The scientists are agreed. That there is some large disagreement about whether humans are changing climate is a myth. The myth is perpetuated by non-educated yahoos and by whacky conspiracy theorists. On this site there is one conspiracy whacko who claims the lizard aliens made it, and another conspiracy whacko who claims a global conspiracy of Marxists made it up. The whackos should be ignored and everyone should understand how deeply the great scientist of the world are agreed.

That is what deniers do...they deny reality and in this case denying the reality of AGW'

The denier industry is a sham supported by money from coal and oil magnates. The pre=professional deniers began with money from the tobacco industry. to first convince us that tobacco didn't cause cancer and then subsequently that second hand smoke didn't cause cancer. It started with conservative think tank and associated doctors telling outright lies to the general public.

The AGW denier industry follows most of the same principles, lies, misleading info, supposed scientists in the field (many self proclaimed experts), cherry picking data and written science, varying time periods. to be honest it is entirely dishonest tactics. many of the deniers here know that AGW is real and a threat to the planet, but have been brainwashed to the point of no return or are simply afraid to admit it and contradict themselves.I feel sorry for people that are fearful of thinking for themselves.

ian.....what a hoot you are

What Baacheus calls a myth, everyone else with any scientific credence calls uncertainty. Its just a matter of separating extremist whack jobs from science.

As reports go it was a bit of a non-event. See Judith Curry's take on it here:

http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/27/nasrs-...

It closely followed the much-anticipated IPCC AR5 and it provided little or no extra information.

Because it is pure politics, they already knew what they were going to report, but the conference was all how to word it best to make it seem realistic

Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age. That definitely proves that man is responsible.

@C... It's called sarcasm. The sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age. I don't think you can blame that on man.

The British Royal Society and the American National Academy of Sciences issued a joint statement on climate change Feb. 27th. We see objections to IPCC publications here before they're even released, commentary on articles in obscure Russian journals, discussion of 30 year old magazine articles, and reference to opinions in psychology journals. Why do you think this clear and unequivocal joint statement, with references to original data, by two of the most respected scientific establishments has been ignored?

http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/