Environmen tal Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Here is a document about the effects of atmospheric CO2 and how it has no significant effect on Global temperatures.

Enjoy.

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, ANDWILLIE SOON
Oregon In stitute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Road, Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 [[email protected]]


ABSTRACT A review of the research literature concerning the
environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earths weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor green house gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.
.......................
CONCLUSIONS
There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause
unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape.
There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other
minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123).
We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if
the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been
much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing sea sons and generally improves
the habitability of colder re gions.

As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty
vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be re leased
into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the
health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.
The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally
sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies.
Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed
the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will
not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to
grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also
flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased.
Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas
from be low ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an in creasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our
children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal
life than that with which we now are blessed.

www.oism.org...



[edit on 23-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Spoiler Alert

OISM is not an organization that has any credentials in climatology. Not one of their staff deals in any of the fields of climatology. They are supported by right-wing Republican and Corporate front groups and manipulate data to serve an agenda (guess it's okay when you guys do it).

They also sell home school CD ROMs for parents that want to avoid "Socialist" indoctrinating in schools. Because, you know, all those 2nd grade teachers out there are evil Commies.

They are known for a 1998 massive bulk mail to the scientific community where they attempted to make it look as if the National Academy of Sciences supported their study (which was never peer reviewed - none of their work ever is). They have an online and mail-in petition that claims "scientists" support their cause, and yet they have no way and make no effort to check if the people signing up for their petition are actually scientists or even know anything about climatology.

Their research and methods do not stand up to scrutiny, and when they are scrutinized, their work is thoroughly refuted by people who actually know the data.

Debunked

Debunked

About OISM

Source

About the "petition"

Source

Source

Source

Also, if you look at his references, the bulk of his conclusions come from (shock) his own institution of unqualified "scientists".

Cap & Trade is a scam, true, but then again so are these people and this study. The pollutants we emit into the atmosphere are having a deleterious effect on the planet.

ARTHUR B. ROBINSON

He doesn't believe in evolution either.

reply to post by Avenginggecko


A bit like Al Gore then...

Tell me why it's OK for gore to "talk science" given that he has NO scientific training, and yet it's not OK for anyone else to do the same, despite they actually make more sense, and LIE LESS than gore.

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by Avenginggecko

 

A bit like Al Gore then...

Tell me why it's OK for gore to "talk science" given that he has NO scientific training, and yet it's not OK for anyone else to do the same, despite they actually make more sense, and LIE LESS than gore.

I have never seen Inconvenient Truth and I don't support Al Gore. Nice try, but you probably shouldn't make assumptions.

Al Gore shouldn't try to "talk science" because he turned a global threat into a political and industrial issue for money-making purposes. The scientists should be the ones talking science.

You wouldn't go to a neurologist to transplant your heart, why would you go to a biochemist quack or electrical engineer (both head up the OISM) for scientific studies on climatology?

And please, this "study" doesn't make more sense to you. I am 100% sure you did not read the 12 page pdf and effectively understand the conclusions they're coming to. It's not even a "study" - it's a political editorial and hypothesis.

reply to post by Avenginggecko


I made no assumptions.

I simply made a point.

Perhaps when talking about not making assumptions you should look towards yourself first.

Originally posted by budski
Tell me why it's OK for gore to "talk science" given that he has NO scientific training, and yet it's not OK for anyone else to do the same, despite they actually make more sense, and LIE LESS than gore.

Gore actually took a class on climate science during his degree. Might well be more education on this subject than Art and his buddies.

TBH, arguments from authority suck. Someone could have a mere UG degree in climate science and still be talking through their ass. For example, the fact that 30,000 or whatever random people with science degrees have an opinion isn't that important. If they aren't researching climate science then they are just almost as much a layman as your goodself.

reply to post by budski


You obviously made an assumption by replying to my post and asking me why it was okay for Al Gore to talk science but it's not for the OISM when I had made no mention of Al Gore previously. You were trying to attach Al Gore's political and commercial philosophy to mine in order to discredit the post I wrote.

I'll go ahead and assume that since you can't offer a serious rebuttal that my points still stand.

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
reply to post by budski

 

You obviously made an assumption by replying to my post and asking me why it was okay for Al Gore to talk science but it's not for the OISM when I had made no mention of Al Gore previously. You were trying to attach Al Gore's political and commercial philosophy to mine in order to discredit the post I wrote.

I'll go ahead and assume

that since you can't offer a serious rebuttal that my points still stand.

As I said, I made a point, and that's it.

You can assume all you like, but leave ME out of it and just make an ASS of yourself if U feel like it

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
Spoiler Alert

OISM is not an organization that has any credentials in climatology. Not one of their staff deals in any of the fields of climatology. They are supported by right-wing Republican and Corporate front groups and manipulate data to serve an agenda (guess it's okay when you guys do it).

WOW... spoiler alert alright... first of all Arthur B Robinson has a Ph.D. in chemistry and is a professor of chemistry, Noah E. Robinson also has a Ph.D. in chemistry from California Institute of Technology, Willie Soon is an astrophysicist who has studied and published papers on Climate Change, yet you come here and claim none of them deal in the field of Climate Change?... Caught you in an obvious lie right there buddy....

Second, your claims about them being "funded by right-wing Republican groups"... Where is the proof they are being paid to disinform?... Oh, a leftwing blog claims so?... I guess it must be right...

I also guess we might as well discount the entire AGW scientists since most of them are leftwingers who are getting funds from leftwing front groups and globalists like George Soros, and Al Gore... Again you lost, not to mention that your claim of "manipulated data in this paper" is another big lie...

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
They also sell home school CD ROMs for parents that want to avoid "Socialist" indoctrinating in schools. Because, you know, all those 2nd grade teachers out there are evil Commies.

OMG... THAT'S IT..... THAT MUST BE YOUR SPOILER ALERT!!!.....

It has NOTHING to do with this paper, and it doesn't refute at all this research paper, or any others...

But this claim of yours sure shows people like you would try to do ANYTHING, even exagerate and lie to try to refute anything that doubts your AGW religion...

BTW...we have had SEVERAL threads that shows little kids are being brainwashed by Liberal/Socialist teachers to sing praises to Obama the Messiah, along some other leftwing propaganda... So i applaud the Robinsons for making home schooling kits for parents who don't want their children being brainwashed by the leftwing propaganda machine which includes the AGW scam....

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
They are known for a 1998 massive bulk mail to the scientific community where they attempted to make it look as if the National Academy of Sciences supported their study (which was never peer reviewed - none of their work ever is). They have an online and mail-in petition that claims "scientists" support their cause, and yet they have no way and make no effort to check if the people signing up for their petition are actually scientists or even know anything about climatology.

First of all, again you make claims that i don't see being supported... BTW, we have had threads about the fact that scientific groups, and their leftwing editor in chiefs, and SMALL policy makers in these groups have claimed the mayority of their members agree... except that we found out as a fact that for example the council of AGU, which are about 16 people, decided to support the AGW scam even though they NEVER asked their member scientists, about 50,000, for their opinions...

We also found out that the editor in chief of the largest scientific group in the world decided to also claim all their scientists members agreed with the AGW scam...except that the editor in chief got hundreds of responses from their scientific members and the mayority of them DISAGREED with him, and his agreement with the AGW scam...

Those are only two examples of the FACTS... yetr\ the AGW fans keep claiming "all scientists agree with us, and the science is settled" among other lies....

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
Their research and methods do not stand up to scrutiny, and when they are scrutinized, their work is thoroughly refuted by people who actually know the data.

Oh, I see, so posting the propaganda machine from the leftwingers debunks this?....

BTW, I have posted, and stated this many times and showed evidence to support it... CO2 is plant food, and higher atmospheric levels of CO2 are BENEFITIAL for ALL life on Earth....

Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

www.planetnatural.com...

Next you are going to try to claim the above is a rightwing conspiracy lie and that two Ph.D.s in chemistry, plus an astrophysicist who has published papers on the physics of Climate Change have no say on the Climate Change topic...

BTW....the IPPC 2,500 list of "experts scientists on Climate Change" are more like 2,440-2,450 POLICY MAKERS, politicians, and environmentalists, and there were only about 50-60 real scientists who had some knowledge on Climate Change, and we had quite a few of those REAL scientists state that the IPCC has POLITICIZED science and Climate Change...

Now that's a real story, and a fact the AGW proponents don't like to admit....

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
Also, if you look at his references, the bulk of his conclusions come from (shock) his own institution of unqualified "scientists".

(shock) knowing how you tried your best, and failed, to dismiss and demean these people, and yes two Ph.D.s and an astrophysicist who has published papers on Climate Change have more weight than your unbiased claims....

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
Cap & Trade is a scam, true, but then again so are these people and this study. The pollutants we emit into the atmosphere are having a deleterious effect on the planet.

This paper is about CO2, prove to us CO2 is a pollutant....

Just because there are pollutants it doesn't make CO2 one, even though some people have been working hard of trying to make it look like it is....




[edit on 26-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
...............
I'll go ahead and assume

that since you can't offer a serious rebuttal that my points still stand.

Actually, it is obvious that YOU have been the one who hasn't been able to offer a SERIOUS rebuttal....

How about you PROVE to us CO2 is a pollutant?.... This paper is about CO2....