Muadib
Paranormal Adept
And you can keep throwing out red herring arguments all you want, the bottom line is you're wrong.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Global Warming Happy Fun-Time
- Thread starter Angel of Ioren
- Start date
Free episodes:
And you can keep throwing out red herring arguments all you want, the bottom line is you're wrong.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Muadib does not believe that the sun warms the planet... He says I am wrong in thinking that it does... wtf?
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
I'm sorry but lmao. The finest article ever written by a bio chemist, aerospace engineer, and whatever Noah's PHD is in, I'm guessing not climate science, I couldn't find it online.
Willie Soon:
Dr. Willie Wei-Hock Soon (who is most commonly referred to as Willie Soon) is a global warming skeptic. He is a physicist at the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and, since 1992[1], has been an astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory,[2], where climate denier and Marshall Institute co-founder Robert Jastrow was Director[3] from 1992-2003.[4]
"U.S. oil and coal companies, including ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries, and the world’s largest coal-burning utility, Southern Company, have contributed more than $1 million over the past decade to his research. According to Greenpeace, every grant Dr. Soon has received since 2002 has been from oil or coal interests."[5]
Wonder why he would want to debunk global warming? Weird.
Arthur B Robinson:
Arthur B. Robinson is one of the three co-founders of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, a group best known for organising a petition disputing the scientific evidence for human-induced global warming.[1]
On January 7, 2009, the Willamette Week reported that Robinson is "in the vanguard of a small but vocal and persistent collection of scientists, industry advocates and commentators who dismiss human culpability for climate change. ... Robinson’s critics say his analysis is simplistic, but it remains persuasive a decade later with powerful policymakers like U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a visible and effective player in blocking a bill to limit greenhouse-gas emissions last fall. 'The influence Robinson and the others have is to muddy the waters and delay action on global warming,' says Sheldon Rampton, research director for the Center for Media and Democracy, a nonprofit organization that promotes media literacy. 'I thought he was thoroughly discredited years ago,' Rampton says. 'But the global-warming skeptics certainly haven’t given up. And they seem willing to promote anyone who can be half-plausibly sold as an expert.' Robinson’s views have been cited on Fox News, MSNBC and other national newscasts, such as Exposed: The Climate of Fear, an hourlong special report in 2007 by CNN Headline News’ Glenn Beck. The report relied heavily on Robinson’s findings to attack former Vice President Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth." [1]
And finally the paper:
Michael MacCracken’s analysis of errors in Robinson, Robinson, and Soon 2007 contrarian article
Posted on July 25, 2008 by Rick Piltz
Michael MacCracken of the Climate Institute, in an analysis posted here for the first time, identifies dozens of scientific errors and misleading statements in a 2007 paper by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon entitled “Environmental Effects of Increased Carbon Dioxide” – a contrarian effort that exemplifies the sort of work that provides fodder for the global warming disinformation campaign.
The full text of MacCracken’s analysis is available here in PDF.
Analysis by Michael MacCracken of the paper
“Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”
by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon
(Robinson et al. paper published in Journal of American Physician and Surgeons (2007) 12, 79-90)
Summary
Expanding on a paper first presented ten years ago, the authors present a summary of climate change science that finds fault with nearly all of the internationally peer-reviewed findings contained in the comprehensive scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In particular, the authors find fault with IPCC’s conclusions relating to human activities being the primary cause of recent global warming, claiming, contrary to significant evidence that they tend to ignore, that the comparatively small influences of natural changes in solar radiation are dominating the influences of the much larger effects of changes in the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations on the global energy balance. After many scientific misstatements and much criticism of IPCC science, the authors conclude with a section on the environment and energy that argues for construction of 500 additional nuclear reactors to provide the inexpensive energy needed for the US to prosper and to end importation of hydrocarbon fuels (particularly petroleum). Taking this step, along with the beneficial effects of the rising CO2 concentration, will, they argue in complete contrast to the prevailing scientific views, create a “lush environment of plants and animals” that our children can enjoy.
The Robinson et al 2007 article is posted here.“Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”
by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon
(Robinson et al. paper published in Journal of American Physician and Surgeons (2007) 12, 79-90)
Summary
Expanding on a paper first presented ten years ago, the authors present a summary of climate change science that finds fault with nearly all of the internationally peer-reviewed findings contained in the comprehensive scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In particular, the authors find fault with IPCC’s conclusions relating to human activities being the primary cause of recent global warming, claiming, contrary to significant evidence that they tend to ignore, that the comparatively small influences of natural changes in solar radiation are dominating the influences of the much larger effects of changes in the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations on the global energy balance. After many scientific misstatements and much criticism of IPCC science, the authors conclude with a section on the environment and energy that argues for construction of 500 additional nuclear reactors to provide the inexpensive energy needed for the US to prosper and to end importation of hydrocarbon fuels (particularly petroleum). Taking this step, along with the beneficial effects of the rising CO2 concentration, will, they argue in complete contrast to the prevailing scientific views, create a “lush environment of plants and animals” that our children can enjoy.
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon
Oregon Institute 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 Earth’s 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 greenhouse 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.
For an analysis that, in contrast, reflects an understanding of the scientific evidence that is generally shared in the climate science community, see MacCracken’s recent journal article, “Prospects for Future Climate Change and the Reasons for Early Action,” which is posted on the Climate Institute Web site here (3.2 MB).Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon
Oregon Institute 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 Earth’s 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 greenhouse 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.
ISSN:1047-3289 J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 58:735–786
DOI:10.3155/1047-3289.58.6.735
Copyright 2008 Air & Waste Management Association
Prospects for Future Climate Change and the Reasons for Early Action
Michael C. MacCracken
Climate Institute, Washington, DC
ABSTRACT
Combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas, and to a lesser extent deforestation, land-cover change, and emissions of halocarbons and other greenhouse gases, are rapidly increasing the atmospheric concentrations of climate-warming gases. The warming of approximately 0.1–0.2 °C per decade that has resulted is very likely the primary cause of the increasing loss of snow cover and Arctic sea ice, of more frequent occurrence of very heavy precipitation, of rising sea level, and of shifts in the natural ranges of plants and animals. The global average temperature is already approximately 0.8 °C above its preindustrial level, and present atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases will contribute to further warming of 0.5–1 °C as equilibrium is re-established. Warming has been and will be greater in mid and high latitudes compared with low latitudes, over land compared with oceans, and at night compared with day. As emissions continue to increase, both warming and the commitment to future warming are presently increasing at a rate of approximately 0.2 °C per decade, with projections that the rate of warming will further increase if emission controls are not put in place. Such warming and the associated changes are likely to result in severe impacts on key societal and environmental support systems. Present estimates are that limiting the increase in global average surface temperature to no more than 2–2.5 °C above its 1750 value of approximately 15 °C will be required to avoid the most catastrophic, but certainly not all, consequences of climate change. Accomplishing this will require reducing emissions sharply by 2050 and to near zero by 2100. This can only be achieved if: (1) developed nations move rapidly to demonstrate that a modern society can function without reliance on technologies that release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other non-CO2 greenhouse gases to the atmosphere; and (2) if developing nations act in the near-term to sharply limit their non-CO2 emissions while minimizing growth in CO2 emissions, and then in the long-term join with the developed nations to reduce all emissions as cost-effective technologies are developed.
Finest presentation ever my ass. Thanks for nothing.
DOI:10.3155/1047-3289.58.6.735
Copyright 2008 Air & Waste Management Association
Prospects for Future Climate Change and the Reasons for Early Action
Michael C. MacCracken
Climate Institute, Washington, DC
ABSTRACT
Combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas, and to a lesser extent deforestation, land-cover change, and emissions of halocarbons and other greenhouse gases, are rapidly increasing the atmospheric concentrations of climate-warming gases. The warming of approximately 0.1–0.2 °C per decade that has resulted is very likely the primary cause of the increasing loss of snow cover and Arctic sea ice, of more frequent occurrence of very heavy precipitation, of rising sea level, and of shifts in the natural ranges of plants and animals. The global average temperature is already approximately 0.8 °C above its preindustrial level, and present atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases will contribute to further warming of 0.5–1 °C as equilibrium is re-established. Warming has been and will be greater in mid and high latitudes compared with low latitudes, over land compared with oceans, and at night compared with day. As emissions continue to increase, both warming and the commitment to future warming are presently increasing at a rate of approximately 0.2 °C per decade, with projections that the rate of warming will further increase if emission controls are not put in place. Such warming and the associated changes are likely to result in severe impacts on key societal and environmental support systems. Present estimates are that limiting the increase in global average surface temperature to no more than 2–2.5 °C above its 1750 value of approximately 15 °C will be required to avoid the most catastrophic, but certainly not all, consequences of climate change. Accomplishing this will require reducing emissions sharply by 2050 and to near zero by 2100. This can only be achieved if: (1) developed nations move rapidly to demonstrate that a modern society can function without reliance on technologies that release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other non-CO2 greenhouse gases to the atmosphere; and (2) if developing nations act in the near-term to sharply limit their non-CO2 emissions while minimizing growth in CO2 emissions, and then in the long-term join with the developed nations to reduce all emissions as cost-effective technologies are developed.
Finest presentation ever my ass. Thanks for nothing.
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
Wow you can't really be that stupid so I'm guessing that you're just being deliberately obtuse as usual. I wasn't saying you're wrong that the sun warms the planet, you're wrong in thinking the sun is the major force behind global warming. Don't be an idiot, I know it's hard for you, but at least make an effort.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
So... Muadib says the sun is not a major force behind global warming... does anyone here believe this bullshit? So, take the sun out of the climate models (like they did with clouds) and see what happens. lol.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
and the earth is flat right? that was the scientific consensus not that long ago and you believe in scientific consensus rather than the scientific method... or are you saying that scientific consensus is wrong sometimes?
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
No, of course not. It is only flat on the bottom so it can rest on the elephants standing on the turtle. The turtle is crossing the road and we are in the sun right now. Later, if it avoids being run over, it will make for the shade on the other side of the road and we will cool off some again.
nameless
Paranormal Adept
Ex-sceptic says climate change is down to humans
BBC News - Ex-sceptic says climate change is down to humans
New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial
New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial | Watts Up With That?
Larry Wachowski Transgender: 'Matrix' Director Reveals Transition To Lana Wachowski
Larry Wachowski Transgender: 'Matrix' Director Reveals Transition To Lana Wachowski (VIDEO)
BBC News - Ex-sceptic says climate change is down to humans
New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial
New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial | Watts Up With That?
Larry Wachowski Transgender: 'Matrix' Director Reveals Transition To Lana Wachowski
Larry Wachowski Transgender: 'Matrix' Director Reveals Transition To Lana Wachowski (VIDEO)
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
Once again you twist my words. I said it's not THE major driving force behind global warming, y'know like it says in my post, genius.
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
ROFL. Not that long ago, if the 1600's is not that long ago. Of course they could be wrong, I've never said otherwise, but that brings us back to the whole need for you to present an alternative model to explain the decades of data that support man made global warming. Which you can't do. So let's not pretend you're following the scientific method.
See, that's what science is all about, my position is not unfalsifiable, you just have to come up with the alternative model that fits the data to falsify it, I'm still waiting. Not to mention, I'm willing to admit that they could be wrong, are you willing to admit they could be right?
The only thing you and your
I made that bold for you because you obviously have difficulty with reading comprehension.
hahaha. i love it in summer when the tennis comes on....
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Maudib you keep blathering on and on and on about so and so being a skeptic as if that is a bad thing... science is all about skepticism and the scientific method (oops your camp hates that phrase, sorry). You also keep blathering about funding of skeptics... if you knew anything about the subject you will know that pro AGW alarmists/scientists are funded and issued grants well beyond those who are not alarmists.
the sun went down last night and it got cooler... maybe Muadib is right about the looming deadly climate change...climate change is now happening every night!!! run away!
the sun went down last night and it got cooler... maybe Muadib is right about the looming deadly climate change...climate change is now happening every night!!! run away!
P
pixelsmith
Guest
just because you copy paste tons of crap doesnt make your crap valid. you have yet to support your claims that human caused CO2 is creating a threat to the planet or all life on it.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
recap... Muadib does not think the sun is a major factor in warming the planet, CO2 is not good for plant life and climate change is apparently something new and caused by humans.