Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide(9029 PhDs Sign Against Global Warming)
Petition Project ^ | 2007 | Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon

Posted on 09/24/2014 6:20:47 AM PDT by xzins

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.

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 seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions.

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 released 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 below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly 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.


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: climatechange; globalwanking; globalwarming
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,

including 9,029 with PhDs

List of 31,487 scientists found at: http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php?run=all

1 posted on 09/24/2014 6:20:47 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

must see entire article at:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php


2 posted on 09/24/2014 6:21:14 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Well, where’s the research money in THAT ?


3 posted on 09/24/2014 6:27:35 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins


4 posted on 09/24/2014 6:36:22 AM PDT by Iron Munro ("If you want to test a man's character, give him power." -- Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

From a Forbes Magazine article:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

While real polling of climate scientists and organization memberships is rare, there are a few examples. A 2008 international survey of climate scientists conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch revealed deep disagreement regarding two-thirds of the 54 questions asked about their professional views. Responses to about half of those areas were skewed on the “skeptic” side, with no consensus to support any alarm. The majority did not believe that atmospheric models can deal with important influences of clouds, precipitation, atmospheric convection, ocean convection, or turbulence. Most also did not believe that climate models can predict precipitation, sea level rise, extreme weather events, or temperature values for the next 50 years.

A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.

A more recent 2012 survey published by the AMS found that only one in four respondents agreed with UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent warming. And while 89% believe that global warming is occurring, only 30% said they were very worried.

A March 2008 canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

A 2009 report issued by the Polish Academy of Sciences PAN Committee of Geological Sciences, a major scientific institution in the European Union, agrees that the purported climate consensus argument is becoming increasingly untenable. It says, in part, that: “Over the past 400 thousand years – even without human intervention – the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar four times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time [interval] of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times. In total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, [and] therefore the changes mentioned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.”


5 posted on 09/24/2014 6:47:33 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xzins

They are heretics a.k.a. deniers and will be pursued by the climate change Inquisition who enforces adherence to the global warming dogma. St. Algore and his prophet Obama have told us the science is settled and we should not let facts get in the way.


6 posted on 09/24/2014 7:16:43 AM PDT by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I love this. I am making CO2 as fast as I possibly can. Start another compost pile!
7 posted on 09/24/2014 7:23:48 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (When I grow up, I'm gonna settle down, chew honeycomb & drive a tractor, grow things in the ground.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I completely missed this article that mentioned the Petition Project by the Wall Street Journal back in May

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

What’s interesting is the overwhelming bulk of the signers date from 2007-2009.

The article above is a good read to bookend the OP link, as it describes the bunk claim of ‘consensus’, its origins and the balance. I don’t know if it’s been posted on FR, but if someone knows maybe they can crosslink it here.

Thanks for the post. Now I have ammunition in my ‘other gun’.


8 posted on 09/24/2014 7:39:43 AM PDT by logi_cal869
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Plants breath in and consume co2 exhale oxygen..
Animals breath.in oxygen and exhale co2

More co2 more plants grow ..comsuming co2.. lowering co2..


9 posted on 09/24/2014 7:49:58 AM PDT by tophat9000 (An Eye for an Eye, a Word for a Word...nothing more)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ

In regards to the WSJ article I linked in my comment, it has a paywall in IE (I just discovered that).

It has no paywall in Opera, fyi to those interested.


10 posted on 09/24/2014 7:58:55 AM PDT by logi_cal869
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Including yours truly. BS in Biology, MS in Environmental Biology and a Registered Environmental Manager.


11 posted on 09/24/2014 8:13:48 AM PDT by redangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I have a PhD in common sense. Where do I sign.


12 posted on 09/24/2014 8:15:06 AM PDT by RobinOfKingston (Democrats--the party of Evil. Republicans--the party of Stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinOfKingston

Go to the website and click on the ‘common sense’ link.

:>)


13 posted on 09/24/2014 8:16:29 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: xzins

An important point about plants is that they absorb CO2 through the pores in their skin.

If there is very little CO2 in the air, they must open their pores wider to catch it. However, in the process, they lose moisture through their pores. Conversely, if there is more CO2 than normal, their pores are narrower and they lose less moisture.

Moisture they uptake from the ground. So more CO2 in the air, means more moisture left in the ground, which means that more plants can live in the same ground.

On the grand scale, this can create “de-desertification”, meaning that plant life starts taking over land that was previously desert.

Plants can be powerful, en masse. When enough of them take over a place, the air above it cools, which in turn tends to increase precipitation.


14 posted on 09/24/2014 8:58:00 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative." -Obama, 09-24-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
This has been around for over a decade and has been discussed on FR for that long. Why are you reposting it now?

BTW, I signed that petition in 2001.

15 posted on 09/24/2014 9:47:49 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The tree of liberty needs a rope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
Moisture they uptake from the ground. So more CO2 in the air, means more moisture left in the ground, which means that more plants can live in the same ground.

Which means that a larger fraction is lost to ground-water. That is actually a drought inducing mechanism.

16 posted on 09/24/2014 9:49:26 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The tree of liberty needs a rope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

What’s the top article on FR Breaking News?


17 posted on 09/24/2014 9:55:50 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

I’ve never heard of the mechanism taken that far, as in desert’s surface moisture rarely passes through to a far deeper water table.


18 posted on 09/24/2014 2:32:25 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative." -Obama, 09-24-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
I’ve never heard of the mechanism taken that far, as in desert’s surface moisture rarely passes through to a far deeper water table.

Oh really? There are large water tables underlying eastern Nevada, the Sahara, and the Arabian Peninsula.

19 posted on 09/24/2014 4:13:58 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The tree of liberty needs a rope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier

Ping.


20 posted on 09/24/2014 4:21:54 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson