Funny, I thought this guy was funded by oil?

Question

Whenever Dr. Arthur Robinson says anything, the only rebuttle the AGW loons can come up with is, "He is funded by oil." But that is funny, he is asked this question, and he emphatically states he has received none. Now what will the AGW crazies say about him? Let me guess. He is not a climatologist. Only the IPCC can use geologist, economist, etc as experts. Anyone against their position must be climatologist. Yea right. How about debating the FACTS for once. And remember, no studies can be used which are funded in any way by the IPCC as they have an agenda, and their money is tainted.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/7009#SlideFrame_1

Answer 1

If you are gullible enough to believe a con man when he says he isnt' a con man--do turn your finances over to someone better qualified to manage them. For your own sake.

As to global warming--there is no "debate." uman caused global warming is proven--the debate was over years ago. And no one is going to wast time helping some kooks pretend otherwise.

Answer 2

And the AGW people get funding from there own funders

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Rea...

http://www.tides.org/

http://www.ega.org/funders/index.php

http://www.fundsnetservices.com/environ....

http://www.awag.org/Grant%20Seekers%20To...

Heres one that is now doing time in the federal pen.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?art...

Here is a statement made by one of the eco funders,

"Of the hundreds of millions of dollars we have poured into the global warming issue, only a small fraction has gone to engage Americans as the proud moral people they are, willing to sacrifice for the right cause. It would be dishonest to lay all the blame on the media, politicians or the oil industry for the public's disengagement from the issue that, more than any other, will define our future. Those of us who call ourselves environmentalists have a responsibility to examine our role and close the gap between the problems we know and the solutions we propose."

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/...

!!!!Must have spent the money paying off scientist!!!!

They even try to get you to think they are some government agency

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?art...

The treehuggers even get mad at each other over funding

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn...

Other fun reading

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2172...

http://www.ran.org/what_we_do/global_fin...

http://members.aol.com/JWaugh7596/page2....

WONDER WHAT NEXT FROM THE "FAR LEFT RADICAL TREEHUGGERS"

Answer 3

wow, way to find a super biased source.  Im not saying that i support AGW,  but to site something from the new American which is ran by the John Birch Society, please.  theyre nothing but a bunch of crazed super conservative far right wingers.  these are the same people who thought the us government was being controlled by communists and the same group that opposed the civil rights act

Answer 4

"the temperature is only going up 0.5° C per century. "

Wrong.  It went up .6° C last century, and the rate is increasing.  At least he admits global warming is occuring.  That's progress!

"Moreover, this increase is not being caused by human activity."

Unsupported and untrue.

"It was much warmer during the Medieval Climate Optimum 1,000 years ago (see Figure 1)."

Oh, so now the propagandists call it "optimum"!  What could be better than "optimum"?  This guy IS smart!  So what does warmer periods in the past prove?  Nothing about AGW, but it does prove that climate can change, adn the changes have a cause, so once the influences are understood we can predict where it's likely to be going.  

So why doesn't Figure 1 have a source?  Did Mr. Chemist just make it up?  Apparently.

"Moreover, the temperature, which is going up very slowly, is correlated with the sun’s activity, not hydrocarbon use (see Figure 3)."

The first half has been proven untrue.  The second half is a blatant lie.  Again, where did the figure come from?

"But actually the atmosphere contains lots of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide, water, and oxygen are required for life. Without these substances in the atmosphere, life would not be possible."

Apparently this guy got his knowledge from Sesame Street; it's right about that level.

"Plus, we’re only adding moderately and temporarily to CO2 levels."

Yeah, temporarily, like for the next 1000 years... each generation that increases carbon dioxide will affect the next 30+ generations.  That 30th generation will have our problem 30 times over, but only if we freeze emissions at current levels!

"Human use has caused a transient increase during the past century — from about 0.03 percent to 0.04 percent of atmospheric molecules."

Wait, you said we were only adding moderately... but it's a 33% increase?  Isn't the earth warmer by about 22 degrees due to greenhouse gas warming, and you claim that increasing the gas 33% does nothing?  Do you think you're talking to complete idiots?

"Man is producing about 8 gigatons per year, and yet there are 40,000 gigatons in the biosphere and oceans."

I guess you DO think you're talking to complete idiots... we're not supposed to notice that you just compared man's share of atmospheric carbon dioxide to every ounce of carbon on the planet, including in the oceans.  What kind of nutty point could you possibly claim that you're making?

'Between 1880 and 1890, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 295 ppm [parts per million]. For comparison, this office right now is rising toward 1,000 ppm because we’re all exhaling carbon dioxide."

Wow, we exhale carbon dioxide?  Then global warming must not be true.  Wait, he said the earth IS warming...

"Carbon dioxide has a very short half-time of about seven years in the atmosphere."

Even Big Bird knows that a significant portion stays for 1000 years.

"We have more than 22,000 scientist signers of our global-warming petition..."

Ah, the Oregon Petition... anyone could sign it, and misrepresent their credentials... a list of Fox News viewers... which means what?  

"...does not matter."

Oh.  I think that's the first accurate thing you've said.

"The only thing our petition demonstrates is that there is no consensus among scientists in support of the UN claims."

No.  The consensus of scientists who are involved in relevant research remains intact, and your list of uninvolved people does nothing to erode that.  Nice try (not really, but I'm trying to be polite).

"The truth is important. Scientific truth is not determined by polling or by convening meetings."

So why'd you make the list of 22,000?  You were just trying to manipulate us with a meaningless poll?  At least you admit that it's not "truth" and not important.

"As you know, climatologists have trouble predicting the weather a week or two in advance."

Even the Cookie Monster knows that weather is not climate.  You are one devious person to equate weather with climate.  You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to find someone gullible enough to get to the end of this article, aren't you?

"There are some very fine scientists, like Richard Lindzen at MIT, who work on the details of climate theory and attempt to understand the atmosphere in detail."

Yes, such a fine scientist that he won't bet on his own conclusions without 50 to 1 odds!  Seriously.  Google Lindzen and "bet"...

"We can show that the hypothesis of human-caused global warming is false, however, because we have enough empirical data to falsify this hypothesis. Human-caused global warming is a hypothesis that has failed so many experimental tests that it is clearly without merit."

OK, I'm all ears.  Name one test.  No?  How about a link to one peer-reviewed paper?  Nothing?  Anyone?  Bueller?

"To the average person, those IPCC reports look very authoritative, very intimidating. It looks to us like a battle between two sides of experts."

Don't flatter yourself.  It's a battle between thousands of experts and a few creepy loons like you!

"Moreover, many of these 600 disagree with the conclusions that the UN-IPCC advertises."

That's the beauty and value of consensus, isn't it?  Consensus considers the opposing theories and only rejects the poorly supported ones (look up the definition if you don't understand that).

---

That's it.  Halfway through, and I can't continue.  Utter garbage.  Who cares who does or doesn't fund it?  

And you talk about loons and crazies?  ROFLMAO!

Answer 5

I don't know who Dr. Robinson is, or who he's funded by, but I don't think I trust him, on climate change, at least. He's apparently cofounder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, the institute which sent out the misleading and, I think, near-fraudulent Oregon Petition. I imagine Dr. Robinson had a hand in it (in fact he references it several times during the interview you linked).

He also blatantly accuses the IPCC and many other climate scientists he doesn't agree with of engaging in fraud. This isn't something a serious scientist who's passionate about the truth does. Dr. Robinson should know how serious accusations of fraud are in the scientific community, and should take them up with the proper authorities if he thinks he has the evidence to prove them. I lost a great deal of respect for Dr. Robinson's opinion after he did this, and it made it very difficult to take the rest of his interview seriously.

Lastly, he proves my suspicions when he starts discussing the spurious and, when you get down to it, rather weak correlation between arctic air temperature and sun spot activity.

So in the end, it doesn't matter to me who Dr. Robinson is or who funds his work. His dishonesty and blatant disrespect for his fellow scientists completely obliterates any respect I had for the man's opinion on climate science.

Answer 6

If you need a better list of AGW deniers that have better credentials here is a great list and links to their works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_...

Answer 7

Who cares?

Do you even understand the basics of climate change?

There are gases that trap heat more effectively than other gases... they are increasing in our atmosphere because we are releasing fossil fuels from their underground stores laid down by past ecosystems.

It is a very simple premise. The consequences are far more complex, but all you need to understand is that you need to pull your finger out and cut your emissions!

Answer 8

Who??  Why are you blabbering about some random chemist?  Are you going to ask your dentist about global warming next?

Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.  Are you really this desperate?  You can't find anyone more credible to deny global warming than a chemist?

You want to debate the facts and you cite an article which contains inaccurate global temperature data?

No, you don't want to debate the facts, because the facts clearly prove you wrong.

Answer 9

Who said that the warmers are all climatologists?  Check out what these people studied:

Bill Nye, B.S. Mechanical Engineering (Bill Nye the Science Guy)

Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (RealClimate.org)

James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA, Gavin Schmidt's Boss)

Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Sciences

Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology & Geophysics (RealClimate.org)

Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics

Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology

They studied meteorology on the job.  Would you go to a doctor who studied biology?