What do you guys think of this data?

Question

Just wondering what people think of this data.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/other/Robinson_Soon.pdf

Answer 1

It appeared in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.  There must be plenty of republican voters there.  Is seems belief in significant AGW seems to come down to political idealogy.  

Also climate scientists might be unanamouns amongst themselves, but are having a hard time convincing people from other fields (even meteorologists) that AGW is real and significant.

Answer 2

I think that the conclusions of this article have been countered by hundreds of peer-reviewed articles and that it uses questionable sources.

The “Journal of American Physicians and Surgeon’s (JPandS) is the journal of “Association of American Physicians and Surgeons”. The association is a politically conservative group.

Other articles published by the journal include:

That the FDA is unconstitutional: http://www.haciendapub.com/albright2.htm...

That "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution: http://www.haciendapub.com/caine6.html

That HIV does not cause AIDS: http://www.haciendapub.com/v2n3.html

Answer 3

Great Info.!  I believe these 'physicians' are also very aware of this info from Lancet and other medical journals, exposing 'false science' = this is why they probably question and investigate  ALL science.

Science For Hire:

http://www.tuberose.com/Science_For_Hire...

"Scientists take money for papers ghostwritten by drug companies."

"Doctors named as authors may not have seen raw data."

"Scientists are accepting large sums of money from drug companies to put their names to articles endorsing new medicines that they have not written"

This should make people aware that not all science / scientific findings are correct - especially scientists with a political bent.

Answer 4

More Propaganda !

ONCE AGAIN....

Global Warming MEANS "World Wide Warming!" It is ONLY A Political Term = NOT based in Real Science!

The EARTH is covered by "Three Quarters WATER!" Basic Science, it takes ONE-Btu to raise One Cubic Centimeter ONE Degree Centigrade!

HOW many "Gazillion Cubic Centimeters are there ONLY on the Surface of Planet Earth COVERED by 3/4 Water?"

HOW many Btu's would it take TO RAISE THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE ONE DEGREE?

DO THE MATH!

And, were are the Million TEMPERATURE MEASURING SITES on the Many Oceans THAT TELL US THAT THE OCEAN TEMPERATURES ARE RISING? Not!

Oh yes, POLAR temperatures have varied LESS Than one degree in the past 100-Years. Noticed I said VARIED, = NOT RISEN!

Thanks, RR



The theory of man-made global warming is false. Anyone who believes otherwise has not investigated the evidence or is purposely remaining ignorant to the legitimate opposition to global warming. I have given up an one and a half hours to watch “An Inconvenient Truth” so I ask you to do the same and watch the movie detailing the opposition.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

Another general resource: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/global_warm...

CO2 is not causing the globe to warm the opposite is true, the warming is increasing the atmospheric CO2. When the world heats it gradually increases the temperature of the oceans which serve as the largest CO2 sink. As the oceans heat up they release CO2 which is stored in them. The information comes from the same data Al Gore uses, the temperature always goes up before the concentration of CO2 goes up.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/artic...

CO2 makes up only .03% of our atmosphere. Water vapor, another greenhouse gas, makes up 1-4% of our atmosphere, this gas is acknowledged to be the main greenhouse gas. All human activities combined contribute only 6 Gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year. Animals, through respiration, decomposition, etc contribute 150 Gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere. So humans contribute only a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere which is already in very small concentrations in the atmosphere.

http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science.html... This is where my data came from, it is an interesting site, it displays the same graphics as Al Gore in his movie but it tells how low the human contribution is. So Al Gore is using the same data but coming to a different conclusion, who do you want to believe a politician with no scientific training or the NASA CO2 laboratory, a group of scientists who spend their entire careers studying CO2.

We know the greenhouse effect is real it is a necessary effect to keep our planet at a habitable temperature. However if our current warming is due to greenhouse gasses it would cause warming in the troposphere , but the troposphere is actually getting cooler.

http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature... That points to other explanations to our current warming.

So what is causing our current warming, it is the sun.

http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/spac...

http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/s...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/06...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/...

The fact that only the earth’s surface is warming points to direct heating from the sun rather than heating due to greenhouse gasses. Also other planets in our solar system are warming pointing to a common cause of warming, that common cause being the sun.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/0...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sola...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sola...

The global warming crowd says our glaciers are melting and animals will suffer this is another false claim.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/co2sci...

http://www.nationalcenter.org/npa235.htm...

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/...

Answer 5

So the sun is causing global warming... wow I guess it was the sun that caused the ice ages too!!!!

Your lovely GOV is also saying the the debt is no big deal either.

Answer 6

Ben O...so you're saying that Democrats aren't smart enough to be in the Journal of Amecan Physicians and Surgeions?

Answer 7

its holey. ie full of holes.

i especially like the way they use local data for figure 3 and 4 instead of global data.

Answer 8

Once again AGW suporters have resorted to their usual tactic in attacking an article they do agree with.  Do not discuss the science, attack the man, repeat the mantra.  Well done Benjamin.  

There some damming conclusions here;  Here are some that I list as relevant.

Carbon dioxide has a very short residence time in the atmosphere. Beginning with the 7 to 10-year half-time of CO2 in the atmosphere estimated by Revelle and Seuss (69), there were 36 estimates of the atmospheric CO2 half-time based upon experimental measurements published between 1957 and 1992 (59). These range between 2 and 25 years, with a mean of 7.5, a median of 7.6, and an up per range

average of about 10. Of the 36 values, 33 are 10 years or less.

Many of these estimates are from the decrease in atmospheric carbon 14 after cessation of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, which provides a reliable half-time. There is no experimental evidence to support computer model estimates (73) of a CO2 atmospheric “lifetime” of 300 years or more"

"The hypothesis that the CO2 rise during the interglacials caused the temperature to rise requires an increase of about 6 °C per 30% rise in CO2 as seen in the ice core re cord. If this hypothesis were correct, Earth temperatures would have risen about 6 °C be tween 1900 and 2006, rather than the rise of between 0.1 °C and 0.5 °C, which actually occurred.

The 650,000-year ice-core re cord does not, therefore, agree with the hypothesis of “human-caused global warming,” and, in fact, provides empirical evidence that invalidates this hypothesis

In the United States, rainfall is in creasing at about 1.8 inches per century, and the number of severe tornadoes is decreasing, as shown in Figures 7 and 8. If world  temperatures continue to rise at the current rate, they will reach those of the Medieval Climate Optimum about 2 centuries from now. Historical re ports of that period record

the growing of warm weather crops in localities too cold for that purpose today, so it is to be expected that the area of more temperate climate will expand as it did then. This is already being observed, as studies at higher altitudes have reported in creases in amount and diversity of plant and animal life by more than 50%"

The hypotheses that the IPCC (82,83) has chosen to adopt predict that the effect of CO2 is amplified by the atmosphere, especially by water vapor, to produce a large temperature in crease. Other hypotheses, shown as hypothesis 2, predict the opposite – that the atmospheric response will counteract the CO2 increase and result in insignificant changes in global temperature (81,84,85,91,92). The experimental evidence, as described above, favors hypothesis 2. While CO2 has increased substantially, its effect on temperature has been so slight that it has not been experimentally detected."

Answer 9

not sure why 2 M.D.'s are writing papers on climate.........

or why they would publish it in a scientific journal where none of the readers are experts on climate.

Answer 10

Very interesting.  I'm sure that the AGW pitch-man (Gore) will apologize to all of mankind for jumping the gun on the 'man-did-it' GW thing after reading this!! (LOL)

Answer 11

Seems to be an attempt to muddy the water.  Must say I'd rather trust the climate scientist who are the specialists in this field.  There is some interesting information on the dubious credentials of Robinson's outfit and other matters for example the claim of much increased plant growth at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?t*t...  Ultimately though one comes back to the basic physics of CO2 being a green house gas.   This seems to be a recent article and no doubt the experts will be working on their rebuttal.