Scientists Doubting the “Man-Made Global Warming” Hypothesis (Correlation does not prove causality!)

24 05 2008

Following is a news article quoting credible sources from within the scientific community disputing the hypotheses that global warming is “man made” and that atmospheric warming is actually harmful to the earth’s environment (or its inhabitants, i.e. people).” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors. The south rim of the Grand Canyon


A. “31,000 Signatures Prove ‘No Consensus’ About Global Warming” (here)

Source: Accuracy in Media (

Quoting Arthur B. Robinson, president and professor of chemistry at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine,…. Robinson spoke about his petition signed by 31,000 U.S. scientists (including 9,400 Ph.Ds) who reject the claims that “human release of greenhouse gases is damaging our climate. World temperatures fluctuate all the time,” said Robinson. “The temperature of the Earth has risen many times, far more times than carbon dioxide could drive it. There is no experimental evidence that humans are changing the environment…”

Robinson said that in recent years the U.N. and a group of 600 scientists, representing less than one percent of the scientific population, reached a “consensus” that global warming is happening. This has never been done before, Robinson insists.

Robinson said that people need to look at the facts, and realize that “correlation does not prove causality.” 31,000 scientists agree. But what about the rest of the American population? “Winston Churchill once said that Americans always do the right thing after they’ve tried everything else,” said Robinson. “Maybe that’s what we’re going to do this time. But there will be a lot of suffering.”

In this article Robinson discusses how limitations on energy usage and associated technological developments are likely to have catastrophic, negative impacts upon poor populations of the world, denying them use of lower cost energy sources that they could use to better their standards of living and health standards, and consequently lead to social upheaval as people groups and nations inevitably come to conflict over acquisition of unnecessarily scarce energy resources.” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors. Deep in the Alaska Wilderness



B. Published Scientific Research Providing Evidence in Opposition to the “Global Warming Hypothesis”

Following is the reference and abstract for a paper available from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine ( summarizing the scientific work of Robinson, relative to the “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide ” (click here for a downloadable copy). The article was published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2007)….


Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Road, Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 []. Published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2007) 12, 79-90.

—–” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors. A great ocean storm wave

Abtract of Paper

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 in creased 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 nu clear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.

Some selected points from the authors’ conclusions are provided below (page 12)…

  • “There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house 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 green house gases as has been proposed.”
  • “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.”
  • 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.

**********” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors. Portrait of conservative Anglo-Irish statesman, author, orator, political theorist and philosopher, Edmund Burke (1780)

Following is a May 15, 2008 editorial from Investor’s Business Daily ( ) on the likely impact of proposed “cap and trade” policies upon the U.S. economy that will soon be considered by the U.S. Congress. The information contained here is both serious and alarming. Environmental Protection Agency estimates of the impact of the Warner-Lieberman Cap and Trade Bill would be $3 Trillion per year to the U.S. economy (out of the approximately $14 Trillion in economic activity we in the U.S. currently have (i.e. $3 Trillion / $14 Trillion = 21% cost to the total U.S. economy)). Even the least restrictive Bingaman-Specter Cap and Trade legislation would still impose a cost of $1 Trillion upon the U.S. economy (i.e. $1 Trillion / $14 Trillion = 7% cost to the total U.S. economy). (click here for the article)

These projected economic impacts are frightening and would cause widespread economic suffering in the U.S. economy and even among 3rd world countries. I for one intend to speak out against this to the degree that I am able.  Churchlayman” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.





One response

24 05 2008

your views are radically opposite to the generally accepted and subscribed ones. I will need some persuasion and regular reading of your view point before i can decide whether to go with your views or continue with mine.
In any case i welcome an alternate view being aired on climate change and am willing to be exposed to it. Your logic appears powerful, still it takes time to discard regular beliefs and accept a different view point. In any case to see something other than the usual doomsday predictions is refreshing.

%d bloggers like this: