And he sees AGW for just what it is
Physics professor William Happer GS ’64 has some tough words for scientists who believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.
“This is George Orwell. This is the ‘Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth.’ It’s that kind of propaganda,†Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, said in an interview. “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.â€
Happer served as director of the Office of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy under President George H.W. Bush and was subsequently fired by Vice President Al Gore, reportedly for his refusal to support Gore’s views on climate change. He asked last month to be added to a list of global warming dissenters in a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee report. The list includes more than 650 experts who challenge the belief that human activity is contributing to global warming
Though Happer has promulgated his skepticism in the past, he requested to be named a skeptic in light of the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama, whose administration has, as Happer notes, “stated that carbon dioxide is a pollutant†and that humans are “poisoning the atmosphere.â€
Happer maintains that he doubts there is any strong anthropogenic influence on global temperature.Â
It gets better
Happer said he is dismayed by the politicization of the issue and believes the community of climate change scientists has become a veritable “religious cult,†noting that nobody understands or questions any of the science.
He noted in an interview that in the past decade, despite what he called “alarmist†claims, there has not only not been warming, there has in fact been global cooling. He added that climate change scientists are unable to use models to either predict the future or accurately model past events.
Of course, the Believers will say “but, hey, he gets grants from the EVIL Oil companies!!!!” But they still can’t rebut what he states, and rely mostly on “reports” from people, many who are not even scientists, who have a vested interest in people believing that Man is responsible for the warming that had occurred, despite 4 billion years of history, and despite the Earth warming up because, gee, we were coming out of cooler period called the Little Ice Age. What caused the LIA to end? This is why they keep changing the starting points of global warming, and keep changing the name of what is happening, keep changing the goal posts, keep using the time frame for when Earth will be destroyed to when we all be pretty much dead of old age, and, oh, yeah, rarely actually change their own lifestyles to match their rhetoric.
Happer is obviously misinformed:
Carbon dioxide emissions from human activity are a different isotope from that that is exhaled by animals. No one is claiming that when you exhale, you pollute. The idea is to lower industrial emissions, because they have been proven to have been the reason for our recent increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. We are currently over 380 ppm, which is more than any time in the past 650,000 years, according to ice core records. This is not a natural occurance.
This is also a very misleading political statement. As a scientist, Happer knows good and well that 1998 was an anomaly, which was the result of an extremely powerful El Nino effect, and that we’ve recently had moderate La Ninas. These weather events must be accounted for when determining long term climate fluctuations. Statements like this one really bring his neutrality on the subject into question, IMO.
This one is completely and totally false. Many people misunderstand the purpose for and the capabilities of models. Models have actually done a pretty good job of predicting the future so far, and they have definitely correctly modelled the past.
Oh, and you still have yet to explain for me why the Sun is a primary climate driver if the stratosphere is cooling, and how water vapor can drive our climate if it has an atmospheric lifetime of only about a week.
Teach you are still in denial. But this could be the year that you are able to break free of that cult.
Oh, please, Reasic, where the hell are you getting that this CO2 is different? Last time I checked, it was one part Carbon and 2 Parts Oxygen. It is the same.
As far as El Nino, ah. So, when it is cooler, it is weather, when it is hotter, it is climate. You do understand that weather is the foundation of climate, and the activities of the Sun are the foundation of weather, right?
And, really, for someone who claims to know it all on climate change, you sure seem to have virtually no knowledge of the science of climate. I mean, really, what the hell do you think has caused climate for billions of years? Aliens? Holy cow, man, go get a book on the Sun and what it does. I am seriously amazed. Shocked. And dismayed by the kool aid you have drunk. I hate to be an asshole (I’m going to have to unblock my own comment,) but, come on, man.
Here’s a little tid bit
The Sun creates climate by creating weather. Sun light streams in. It hits the ground. Some is retained. Most goes back out. Some is captured by the greenhouse gasses, the primary one being water vapor. The weather systems move the warmer air to wear it is cool, and cool air to were it is warm. The Sun, along with the Earth, also moves cool water to were it is warm, and warm to were it is cool.
Answer me this: is the Sun the primary cause of climate?
I broke free of the Cult Of Gore years ago, John. How about you throwing up your argument that Man is the primary or sole cause of global warming?
Um… Before you give me “oh please, reasic”, as if this is completely idiotic, why don’t you google “carbon isotopes”?
Well, if you go back and read my comment again, you’ll see that I also mentioned the La Nina, which has a cooling effect, and is also a weather phenomenon. Why do you keep making up arguments and then attributing them to me?
Actually, that’s not correct either. Sure, weather occurs on a shorter timescale than climate, but on the larger scale of climate, weather ends up as just noise. In fact, CHANGES in climate actually drive changes in weather patterns in a particular area. You really ought to read up on something (both sides of it) before you go acting like a know-it-all.
This is rich. The more you type, the more ridiculous you sound. I assume you’re asking what caused climate CHANGE for “billions of years”. Well, in the past, the major climate forcings were probably the Sun and changes in the earth’s rotation and orbit. However, around 150 years ago, a new variable entered the equation: humans began producing CO2 at a rate so high that the planet’s natural carbon sink could not keep up, resulting in higher atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. This unnatural mass production of a greenhouse gas had never occurred before. Are you really telling me that you’re going to stick to a simplistic “this is how it always happened” argument?
Yes, but the question is: “by how much?” This has been quantified, in watts per meter squared, and it’s not near the energy of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Yes, I’m also well aware of recent research on cosmic ray flux/cloud formation theory. This is actually a fairly new and developing theory, which currently has many holes in it. There is still a lot left to prove, and even then, the effects of this phenomena must be quantified. Of course, you being such a thoughtful and rational observer, would already know that. I mean, you consider ALL the evidence, right?
What are you talking about? Are you talking about climate CHANGE? The major factors that affect the climate in a particular region are things like “latitude, terrain, altitude, persistent ice or snow cover, as well as nearby oceans and their currents”. (Wiki)
Teach, I’ve asked you two simple questions a long time ago, and you STILL have yet to answer them. Why are you avoiding my questions? Why is it so difficult for you to answer two very simple scientific questions about your assumptions? Please tell me how the Sun is a primary climate driver if the stratosphere is cooling, and how water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas if its atmospheric lifetime is about a week. That’s it. Quit making a fool of yourself and answer the friggin’ question already.
Teach said: Of course, the Believers will say “but, hey, he gets grants from the EVIL Oil companies!!!!â€
I agree that a scientist’s source of funding does not mean they are wrong on the science. Apparently you don’t believe this applies to scientists who support the AGW hypothesis because you are constantly criticizing them for manipulating the data to get research funding. Why the double standard?
But they still can’t rebut what he states,
It doesn’t matter what he states. What matters is the evidence he presents. From what I can tell from this article there is no reference to any original research on climate change.
Still no response here, either. Teach, I’m still waiting for you to acknowledge my arguments. The longer you put it off, the larger the list grows. Please demonstrate that you actually consider all the evidence.