Interview with physicist Will Happer on climate change

Will-Happer
Paul Budline writes:
This past Tuesday I took my camera to Princeton University to conduct an interview with physicist Will Happer, whose work you probably know. This is a 4-minute video I put together after that interview, which I hope you’ll find interesting. I should be clear that no money or anything else exchanged hands, although Dr. Happer did buy me a cup of coffee.
Advertisements

181 thoughts on “Interview with physicist Will Happer on climate change

    • Just the right amount of science. The average citizen of this country has a very low threshold of tolerance for any sort of science debate.
      Most people are afraid of science, the victims of typical ‘science’ classes in public schools. Approaching even something as simple as the use of CO2 in greenhouses makes most people nervous.
      Simple graphic showing the jump from 3 molecules of CO2 to 4 molecules from the start of the industrial revolution was very effective.
      I’ve noticed even in data intensive presentations to the public, such as NFL statistics, charts and graphs are never used. For example, comparing the performance of star quarterbacks is done with tables, not graphs. More than that confuses people.
      In addition to the fear of science, most people are not adept at processing math functions. Another weakness exploited by CAGW crowd.
      Very nice video. Thanks.
      Jack Simmons

    • I had lunch with Will Happer the day after the election. He is not only brave, but brilliant as well. He is very down to earth. I would like to see the Senate form an open committee in the Spring to look at the politics and money trail of the Climate Change Sham. Perhaps Will would testify.

      • With Inhofe as Senate Environment Committee Chairman, there’s a good chance for something along those lines. I’d like the new Congress to go farther and set up a team to counter the lies spread by the NSF’s hand-picked, paid goons. IMO it should include the most accomplished scientists in relevant fields, instead of third rate Quislings. Of course, Mann will accuse all of being in the pay of Big Oil.
        Among American scientists, I nominate Freeman Dyson, Will Happer, Richard Lindzen, Bill Gray, John Christy and Judith Curry. I’d like to include Soon and Baliunas, but they would be hounded mercilessly by Green Shirt thugs.

      • Catherine, if Willie and Judith would do it, I would love to see the counter attack…..but we dream….Republicans are also politicians.

    • His common sense will hopefully help to put CO2 back to its deserved place of honor as a “Gas of Life”!
      Owing to the endless and maniac propaganda of the alarmist ruled media, the majority of people sees CO2 just as the most dangerous air pollutant. So it is quite normal in German speaking media to use the expression “verpesten” (= to poison, to pollute) with regard to emitting CO2. That is equally stupid as to say: “Rain does pollute the landscape”… !
      I think, in a further future, when all fossil fuels will be depleted, mankind will release great amounts CO2 out of limestone with the help of acids in order to keep the plants capable of producing enough food for the human population.

      • @Billy Liar:
        Quite right, and this is a very valuable side effect of the cement production indeed!
        But if mankind will need more CO2 just as plant food in a distant future, when the fossil fuel reserves are gone and a cooling climate may reduce the atmospheric concentration to much, then – I guess – it will be not reasonable to use heat energy (as in the cement production) to release enough CO2 out of limestone. The use of acids could be a more efficient and practicable way then. Calcium salts which would be unavoidable byproducts of this method could be used beneficial as well (e.g. as fertilizers in the case of calcium nitrate or as road salt with calcium chloride) or could be dumped into the oceans without any environmental problems.

  1. I like his question at the very end “What’s bad about that?”.
    Well, let me tell him what I think the answers are, simplified:
    a) Elite groups are making huge amounts of cash
    b) Many scientists rely on funds if they pump the hype
    c) Hype sells media and it is not banned like porn
    d) Religions have always been and will continue to be a really good business for the preachers, needles to say for the pope’s, high imams, etc…
    e) Lifting humanity from poverty, particularly in resource rich countries is counter productive to many Western companies.
    f) …. and so forth
    But I bet he actually knows these answers and more and was just being sarcastic, but too nice of a person to actually sound like that.

    • With due respect, Francisco, “e” is logically inconsistent. How would these companies sell more and earn more if the consumers are poor? Your economics require review.

      • Hello Claude,
        I will talk from experience and try to explain what I have perceived.
        From what I have seen in several countries around the world, where I have worked, exploiting people in poor nations, is quite profitable. By keeping them poor you keep them uneducated and it is easier to pay low wages.
        Needless to say, the poorer the country the easier to bribe officials and get away with poor practices that increase revenue.
        The producing Middle East countries, for example, get a huge amount cheap labour force from India, Philippines, Egypt, etc. And bribes are the way to go, in spite of the riches.
        In Latin America, Mexico for instance, an excavator operator earns in a week what his/her equivalent in Norway earns in an hour. And do not go into the cost-of-living thing, because is significantly coupled into the quality-of-living.
        Diamond mines in Africa have countless underpaid and exploited workers; same applies to Madagascar in the nascent oilfield.
        The consumers these companies are after are not the ones in the poor countries; at least not the ones that are kept poor and uneducated.
        In India, Mexico, Venezuela and similar countries, there is an elite that, while percentage wise is small, in numbers accounts for a few million. These are enough to cater to and make significant profit. As a matter of fact, industry and rich countries with wealthy people will always exist, thus there is a market; even when the other majority are poor and in need.
        Cheers

    • Don’t forget Cuba.
      Did you know there are two types of pesos in circulation in Cuba? There are convertible pesos and pesos for the public. When Cuba sent medical workers to West Africa, these are paid for by various groups, including UN, etc. The pay is given to the Cuban government, not the workers. The government then pays the workers with the public pesos, worth about a nickel on the dollar.
      This is why the Castro brothers are billionaires.
      Its for the people.
      Jack Simmons

  2. Unfortunately this should be on the BBC, CNN, FOX, ect, not here. It doesn’t reach anybody. Sorry to be such a party pooper LOL BTW can it be sent to them??

    • These things generally appear in forums like WUWT before the big media outlets consider them.
      Get the word out and that will push the others to pick it up.

    • I sent it to my friend, a physicist from WWU who just sent me 4 links from SKS about arctic sea ice “death spiral”. He is from the same U. as Dr Easterbrook, but doesn’t share his views. At least I got the word out to him. I also linked him to the WUWT sea ice page. What else can you do?

      • Philip, do keep those 4 links he sent you from SKS on the Arctic sea ice death spiral. If Arctic sea ice minimum generally starts growing then you can send the links back to him and ask him what went wrong?
        Here is Professor Peter Wadhams (I have more quotes by him, with links, saying the same thing.)

        Guardian – 17 September 2012
        Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within four years
        “This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates”.
        ——-
        Financial Times Magazine – 2 August 2013
        “It could even be this year or next year but not later than 2015 there won’t be any ice in the Arctic in the summer,” he said, pulling out a battered laptop to show a diagram explaining his calculations, which he calls “the Arctic death spiral”.

      • So, rather than respond in an intelligent and respectful way, your friend fires off links to a GW propaganda website? I have “friends” who do the same thing when I question religion.

  3. No doubt that CO2 helps plant growth, but saying it’s “all good” is just as misleading as alarmists who say it’s “all bad.” At least he admits there are other forms of pollution that need to be curbed.

    • That’s if you believe CO2 is “pollution”, Barry. Well, it isn’t (and it doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court’s inane pronouncement about CO2 says).
      Tell me why CO2 is a pollutant and I’ll wonder if your body’s building blocks are silicone rather than carbon.

      • The SCOUS did not declare CO2 as bad they said that’s the EPA’s job.
        I believe the SCOUS just validated the EPA’s charter to identify and reduce pollutants.
        Blame congress for giving up leadership of the environment to the bureaucrats…
        along with many other responsibilities.

      • Barry doesn’t need to answer your question “tell me why..” as he hasn’t claimed in his comment that CO2 is a pollutant. Instead, Barry, interpreting the good Dr., alludes to other forms of pollution – although not elaborated on, possibly soot, heavy metals etc. that are a prevalent fall-out of industrial complexes and contaminate agricultural land, as Chinese leaders have recently admitted.
        Don’t read things into a post that are not there.

      • @Don Gleason
        Every time I see a reference to “towing the line” I have a ridiculous mental picture of a gang of men pulling on a giant rope such as a hawser.
        Of course, as you said, correctly speaking it’s “toeing the line” which is a reference from track and field, meaning not allowing a foot to go over the starting line. More broadly, conforming to the rules.

    • Who said it was all good? The video even stated that it can lead to warming, which is what the Alarmists are worried about. However, given the data, saying that additional CO2 leads to warming seems like towing the consensus party line on that point.
      What they are trying to do is give a reasonable counter view to the silly “CO2 is bad and is pollution” nonsense.
      By the way, why do you refer to “other” forms of pollution? Under what scientific standard (not a politically-motivated alarmist standard, mind you) would CO2 be regarded as pollution?

      • He did, right at the end, and he was absolutely right. Even the slight amount of warming he believes the extra CO2 may be causing is beneficial to man and to life itself. Of course, even that slight amount of posited manmade CO2 warming can not actually be shown. It might be there, or might not. And who knows, there might be a Loch Ness monster.

      • IMO the slight warming, if any, won’t be enough to offset the coming cooling, so its effect won’t be measurable. It’s also possible that in the complex atmosphere instead of a simple lab there is no discernible effect on temperature. Besides which, the effects of other human activities might well cancel any negligible warming from man-made CO2. The science is so unsettled that no one can be sure that the net effect of human activity is to cool the planet, although that too would probably be negligible.

      • Dr. Happer used the words “modest warming,” which is not the same as the neutral word “warming.” He also said clearly that warming would be beneficial to both humans and life as would way more CO2. The announcer summarized the finding that CO2 and warming are unrelated.

    • What is it with you ? Professor Happer, took a good part of the four minutes explaining and showing REAL pollution, and pointing out it was bad and shouldn’t be allowed; that CO2 is quite invisible, and not like the particulates and smoke (steam too) pouring out of those chimneys.
      You have to be mentally challenged to read any sort of support for pollution, in Will’s statement.
      So apart from the fact that it grows more food, and shows no sign of any linkage to global non warming, what else do you not like about CO2 ??

  4. Thank you Mr. Budline for speaking truth, reality and logic. Unfortunately our government doesn’t work that way anymore.

    • Democratic government has never been about truth, reality, and logic, because the electorate will, in general, not vote for people who tell them the truth. As Mencken said, “Government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.”

  5. Despite everything Happer says about the benefits of CO2 he is looking forward to replacing fossil fuels. In fact, it is likely that at some point humanity will seek to add CO2 to the atmosphere.

    • Well we are all looking forward to the practical access to other forms of energy; but not for any NEED to replace fossil fuels. If and when fossil fuels no longer exist, there will be nothing to replace. But we will need some forms of primary energy. Those forms will of necessity, have to stand on their own two feet, because there will be no fossil fuels to subsidize them. (both money wise and energy wise)
      There aren’t too many forms of energy capable of doing that. Most so called renewables are energy wasting schemes.

  6. Pretty good video and a good, short introduction for people to see.
    Not sure about the typical steam-tower pictures however when the video was discussing “pollution” from coal-fired plants in China. Would it be possible to get some pictures of coal-caused pollution, rather than steam towers?

      • It is certainly the case that the image was of steam condensate. That that fact is not understood even on a skeptic website is indicative of our miserable education system and is quite depressing.

      • Oil refineries normally vent a LOT of steam. Same with the other stacks. They are probably all equipped with scrubbers and all you are seeing is steam. No plant reduces pollutants to zero, but we are doing pretty well. Just check the emissions from the 70’s and compare them to now. Look at the data, not the photos.

  7. It’s good to see that some universities actually still support real science and do not eject those who question everything.

  8. I generally make an effort to see such things through the eyes of a self-identifying, liberal warmist, Actually, it doesn’t take all that much effort as I used to be one just a few years ago. So the questions I’d like Happer to be asked would be something like, “I respect your opinion Professor Happer, and you sound like a credible, reasonable, well intentioned man. But how do you explain that 97 percent of climate scientists think Co2 is a big problem.?”
    This of course would give Dr. Happer the opportunity to 1:, debunk the number itself, and 2: explain the government funded gravy train..

  9. Will Happer is one of the bright lights still shining, illuminating science, which is what educators are supposed to do. Unfortunately, it is the dimmer bulbs that have dominated the media and are engaged in leading real science into something resembling the dark ages.
    NEVER GIVE UP, Will, NEVER!!!

  10. Ordinary people do not understand that models not maching the observations is serious. It is the end of the game. Models that present the hypothesis and so the CAGW theory are wrong. Dot.

  11. He admits, “So we’ll have very modest warming…” He himself admits to warming, and yet this website constantly obfuscates on the issue. The oceans have warmed, and obviously they are a large heat sink. Global changes don’t happen overnight, but we have pretty good certainty which direction they are going.
    And notably, he’s not a climate scientist, but a physics professor.
    The propaganda term “alarmist” is as pig headed and obnoxious as its counter term, “denier.” You are pumping one side’s propaganda therefore, and have as much credibility as your extremist opponents on the other side.

    • And notably, he’s not a climate scientist, but a physics professor.
      And what do you suppose climate science is comprised of other than physics? Do you think the climate models are anything other than models of the physics? Their authors would be very surprised to learn this.

      • Additionally, Editor‘s statement, which you quoted, incorporates a logical fallacy, an “appeal to authority”. Editor’s post is filled with logical fallacies. We aren’t likely to see much more from “Editor”. Anonymous trolls rarely engage in the conversation. They just fly over and thread bomb, unwilling to have their unsupportable ideas shot down

    • So a ridiculous metric known as global temperature is supposed to be static over time? As a meteorologist I find that statement…well. fascinating, in a very strange way

    • The propaganda term “alarmist” is as pig headed and obnoxious as its counter term, “denier.”
      The denier term is a blatant attempt to conflate skeptics with odious holocaust deniers. I challenge you to make the case that there is a similar odious association with the word alarmist. I see a group of people demanding action that will bring poverty, misery and death to billions to stop something that might happen, probably won’t happen and will quite likely be beneficial instead. Have you a better word for them than alarmist? Alarmist, it seems to me, is being kind.

    • Editor
      …And notably, he’s not a climate scientist, but a physics professor…..

      The ‘D’ word attempts to link sceptics with Holocaust denial. What does ‘alarmist’ hint at?
      The following people are not climate scientists either. I expect you to in future point this out whenever either of the following talks on the topic of climate.
      James Hansen: astronomer / physicist
      Michael Mann: mathematician/geologist
      Al Gore: divinity major
      Bill Nye: mechanical engineer
      Rajendra Pachauri: railroad engineer
      Gavin Schmidt: mathematician
      David Suzuki: geneticist
      Paul Nurse: geneticist
      Eric Steig: geologist
      John Cook: bachelor of physics
      Joe Romn: physicist
      John Holdren: plasma physicist
      Grant Foster (Tamino): theoretical physics
      Dana Nuccitelli: masters degree in physics

      • Jumbo:
        Mann’s curricula was math and physics all the way down. The “geology” part of his PhD is simply diploma mill graffiti.
        See his Penn State website.
        He is no geologist.

    • He himself admits to warming, and yet this website constantly obfuscates on the issue.
      Excuse me, but that is drekk. The majority of the technical threads on this site are focused on the magnitude of sensitivity, not its existence, and debate in detail the merits of adaptation versus mitigation. Obfuscating on the issue is the precise opposite of what happens on this site.

      • The study of climate is more an art, like medicine. To many factors involved to consider. Collect the available data and make a diagnosis. The diagnosis may treat the symptom successfully. It may not be aware of the underlying issue. They are like the ugly little brothers of chemistry and physics . Too hard to fudge in mathematics, physics and chemistry. The principles are verifiable.

    • What’s wrong with modest warming? And, I’m glad you noted that physics is excluded from climate science. What would a physics professor know about the science? We should be listening more to Brad Pitt!
      (Sarc) Eamon.

    • @Editor
      ….”And notably, he’s not a climate scientist, but a physics professor.”….
      It’s interesting to note that these well known ‘climate scientists’ did not get their PhD’s in Climate Science :-
      James Hansen (PhD in Physics),
      Phil Jones (PhD in Hydrology),
      Michael Mann (PhD in Geology),
      David Suzuki (PhD in Zoology),
      Tim Flannery (PhD in Kangaroo Evolution),
      John Holdren (PhD in Plasma Physics).
      Perhaps the most interesting example is James Hansen. Since his PhD is in physics, we assume he could easily be a “physics professor, just like Will Happer !!

    • Continued warming is a CHEMISTRY issue, For an analogous chemistry issue, consider calories.
      For each additional 3000 kCals a person consumes, they gain 1 pound. You and I consume calories every day, yet we don’t gain weight because the calories we take in balance the calories we burn in daily living. If we increase our calorie intake by some constant, and don’t change our lifestyle, by burning more energy, we’ll gain weight until we reach some balance at a higher weight level. In NO case does any human continue increasing their calorie intake and their weight throughout their life.
      Likewise, as long as humans continue increasing their “calorie intake” by burning fossil fuels at an increasing level, CO2 in the air, like weight, will continue to increase. Once we reach a higher balance in CO2 production, maybe when every country in the world is as wealthy as the US, the CO2 in the atmosphere will level off at some higher balance than now. A lot of people in the world are a lot poorer than the US, leaving plenty of room for energy growth and a higher CO2 balance I think THAT is what Dr. Happer was referring to.

      • More specifically, physical chemistry. The best background to understand the climate system, aside from the very rare bird with an actual atmospheric sciences degree, is either physical chemistry or chemical engineering.

  12. Editor says:
    The oceans have warmed, and obviously they are a large heat sink. Global changes don’t happen overnight, but we have pretty good certainty which direction they are going.
    And so what?
    You are describing global warming. Who says global warming hasn’t been happening since the LIA? And since the last great stadial before that? Global warming is happening — naturally. That is the default scientific view.
    Global warming is happening in fits and starts. Currently it has stopped, but it may well resume. But again: so what? Global temperatures always fluctuate. Naturally.
    The reason this discussion is even taking place is because a clique of self-serving rent seekers has been telling the public that human CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They try to scare the public because that brings them money and power. If they told the truth — that global warming is natural, and that there is no evidence to the contrary — then their money and power would begin to decline. So they have a strong incentive to keep the ‘carbon’ scare alive, despite the fact that there is no supporting evidence.
    They need to produce measurements quantifying the fraction of global warming attributable to human CO2 emissions. But so far, no such empirical, testable measurements have been produced.
    Doesn’t that bother you, even a little? Every physical process can be measured, unless it is so minucule that it is buried in the background noise. But if that is the case, then we don’t have to worry about a tiny bit of AGW, do we?
    It may be that AGW does not exist to any measurable degree. If that is so, then the debate is over. There is no need to spend another dime ‘mitigating’ anything. It would be money completely wasted — as we have wasted $billions already on that wild goose chase.
    The onus is on climate alarmists to produce an empirical, testable, falsifiable measurement of AGW. So far, they have not done so. Nor have they shown any global harm resulting from the rise in CO2. Thus, CO2 is ‘harmless’. QED

    • “Global warming is happening — naturally. That is the default scientific view.”
      Nope, dbs,the default scientific view would be “Global warming is happening”/. To assume without evidence it is “natural” – that human activities play no part – is unscientific.
      Furthermore, a lot of people on this site say the temperature data indicating warming are faked/ fatally flawed. If these people are right then the default scientific view would be “we don’t know what’s going on because the data are hopelessly unreliable”. Glad to hear you disagree so profoundly with a great many of the contributors on this site. Curious how reluctant you are to challenge them when you are so eager to challenge those suggesting “significant AGW” is the default view.

      • The null hypothesis is that nothing has changed: the planet continues to warm and cool as it has in the past. Any global warming is natural since temperatures have been higher in previous climate optima. It’s up to people claiming CAGW to prove differently.

      • Wrong. “Default”, ie null hypothesis, is that nothing is happening now out of the ordinary. Therefore, there is no reason to reject the null hypothesis that climatic fluctuations observed over the past (fill in the blanks, centuries, decades, whatever, constantly changing to fit the Team’s needs) are entirely natural. There is no “human footprint”. Zero, zilch, nada, nothing, nudnik.

      • “Curious how reluctant you are to challenge them when you are so eager to challenge those suggesting “significant AGW” is the default view.”
        More curious is your concept of default position. Is it kind of like the default position of many Christians, by default we are all sinners? (Repent and stop warming the earth, for we are all global warmers) Or is it just another propaganda construct. But continue on, explain where and to whom “significant AGW” is the default view. Don’t embarass your self with the 97% consensus. While you’re at it, define “significant”. Is it, .2%, .5%, .17% .51%, 1.97%, you’re going to have to make it up since no one knows beyond speculation or spit in the wind guessing.
        BTW if we did know what was going on, the models would be proven, which they are not, and the great ocean sink hypothesis would not be an add-on when said models proved so miserable. The data is unstable, it is derived and continously massaged in many different ways. It’s not that research should not continue and the data not used, it is making rediculous claims (like default positions) with unfounded certainty that is the issue.

    • Heat sink?
      Interrsting that the oceans only just recently started to act as a heat sink, prior to the IPCC the oceans apparently did not act as a heat sink. Maybe they just kick in when some mythical percentage of man-made CO2 is reached.

    • They have not produced a measurable effect, and they won’t because it is not there. Twenty years is plenty of time for them to find it especially since they claim it’s getting worse. The truth is their attempts have failed, their hypothesis falsified. Time for alarmists to exit stage left.

  13. I’d like to know what happens if/when Will Happer meets Ernest Moniz, the Secretary of the DOE and also a brilliant theoretical physicist whose career has been at MIT.
    I listened to Dr. Moniz speech at Stanford on Thursday. He is a total believer in dangerous CO2-induced warming and in CO2 as pollution. Here’s what he said when interviewed on Wait, Wait — Don’t Tell Me, “And frankly, I believe the argument is largely over as to whether we need to address climate change.
    Prof. Happer, on the other hand, has called AGW “cargo-cult” science and decries the pollution label assigned to CO2.
    Their views are 100% contradictory — totally orthogonal. The issue should be definitively resolvable strictly by arguments from physics. Both men are convinced of their position. Dr. Moniz should be able to convince Prof. Happer, or vice versa.
    What happens when they meet? Has Will Happer and Ernest Moniz ever had a conversation? What did they talk about?

    • Pat Frank
      November 15, 2014 at 11:37 am
      I’d like to know what happens if/when Will Happer meets Ernest Moniz, the Secretary of the DOE and also a brilliant theoretical physicist whose career has been at MIT.
      I listened to Dr. Moniz speech at Stanford on Thursday. He is a total believer in dangerous CO2-induced warming and in CO2 as pollution. Here’s what he said when interviewed on Wait, Wait — Don’t Tell Me, “And frankly, I believe the argument is largely over as to whether we need to address climate change.”

      And “Dr” Moniz is a political appointee by an administration more dedicated to restricting CO2 emissions and fighting what they call global warming than fighting Muslim extremists and terrorists, foreign aggression internationally, corruption, and disease. he has NO credibility, because his administration created their single biggest error (er, legislation) specifically through dedicated lies and political exaggeration with the full cooperation of their ABCNNBCBS press “corpse.”

    • Why do you call Moniz “brilliant”? His whole career has been in administration and government, not in brilliant advances in theoretical physics. Of course he’s a “believer”. That’s the side on which his bread is buttered. By contrast, Happer’s career suffers by his being on the side of real science.

    • How about when apparatchik, not scientist Moniz meets real, genuine, brilliant theoretical physicist and heir of Einstein Freeman Dyson? Or the ghost of Richard Feynman, represented by his sister?
      You lose. Again.

    • Dr Moniz stated: “And frankly, I believe the argument is largely over” Does that mean even Dr. Moniz is a skeptic now?

    • Pat Frank: “Their views are 100% contradictory — totally orthogonal”
      To pick a nit, “orthogonal” means totally uncorrelated, that is, in no way either supportive or contradictory.

  14. Paul Budline and Will Happer,
    I deeply appreciate the elegant and calm interview.
    Things are highly positive for the future of mankind given the significant and expanding leverage of fossil fuels.
    . . . and.Anthony, thanks for this wonderful venue.
    John

  15. Very, very well done Paul Budline. Your video work is on par with the best products we’re producing in the silicon valley of California. I work in the marketing division of a huge hi-tech corporation and help produce informational, data sheet, promo videos every day. I score your work here A +. If this is not your day job currently, it certainly could be.
    Thank you for a very well done presentation.
    Doug

  16. Thank you, Paul. It always is interesting to me that many of the scientists that speak out in the manner Dr. Happer did are either retired or tenured.
    One thing that caught my attention is Dr. Happer’s comment: “There’s this intentional effort to conflate CO2, which is benign and in fact beneficial, (…with) real pollutants.”
    An example of that is a cartoon by Rick McKee in The Augusta Chronicle from June 30, 2013. (It is reprinted today over at John Ray’s Greenie Watch http://www.antigreen.blogspot.com ) The cartoon shows a caped Super Obama placing a boulder on top of a smokestack belching dark smoke to spare us from Climate Change, but the smokestack is labelled US Carbon Emissions. Must be tough for a cartoonist to draw carbon dioxide. Look at any MSM article on CO2 and it will be certain to use the Administration preferred term of “carbon” or “carbon pollution.” You will be almost guaranteed not to see the words carbon dioxide together. That simply would not be scary enough. After all, how can our EPA director blame CO2 for more asthma in kids if we don’t have images of smoke to go along with the story?

    • “Look at any MSM article on CO2 and it will be certain to use the Administration preferred term of “carbon” or “carbon pollution.” You will be almost guaranteed not to see the words carbon dioxide together. That simply would not be scary enough.”
      Using “carbon” or “carbon pollution” is an obvious misrepresentation. It’s more blatant than a mere loaded term. It’s very effective propaganda–but, The Better, The Worse. Have any “critical thinkers” and capital-S Skeptics, who are mostly on-board with the warmists, objected to its use? It’s hypocritical of them not to have.

      • CO2’s molecular weight suggests that it is more O2 by mass. Try calling it Oxygen pollution. Anthropogenic particulate is what should be targeted. That and SOx IMO

      • Good point; the “carbon” term is almost never corrected or challenged. I am certain that a Jimmy Kimmel Pedestrian Question episode on “What is carbon pollution?” would result in participants with nothing but blank looks on their faces, or tongue tied explanations about the “smoke” from nuclear power plants.

  17. Excellent video, courageous man. People will be able to look back some day and see who the real hero’s were of our time if history doesn’t homogenize the facts.

  18. I had the good fortune to meet Prof. Happer two months ago, when I attended two lectures that he delivered in North Carolina.
    The longer & more technical lecture was sponsored by the UNC Physics Department, as part of the UNC Physics and Astronomy Colloquim series. Unfortunately, there was no video recording made of the lecture, but I sat in the front row and made an audio recording, and Prof. Happer sent me his Powerpoint slides. With his kind permission, I put both on my web site, here:
    http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/
    I suggest that you view the powerpoint slides while listening to the lecture.
    The shorter lecture was at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, and was intended for laymen. There’s a link to it at the end of the above linked web page, too.

      • Yes, Prof. Happer might know more about the absorption and emission of radiation by atmospheric CO2 than anyone on the planet. Much of the 2nd half of his lecture lecture was over my head, but I nevertheless learned a lot.
        Prof. Happer also very kindly answered some questions I had, later, by email, and corrected some misconceptions I had.
        For instance, I thought the way the (poorly named) “greenhouse effect” works is that longwave infrared from the ground is absorbed by CO2 (and water vapor) molecules in the atmosphere, which then re-emit the photons in random directions, a portion of which (the “downwelling IR)”) are then reabsorbed by the ground. That’s how the NSF says that it works.
        Well, guess what? That’s wrong!
        The way the NSF describes it (and the way I mistakenly believed it works), the amount of IR which the ground absorbs from the atmosphere depends almost entirely on the amount of IR which the ground emits. It might not be the very same photons, but it might as well be: the photons the ground receives are just a fraction of those which it emits. But that’s wrong.
        The reality is that the amount of IR the ground absorbs from the atmosphere depends almost entirely on the air temperature & composition, and not at all on the amount of IR which the ground emits.
        The two aren’t completely independent, because IR emissions from the ground do affect the air temperature, which, in turn, affects the IR emissions from the air, but the linkage is weak, because other factors (like convective heat transfer) affect air temperature more.
        Here’s the email conversation where Prof. Happer explained it to me:
        http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html

  19. Well done! Right to the point and very convincing. Now if only one Global Warming/Climate Change Cultist would watch and have a feel some doubt….

    • “David L.
      November 15, 2014 at 2:21 pm
      Well done! Right to the point and very convincing. Now if only one Global Warming/Climate Change Cultist would watch and have a feel some doubt….”
      They may watch but most will feel no doubt as he is not a “climate scientist” and 97% of climate scientists disagree with him 🙁

    • “Climate Scientist” is just an ad hoc term used to descibe the relatively new breed of scientist trained specifically in the finer details of how to bilk the taxpayer. It’s not a real profession.”
      It’s a nice echo chamber. The idea that “there’s no such thing as climate science or a climate scientist” is ridiculous on its face. Of course, the study of the Earth/ocean/atmosphere system in terms of non-equilibrium thermodynamics, radiation physics, fluid dynamics, physical chemistry, etc. is a hybrid but to claim it’s some made-up category to solicit funding is a silly construct. Dr. Happer’s area of research (from his Princeton site) is spin-polarized atoms and nuclei. I imagine (ask him) that he’d not be enthusiastic about a physicist whose research area was, say, solid state physics, or turbulence or some such opining that his work was mistaken for fundamental reasons that he’d ruled out years ago in his research. Dr. Happer’s published work concerning geophysics is limited, insofar as I can find, to editorial writing. Smart man? Yes. Important research? Yes. Credible source with respect to areas outside of his research specialty? Not so much. A right to have an opinion and express it? Yes. This post and the majority of comments? Argument from authority (who’s not really an authority).

  20. A lot of people are using our taxes and retirement funds to “invest” in their failing renewables projects and destabilize our grid. I would like these people who are hawking renewables and legislating their use would stop assuaging their guilt (which is very great) by bashing coal.

    • The guys playing science in climatology should disclose how much of their research is funded by the taxpayer. How much money the green lobby and big brother are forking over to these guys so that they can pay mortgages and put their kids through college. It appears to raise suspicion on both sides, but really it is a non issue when discussing scientific matters and exchanging data. Which is the only dialogue that should be happening between alarmists and skeptics.In a less cynical world.

  21. Aww, if I’d known you were going to be in Princeton, with a camera, and dealing with climate change hysteria, I’d have advised you to look up a gentleman who plays early morning basketball at the YMCA in Princeton. (Sorry, I don’t recall his name.) He’s of East Asian descent (presumably Japanese or Chinese), looks to be in his 40’s. He told me that he interviews individuals with scientific bacgrounds, as part of his job. He’s come across 6 different individuals who claimed research related to climate change on their resumes. When he asked them what the research had to do with climate change, they said “nothing”. IOW, they had funding motives for doing so.
    This gentleman told me, during the summer, that he was being transferred or changing jobs, with the new location in Summit, NJ. Consequently, I’m not sure he still frequents the YMCA. However, he’s well known, and I’m sure somebody in the morning basketball crew will have his contact info. He’s not associated with Princeton University.
    In Happer’s recent talk, “The Myth of Carbon Pollution” at the Marshall Institute, he mentioned that he knows of scientists who have gotten research proposals rejected, modified them to somehow involve “climate change”, and then – open sesame – funding was obtained.
    This aspect of the corruption of science – which Happer is also concerned about – is something that needs far more exposure….

  22. The discrepancies between CAGW Projections vs. observations already exceed the 95% confidence interval, and there hasn’t been a global warming trend for 18+ years.
    When the current La Nino cycle switches to La Niña, it’ll soon be 20+ years of no statistically significant warming, despite 30% of all CO2 emissions since 1750 made over just the last 20 years…
    CAGW is in some very serious trouble and the Warmunists understand this very well.

  23. Go inside the cult, join Earth First, go to the meetings, give some money, talk the talk, be all you can be to be one of them, join in a protest, Make sure they know you vote for Al Gore, John Kerry, and B. Obama.
    Once your sure you have been accepted as a member in the cult ease your self to start saying you do not care about any thing but going after the rich and getting more polical power for the Democrats.
    They will tell you they are the same and welcome you to the commune.
    Redistribution Be The Game Lies The Means.

  24. A breath of intellectual Fresh Air even with 1500 ppm CO2!
    Perhaps we need a new set of catchphrases to muscle up to the life haters
    Carbon Enriched Atmosphere
    500ppm for 2050 & 1000 for 2100
    CO2 Enriched Atmosphere
    Strategic Carbon Enrichment
    Plants Rights – More CO2
    More CO2 for Plants = More Plants for People
    Vegans for More CO2
    Denying CO2 for Plants = Life Hate
    Expose the CO2 Deniers
    CAGW = Life Hate

    • I doubt the 500 ppm by 2050 is achievable. Most graphs show an essentially steady slope since the industrial revolution and a steady slope from 1960 to 2010 at 80 ppm increase over 50 years. In 2064, it would be at 480 – 490. And we haven’t been able to reach a half of a doubling for the entire industrial revioluttion, so 1000 ppm by 2100 or even 2200 seems way off. Even if we don’t solve the problems of nuclear energy or find other more manageable and economic sources. And the coal – it will be so so very clean by then and plenty of it.

  25. I am not sure what is going on here in Oz lately. Each night when I sit down to watch the news, there is always a big push on climate change and what we should be doing about it. This isn’t just confined to government funded left wing channels such as SBS and ABC. Who is paying for this propaganda?

    • I think there is an international network of CAGW activists and their journalistic comrades who do orchestrate such campaigns on typical occasions as the G20 summit in Australia.
      I listen a lot of internet radio news from different parts of the world and it is really striking, how similar the CAGW messages are to a given occasion. That is to say very similar: It’s nearly the same content, the same phrases used, and the same well orchestrated timing, of course.

  26. Climate has always changed. The last change is that it stopped warming.
    CO2 change has no significant effect on climate. The two drivers that do explain the ups and downs of climate change since before 1900 with 95% correlation and credible average global temperatures back to 1610 are included in the paper at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com along with an explanation of why CO2 change has no significant effect.

  27. Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:

    Mr. Budline, got anything we more technical information? I see a link in the comments to a presentation of the good doctor’s. I will look into that.
    Thanks for the good interview. I enjoyed, and I’m hoping there is more to come.

  28. The tragedy is that history will be the ultimate arbitrator in the thorny question of so-called ‘Human-induced CO2’ and its alleged contribution (or not) to climate change. I suspect history will not be kind to the CO2 alarmists of today, viewing the current CAGW panic and alarmism as little more than some unfortunate (and desperately expensive) scientific aberration.
    By the time this idiocy has fully run its course none of us will be around to suffer the judgment of future generations for our foolishness. I’m not sure whether that’s a good or bad thing. I can think of more than a few of CAGW’s leading evangelists I would very much enjoy seeing being made to face up to their wilful misdirection.

  29. Help the environment? Help China burn coal as cleanly as we do. As Steve Martin used to say: “But noooo!”

  30. Thanks, Paul.
    CFACT will send a delegation to Lima where Col. Walter Cunningham, former astronaut, and Marc Morano will be attracting attention to climate reality and contrasting it to the modeled world of the IPCC.
    They are making a documentary, “Climate Hustle”. You can see their two trailers at http://www.climatehustle.org/
    The Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) (David Rothbard and Craig Rucker) is at http://www.cfact.org/

  31. George Marshall Institute is a think tank where science is use for better policy. Their website and video talks about other topics which is very relevant to current events. One of the current talks takes jabs at the GOP for the sequestration that took placed months ago.
    btw, here’s Happer’s lecture;

  32. Coach Springer – right on.
    Calling CO2 pollution is scientific incompetence. Calling it carbon makes it sound more ominous and distracts from attending to possible real atmospheric pollutants from coal such as particulates, mercury, NOX and sulfur (as the Chinese are experiencing. The US uses precipitators to remove the real pollutants). What’s happening with India?

  33. Dynamic thermal equilibrium can’t be maintained by conducting or convecting to space. Anyone disagree?
    The only way for excess heat to leave the planet is by radiation. Anyone disagree?
    >99% of the atmosphere has near zero effective radiative capacity. Anyone disagree?
    CO2 and some other trace gases are radiative.
    Join the dots and stop dancing on the head of a lu ke warm pin.

  34. A solid video. I am posting the link on Twitter and Facebook. The social media is where the battle must be fought these days. Dr. Happer is a hero of mine.

  35. I was disappointed in this video showing yet again smokestacks emitting “pollution”. Yet the smoke is white which indicates to me that any particulate pollution has been filtered out or that it is steam being emitted. Practically every night on TV in Australia these misleading images are shown to justify action against global warming and to see these in a video supposedly telling the truth is extremely disappointing. Why were they there at all? They are the hackneyed photo graffiti of the alarmists, along with polar bears and icebergs crumbling.

  36. this is the second time that our government deceives us about a very important science. The first time was when a NON-statistician believed to have found a correlation between consumption of fat and weight in the population of many countries (he left out the countries that did not fit his ludicrous idea). Today we know that the result of the government policies led to our obesity crisis.
    Now the government is trying to tell us that, because of the increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, there should be a warming up of earth with devastating consequences for mankind. Another totally misconstrued concept.
    In fact, in order to feed 9 billion people in twenty or so years from now, we should hope that the CO2 levels increase a little more because the food we grow needs it.

    • Patrick Bols
      this is the second time that our government deceives us about a very important science. The first time was when a NON-statistician believed to have found a correlation between consumption of fat and weight in the population of many countries (he left out the countries that did not fit his ludicrous idea).

      No. The first time was the “Ozone Hole” manufactured crisis – and its “successful” banning of Freon and its worldwide replacement with new refrigerants “in the name of global science” ..
      The SECOND TIME was the “acid rain” crisis – which CREATE the global circulation models and their market in government laboratory “simulated research with LOTS of government power and international “authority” . The “acid rain” crisis was the funding source and created the labs and the computer small-area simulations that became today’s so=holy=revered global circulation models. It ALSO shut down international commerce and industry (killing, for example, Ontario’s nickel mines for the sake of US forests in PA, NY, and CT) with little or no checking and verification. All was promotions and propaganda!

      • Didn’t the DDT scam precede all of these? It was so effective at preventing deaths from malaria it spooked the eugenicists. Look it up.

Comments are closed.