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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Very nicely done, thank you Paul.
I disagree. It uses Dr Happer to promote the false assertion that warming is a “down-side”.
Dr Happer did not say that!
I appologise. Dr Happer says “so we’ll have very modest warming.”
Nice video. We need more of this caliber, preferably that go further into the science.
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
Thanks to Dr. Happer for being brave enough to state the obvious.
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.
Rational common sense reality based.
HERETIC! !! LOL.
Nice post. Thanks.
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.
… mankind will release great amounts CO2 out of limestone …
We call that cement production!
@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.
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
That’s a great video, Paul. I will share it widely. Many thanks for posting it.
Happer is right about the benefits of CO2 .But it should also be said that the fertilizing effects of further increases in CO2 will help counter the deleterious effects on global food production of the probable coming global cooling see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
simple, elegant and above all it is the TRUTH, all CAGW is LIES.
Hoping Happer interview video goes VIRAL.
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.
Eliza says: “It doesn’t reach anybody.”
Gee…thanks.
Oh, another not anybody, me too, thanks
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.)
WWU is which university?
@RACookPE1978
WWU is Western Washington University.
[Fake email address. ~mod]
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.
For your friend, here’s a graph of the global sea ice death spiral:
http://sealevel.info/global.daily.ice.area.2014-10-17_40pct.jpg
Terrifying, isn’t it?
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.
It’s “toe the line”
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.
So you think increased CO2 isn’t all good. What isn’t good about it and why?
It depends on its’ upbringing.
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 ??
“… what else do you not like about CO2 ??”
It sounds yucky?
🙂
makes beer better
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.”
+1
+2 Exceptional assessment.
IOW, a government of Grubers.
Yes as someone said, “democracy is two wolfs and a sheep, deciding what to eat for lunch.” Thus we are suppose to live in a republic, protecting sheep from wolves. Apparently political expediency in a broken republic allows the wolves to vote for politicians that cater to wolves.
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.
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?
Don’t think those were steam towers.
No in fact I believe the first one was from an oil refinery
If it’s US then you can bet it’s just steam
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.
While in college I worked one summer at a refinery… The first pic is a refinery, no question.
It’s good to see that some universities actually still support real science and do not eject those who question everything.
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..
I’d second that request.
Pokerguy~ May I ask what brought you around?
Hey. Otter,
Climate gate was a big deal for me. My liberal friends like to remind me that all were cleared of wrongdoing, but of course none of them have read the emails themselves.
No need to explain the “97%”. It’s already been debunked.
Not in MSM it isn’t.
Here’s a good example of the Alarmist smear machine at work, full of logical fallacies and outright lies of course. They even mention Cook’s debunked 97% consensus lie.
http://io9.com/climate-change-denying-physicist-compares-carbon-dioxid-1607297863
Nicely Done. Thanks!
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!!!
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.
I thought that science was supposed to be almost ALL about observation
Reblogged this on Sierra Foothill Commentary and commented:
I recommend all readers watch this short video. CO2 enhances food production, allowing more hungry humans to flourish on the planet.
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.
You are wrong on so many levels….
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
Yah……, but………science
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.
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.
So, IYO, it’s not alarmist to declare that “Earth is on the Venus Express”?
A physicist is infinitely more qualified to discuss these issues than a climate scientist.
I beg your pardon
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.
C’mon Ed, it is either ‘alarming’, or it is not. If not, then find something else tobtax.
Pretty simple concept.
@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.
I ran your Chemistry through my distiller and ended up with Physics.
Disturbing to me that there are factions out there would have him executed as a Nazi.
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.
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?
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?
I think it would go something like when Lindzen debated Bill Nye.
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.