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.
Very well put together video. Kudos to you.
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
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
Doug, it is my job, although this one was a freebie. And believe me, I enjoy visiting California. Paul.
Excellent. What a decent man Dr Happer is.
Thank you for posting.
Excellent vid, and re-posted on my Facebook.
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.
Mick, sorry, I was interupted while typing. My comment is a reply for rogerknights.
A couple more by Prof. Happer
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_OjGxrlloE ]
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap6YfQx9I64 ]
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.
excellent vid
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.
Thanks. Great slides – CO2 radiation physics.
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
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.
Kinda short for confidence artist.
“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).
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.
It should be disclosed that Prof. Happer is Chairman of the Board of Directors of the George C. Marshall Institute (not to be confused with the Marshall Foundation):
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute
Barry, do you often use ad hominem arguments? You will find they don’t fly here.
I’m simply disclosing a fact. You are inferring the ad hominem argument.
We all know natural gas has an interest in bringing down the coal industry.
Barry, Sourcewatch is a “>leftist propaganda outlet, not a trustworthy source. It is a project of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), which is funded by George Soros and a long list of liberal and progressive foundations.
CMD’s purpose is spread left-wing propaganda, smear conservatives, and stifle conservative free speech.
It is telling that CMD boasts of receiving the I.F. “Izzy” Stone Award. I.F. Stone was a pro-Stalin American Marxist journalist starting in the 1930s, who subsequently published a radical newsletter called I.F. Stone’s Weekly. He was eventually identified in the Verona Intercepts and by former Soviet sources as having been an “agent of influence” in the United States for the USSR.
What evah Nona wants, Nona gets.
=============
Barry, care to articulate why you disclosed this? Or do you just ramble needlessly with no reason?
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.
“I’m simply disclosing a fact. You are inferring the ad hominem argument …”.
==========================
That is a disingenuous response.
Anyone genuinely intending to note Prof. Happer’s affiliation would link to the Foundation website.
Here is source watch for SourceWatch:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/10/truth-about-sourcewatch.html
Great interview. I’d like to see more of these interviews with rational professors
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….
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.
Do Recon
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.
Thank you Dr. Happer
Sense makes sence.
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
Excellent Idea! 🙂
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.
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?
G20.
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.
Maybe someday we will look back on the CO2 myth the same way we now look back on the myth of comets.
I like my Ale Still.
But my Larger Bubbly.
My Whisky single malt no Ice.
More Co2 means more of each.
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.
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.