William Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, in the Department of Physics at Princeton University. A long-time member of JASON, a group of scientists which provides independent advice to the U.S. government on matters relating to science, technology, and national security, Happer served as Director of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science from 1991–1993.
Best known to the general public as a vocal critic of the U.N. IPCC “consensus” on global warming, he has been called frequently to give expert testimony before various U.S. congressional committees on the subject of global warming (climate change). In 2015, he found himself at the center of a new controversy involving a so-called “sting” operation organized by Greenpeace.
A list of some of Professor Happer’s major research publications may be accessed here.
These excerpts have been taken from the interview, and appear here without quotes. (h/t to WUWT reader Sasha)
About three months after the beginning of the Clinton administration, Hazel O’Leary called me into her office to ask, “What have you done to Al Gore? I am told I have to fire you.” I assume that the main thing that upset Al Gore (left) was my questioning of blatant propaganda about stratospheric ozone that was his focus at the time: “ozone holes over Kennebunkport” and similar nonsense.
…while I was at DOE. But watching the evening news, I would often be outraged by the distortions about CO2 and climate that were being intoned by hapless, scientifically-illiterate newscasters.
Greenpeace is one of the many organizations that have made a very good living from alarmism over the supposed threat of global warming. They are unable to defend the extremely weak science. So, they demonize not only the supposed “pollutant,” atmospheric CO2, but also any scientists who seem to be effectively refuting their propaganda.
GreenpeaceI suppose I should be flattered to be one of their targets: je mehr Feinde, je mehr Ehre (“the more enemies, the more honor”), as the old German saying goes. But my trials pale compared to those of scientists like Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels, and others, who were not only vilified, but driven from their jobs.
The result of the Greenpeace smear included many hostile, obscene phone calls and emails with threats to me, my family, even my grandchildren. George Orwell wrote about these tactics in his novel, 1984, when he described the daily, obligatory “Two Minutes of Hate” for Emmanuel Goldstein (Leon Trotsky) and his agents, who were the enemies of Big Brother (Stalin) and his thugs.
Greenpeace and other even more fanatical elements of the global-warming movement fully embrace the ancient lie that their ideological end — elimination of fossil fuel — justifies any means, including falsification of scientific data and character assassination of their opponents.
Global warming is a well-established fact. This statement is only half true. A more correct statement would be “global warming and global cooling are both well-established facts.” The earth is almost always warming or cooling. Since the year 1800, the earth has warmed by about 1° C, with much of the warming taking place before much increase of atmospheric CO2. There was a quite substantial cooling from about 1940 to 1975. There has been almost no warming for the past 20 years when the CO2 levels have increased most rapidly. The same alternation of warming and cooling has characterized the earth’s climate for all of geological history.
…more CO2 will be a benefit to humanity. The predicted warming from more CO2 is grossly exaggerated. The equilibrium warming from doubling CO2 is not going to be 3° C, which might marginally be considered a problem, but closer to 1° C, which will be beneficial. One should not forget that the “global warming” is an average value. There will be little warming in the tropics and little warming at midday. What warming occurs will be mostly in temperate and polar regions, and at night. This will extend the agricultural growing season in many countries like Canada, Scandinavia, and Russia. More CO2 greatly increases the efficiency of photosynthesis in plants and makes land plants more drought-resistant. So, the net result of more CO2 will be strongly beneficial for humanity.
The astonishing recent claim by NOAA, that there never was a hiatus, reminds me of the Baron’s soliloquy about the power of his treasure chests in Pushkin’s “little tragedy,” The Miserly Knight, of 1830 (AKA The Covetous Knight). I have tried to reproduce the solemn, iambic pentameter of Pushkin’s verse in my translation :
And muses will to me their tribute bring,
Free genius will enslave itself to me,
And virtue, yes, and, sleepless labor too
With humble mien will wait for my reward.
I’ve but to whistle, and obedient, timid,
Blood-spattered villainy will crawl to me
And lick my hand, and gaze into my eyes,
To read in them the sign of my desire.
The hockey-stick temperature record was conspicuously absent from the latest IPCC report, which speaks volumes. My guess is that the hockey stick started out as an honest but mistaken paper, but one welcomed by the global-warming establishment. They had been embarrassed for years by the Medieval Warm Period, when Vikings farmed Greenland, and when emissions from fossil fuels were negligible. A.W. Montford’s book, The Hockey Stick Illusion (Anglosphere Books, 2015), is a pretty good summary of what happened
NOAA’s recent attempt to eliminate the hiatus is an example of the same kind of thinking that went into the hockey stick. If a politically correct theory does not agree with observations, revise the observations. This is the complete opposite of Nobel Laureate–physicist Dick Feynman’s definition of science, which he spelled out in an entertaining lecture at Cornell University in 1964 :
In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.
I don’t question that the earth has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age, but I am persuaded that most of the warming was due to natural causes, about which the governments can do nothing. We are already seeing more vegetation on the earth and it is absorbing more CO2. But as I will discuss in response to your next question, I believe that more CO2 is good for the world, that the world has been in a CO2 famine for many tens of millions of years and that one or two thousand ppm would be ideal for the biosphere. I am baffled at hysterical attempts to drive CO2 levels below 350 ppm, or some other value, apparently chosen by Kabbalah numerology, not science.
…plants get the carbon they need from the CO2 in the air. Most plants draw other essential nutrients — water, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, etc. — from the soil. Just as plants grow better in fertilized, well-watered soils, they also grow better in air with CO2 concentrations several time higher than present values.
Essex and McKitrick are on target in their book, Taken by Storm. It is striking that many skeptics, like me, are retired. Aside from character assassination, there is not much the attack dogs of the climate consensus can do to us, at least so far. But young academics know very well that they will risk their careers by expressing any doubt about the party line on global warming.
I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
Are our all-powerful governments going to fight increases or decreases of solar activity? Where is Owen Glendower when we need him to “call the spirits from the vasty deep,” or King Canute to stop the tides? I am not keen to submit to lunatic, government-sponsored geoengineering schemes of contemporary Dr. Strangeloves. Nor does driving the earth’s human population down from its current seven billion people to no more than 1 billion have much appeal to me, even though it is promoted by influential climate advisers of politicians and popes. Are we supposed to draw straws to decide which six out of seven people must disappear from the face of the earth?
I can’t see any reason to reduce CO2 emissions. Doubling or quadrupling current CO2 levels will be good for the world. The economic burdens you talk about are all pain with no gain for most of the world.
The evidence that CO2 is a pollutant so fearsome that we must give up democracy, punish “deniers,” and impoverish much of the world by eliminating the use of fossil fuels is looking more and more like spectral evidence. If you can’t find real scientific evidence for alarm, dream up hockey sticks, dream away hiatuses, and get rid of your opponents as soon as possible.
Isn’t the freedom to think what we like and say what we think at the very heart of the scientific endeavor? If so, then how did we get ourselves into this fix?
The situation seems to many of us to be truly scandalous — one that historians of science are going to be making hay out of for decades and centuries to come.
During Stalin’s Great Terror, the equivalents of evil fossil fuel interests were Leon Trotsky and his followers. They were a direct threat to Stalin’s control of the world-wide Communist movement, just as climate skeptics are regarded as an existential threat to the global warming establishment.
I would be surprised if the net total funding of climate skeptics exceeded $2 or $3 million dollars a year, and even that may be high. In the last few years, US government spending for climate research [https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf (48-page PDF)] has been about $20 billion dollars a year — more than a thousand times greater than skeptic funding. But even this huge financial advantage is not sufficient to support the pathetically weak scientific case that the world is in danger from more CO2.
In accepting his 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore said the summer Arctic could be ice-free by 2013 due to CO2 emissions. I invite readers to have a look at the data site I mentioned earlier [http://www.climate4you.com/]. A few minutes of inspection of the “sea ice” link will show that there has been no significant change in sea ice since 2007. With all due respect to Nobel Laureate Gore, there was plenty of summer ice in 2013.
Full interview: http://www.thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/william-happer-interview/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
http://www.thegwpf.com/sharp-drop-of-global-temperatures/
During last few days, Northern Hemisphere average temperature fell by > 1.0°C vs climatology (1981-2010).
Have a look at the diagram on the above link. Looks like we need some more CO2 emitted to counteract this dramatic drop.
Wow, what a great interview. Thanks so much. I have said for years that the climate social mania is metastatic, spreading and infecting more and more of society. So we are now at the point where the industries and institutions that are tasked with free speech and inquiry are in too many instances calling for censorship and suppression. All due to the corrupting influence of the climate consensus obsession.
William Happer was part of a documentary “Klimaatontkenners” (climate deniers) by Gideon Levy on a Vara (socialist) TV program last October in Holland. Although Levy tried hard to frame the skeptics in a negative way – e.g. cut their interviews in separate parts and insert them in a framing context, and give the the warmista’s uninterrupted attention – the general feeling among skeptics was his propaganda effort failed. Overall, on close inspection, the info and the interviews were pretty much in favor of the skeptical viewpoints and the warmista’s arguments weak. Only those “deaf by conviction” wouldn’t get the message. William Harper was razor-sharp and to the point.
in moderation, mod: – you may change “Harper” to “Happer” in the last sentence 😉
Excellent and frank dissertation. I have referred it to multiple people as a way to correctly conduct an analysis.
The funding multiple should say that CAGW advocacy, research and support gets 10,000 times the funding of skeptical analysis and promotion of common sense approaches, not 1000.
Wow, I see that Seaass pulled out every Warmist Troll trick in the Warmist Troll Playbook, from Ad Hominem to Appeals to Consensus and to Authority, and various and sundry Red Herring arguments. Impressive.
Assuming that seaass is seaice, can you point out
1) ad hominem
2) appeals to consensus
3) appeals to authority
4) Red herrings.
I do not believe I have committed any of these fallacies. If you provide examples I will explain to you why you are wrong, or acknowledge that you are right.
As a summary,
Ad hominem fallacy is where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character or other attribute of the person making the argument. I have not done this.
Appeal to consensus is arguing that something must be right because lots of people say it is right. I have not done this
Appeal to authority I have explained in detail above. The only appeal to authority fallacy was in the article.
Red herring is something that misleads or distracts from the important or relevant issue. I have attempted to avoid the red herrings offered by others and keep my discussions relevant to my points.
So please provide examples of each of these fallacies you accuse me of. It is sure to be instructive either to me or to you.
What you believe and reality never intersect.
Seaice has amply demonstrated here why it is a complete waste of time to engage him.
This was actually true somewhere between his fifth and tenth comment in the exchange he started way up top.
Too bad he has so much time on his hands and can hijack entire threads.
Menicholas January 10, 2017 at 4:41 pm
Also he did not read the “interview” Dr. Happer was “doing” climate science before most of the CAGW climate scientists were out of high school
the following is from the interview it should put to rest any claims that never published anything on climate.
“I learned a lot about the atmosphere at JASON. I was involved in the analysis of “thermal blooming” of high-power lasers when they are weakly absorbed by H2O and CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. The physics is closely related to that of greenhouse warming. I learned about the physics of the tropopause, where much of the wavefront distortion of starlight or defensive laser beams takes place. I was one of 14 JASON coauthors of one the first books on global warming, with the nerdy title, The Long-Term Impacts of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels, edited by Gordon J. MacDonald (Ballinger Publishing Co., 1982). We over-predicted the warming from more CO2 as badly as later establishment models, a topic to which I will return below.I learned a lot about the atmosphere at JASON. I was involved in the analysis of “thermal blooming” of high-power lasers when they are weakly absorbed by H2O and CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. The physics is closely related to that of greenhouse warming. I learned about the physics of the tropopause, where much of the wavefront distortion of starlight or defensive laser beams takes place. I was one of 14 JASON coauthors of one the first books on global warming, with the nerdy title, The Long-Term Impacts of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels, edited by Gordon J. MacDonald (Ballinger Publishing Co., 1982). We over-predicted the warming from more CO2 as badly as later establishment models, a topic to which I will return below.”
Seaice do your homework
michael
Sorry for the double print of the quot
michael
I conclude that you cannot back up your accusations with actual evidence from my posting.
seaice1, your conversion to the troll side is nearly complete.
Is “climate skeptics” the right phrase? Are skeptics skeptical about there being a climate? Or are skeptics skeptics skeptical about CAGW?
Great article although the consensus debate still puzzles me. There is consensus about Maxwell’s laws, germ theory and evolution for example. Isn’t there.
And the cause of stomach ulcers?
‘It used to be thought that stress or certain foods might cause stomach ulcers, but there’s little evidence to suggest this is the case.’ NHS choices
Maxwell and Newton were both Trinity alumni but despite that Einstein showed that there are limits to Newton’s laws.
https://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/alumni/famous-trinity-alumni/
‘Change and decay in all around I see:’
I think the consensus debate is important. Take the theory of evolution for example. I’m no creationist, but the theory has some holes in it. It’s no scientific law. It cannot be proven, it cannot be disproven, so in my understanding ‘consensus’ fits not badly.
It is not a law, it is a theory; that is it has been tested extensively and all evidence so far supports the theory. According to Popper, no theory can be proved, but a scientific theory can be disproved. Evolution theory could easily be disproved if a goat gave birth to a snake, or a whale was found with gills, or a 500 million year old elephant skeleton was found.. There are many, many ways evolution could be disproved if it were wrong. Just as the theory of gravity could be disproved if objects started to float upwards. The lack of any contradictory evidence is why these are considered theories rather than hypotheses. The reason people say it cannot be disproved is because there is so much evidence supporting the theory that the things that would disprove it sound stupid and ridiculous, so we discount them ever occurring. From that perspective the theory cannot be disproved because it is correct.
Except that in climate science, the consensus is a fabricated one. A LIE.
Yep. It’s a lie. But those ‘scientiscts’ can create climate models a gogo and what, we’ll have to wait a hundred years to disprove them all? Heck not even medical science does such long lasting trials, even if they sometimes should.
Before going to the sceptic side, I was very intimidated by the so call 97 % scientific consensus. Then I found this article that change everything.
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.ca/2014/02/a-climate-falsehood-you-can-check-for.html
That’s a red herring argument. The point is that with climate “science” we have Warmists touting what they are calling a “consensus” as a primary reason why they are correct, and Skeptics/Climate Realists are wrong. It is just one more facet of their “the debate is over” claim, in a desperate effort to silence those who disagree. It is despicable, and Orwellian.
Seaice1 => ‘PJB. I am not aware that the consensus is used to prevent scientifically sound attempts to falsify the hypothesis. It is used to limit the exposure of many scientifically unsound attempts’.
Your statement, anchored as it is by the concept of ‘scientifically sound attempts’ simply brings us to ‘QED’. Under your (the current) regime the Consensus also gets to i) frame what is to be established (AGW), ii) how it is to be determined (hand-picked scientifically ‘sound’ methods), iii) funded and, of course iv) reported (MSM and peer review). Whatever that particular basket may represent, it is not my understanding of how science is (best) pursued.
Regarding your comparison of blocking attempts at falsification in science with patent examination, surely you don’t mean to suggest that they are remotely similar? As a holder of many patents – expired, current and new – this is something I possess some knowledge of. Patent prior art represents a relatively finite, human-constructed and defined ‘known’. Sound like Climate to you?
Given what globalist policy makers have openly stated and written regarding how they intend to lever the consensus – true or not – I find it hard to comprehend how any thinking person that also possesses a sense of history (and humility) would think it’s a good idea to rip the brake drums off the AGW express. No shortage of ‘useful idiots’ on both sides, make no mistake, but all the more reason to try make sure that we bravely and vigorously support a war of Ideas. Because if we fail in that the endgame is surely that it will degenerate into a war of Persons long before any one theory prevails.
PJB, it was you that raised the concept of scientifically sound attempts. I was merely using your words. The publication of work in a scientific journal is similar to granting of a patent. Both must be checked against prior at to see if they stand up. There are of course differences also.
Seaice1,
I don’t know if you hold any patents ( I do) and the vetting process is much more stringent that the buddy review process in these “scientific” Journals. The type of junk in these journals would never stand up to the review process for US patents which normally includes a comprehensive search to ensure the invention is original and not obvious with one skilled in the “ART”.
Catcracking, I am not saying the processes are the same, but there are similarities. Obviously patents and papers are intended for different purposes and one would not stand the scrutiny required of the other.
Patents are to protect inventions. Journals are to sell and make money for the editor.
Publication of a paper is NO guarantee of its truthfulness or accuracy.
Seaice1
I am a reviewer of grants and journal articles and hold several patents. The processes are as dissimilar as articles and patents. First it is quite possible to patent something that is impossible to make, at the time. The reviewer of the patent is not obliged to confirm it will work, only that the idea is new to the public domain (not only that it has not been patented before). There is a mental test of practicality of an invention. One does not need to make one first, but the concept must be real.
A journal article does not have to contain ‘truth’ to get published nor describe something real. The review process does not establish that the contents are true. Obviously it should not contain math errors but it may be very defective conceptually or contextually, and especially it may contain an incomplete description of reality.
CO2 is a GHG but it is neither an important nor powerful one because there is so little of it compared with the much more powerful and plenteous water vapour. On Earth this will always be so. Published articles stating that CO2 dominates the greenhouse effect are not correct because the description of the total effect is obviously incomplete and the claim is therefore untrue. Global warming is replete with conceptual errors. If all the reviewers of such articles are as unskilled or ignorant as the author, the paper gets published whatever nonsense is in it. It happens all the time.
Articles usually contain new knowledge or insights. Many of these are later shown to be partially correct or in error. But they get published, don’t they! Peer review is not there to protect the author from making a fool of themselves.
Many materialist philosophers want their best handiwork to be accorded scriptural status and taught as canon in schools. Some wish to be lauded as revealers of truth. Tough. They are not. A great many climatologists suffer from the intellectual boils of suffocating conceit about their understanding of nature and mankind’s control over it. Boils are easily passed along to those who touch them.
Appropriately, their comeuppance will be the frosty reception CAGW receives from historians. It is 2017. The Big Chill, the Landscheidt Minimum, has begun. A couple of years with no summer ought to get everyone’s attention.
Stay warm.
What a joke – with some of the pure garbage “published in scientific journals” in the climate pseudo-science field, and the way “skeptical” views have been purposefully prevented from being published in order to quash any debate of “The Cause,” holding such publication as some kind of “gold standard” has become laughable. Sorry, but “pal review” doesn’t impress – or pass muster.
The original interview is very long (I saved it as a pdf file and it is 61 pages), but exceptionally interesting. Happer has lead a full and productive life, and has a reasonably good command of peripheral matters, notwithstanding the commentary of the usual critics here. I learned a few things. Interestingly, in the comments section, were two of the usual crowd who referred to him as a “hack” for his views on global warming–a couple of members of the “cult of faith” i suppose.
I know who I believe. as Rutherford said ” Physics is the only real science – the rest are just stamp collecting”
davec: “I know who I believe. as Rutherford said ‘Physics is the only real science – the rest are just stamp collecting.’”
He also said, “If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.”
Seaice1: Sorry, but whatever PCT patent offices may or may not do, they don’t attempt to act as judge, jury and executioner of global, coupled non-linear chaotic systems linked to elite policy making machinisms in an unstable, geopolitically poised nuclear-armed world; one where 6 billion poor people want to live large like the other 999 million, who in turn hope to live like the uber-elite crust up top.
I put it to you and the anti-skeptic major rite that the establishment/elite approach to climate science is unprecedented in the modern scientific era; not only ahistorical and totalitarian(lite) but, based on what I see, potentially more likely to result in deleterious, asymmetric outcomes than any dose of healthy skepticism will.
For asymmetry other than medium term socio/geopolitical dislocation on the back of World Government, let’s assume policy makers get their wish and atmospheric CO2 could be ‘harnessed’; the control knob placed in the hands of a handful of cognoscenti tasked with selecting ‘optimal’ CO2 for planet Earth. That’ll be it: CO2 by committee. Yeah, that’ll work. All we’d need is for the Plant Kingdom to lobby aforementioned cognoscenti to make sure the don’t drop CO2 below 200 ppm. Why, whatever could go wrong?
Forget lobbying, give them the vote. Heh, they already have it.
===========
Have just the vote?
The autotrophs make higher forms of life possible on Earth. Without them we are gone in short order!
PJB, I don’t know what you are talking about but it seems unconnected to our previous discussion. I am trying to keep the discussion to the science but people keep introducing red herrings.
There’s a lovely passage in Defoe’s ‘A Tour of the Whole Island of Great Britain describing where coal seams met the sea, and salt was made with the coal, to preserve the amazingly abundant North Sea herring catch, which otherwise would have rot, or not been caught, to generalized local and distal dismay, not to mention hunger.
===========
Reality is the ultimate read herring.
An interesting and comprehensive interview, that explores many of the more heretical areas of climate science. I note that Happer appears to endorse my dust-albedo theory for the modulation of ice ages. (Ellis and Palmer 2016.). (Do a search for ‘dust’.)
“Modulation of Ice Ages via Precession and Dust Albedo Feedbacks”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305
This process also has a bearing on modern climate calculations. It has been assumed that tropical treelines are regulated by temperature, but if they are regulated more by CO2 then the assumed glacial temperatures in the tropics are incorrect. And some of the calculations used in climate sensitivity are also in error. This new theory places dust-albedo modulation as the primary climate feedback during ice ages, and it therefore relegates CO2 to the back seat. It is entirely possible that the same is happening in the modern climate – dust-soot emissions may be more important as a feedback than CO2. This is a topic for further research.
Ralph
Phil Jones rejected a request for data by saying, “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
He also said: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Here are a couple of quite easy to answer questions for you, seaice1.
1. Do you think the above statements represent good scientific practice?
2. Would you trust scientific findings in any field produced by people who were operating in that fashion?
Please answer both questions with a simple Yes or No. Please do not write paragraphs of text trying to evade the scientific integrity issues. Thank you for your consideration.
(This is a second attempt–apparently I had a trigger word in the previous try.)
The intimidation of scientists started in the 1990’s . “What have you done to Al Gore ? ”
“I have to fire you ” . That is how to “settle ” science ?
They haven’t changed ,the same bully tactics have just been polished into politically correct BS like Kerry’s parting nonsense .. global warming is not a “partisan” issue .
Well actually it is otherwise the green blob that owns the Democrat Party would have had the balls to try and get Congress to approve the Paris Treaty . No chance and they knew it . Why not put it to a vote and see how “partisan ” it is ? Cancel the Executive Order and PUT IT TO A VOTE . That’s what democracies do rather than con tax payers out of $$Billions with no say from the nations law makers .
What should have been an interesting thread dragged completely off topic by seaice1, his premise being the Happer, not being a climate scientist, is not qualified to speak out on climate science. This is a statement that can only be made by someone who either has no background in science, or is just being disingenuous.
To be a climate scientist, one needs to understand physics, math, stats and chemistry…
To be an civil engineer, one needs to understand physics, math, stats, and chemistry…
To be an electrical engineer, one needs to understand physics, math, stats, and chemistry…
To be a geologist, one needs to understand physics, math, stats, and chemistry…
Or do you suppose, seaice1, the there is a difference between Stefan-Boltzmann Law as applied to climate versus engineering? Is Beers Law different in climate science? Does CO2 store energy differently for a chemist than it does for a climate scientist? Does a spectroscopic analysis of gases in an industrial process use different definitions for wavelengths and frequencies than a climate scientist doing spectroscopic analysis of the atmosphere? Do you suppose that statistical analysis is calculated differently in climate science than in economics? If you do, you either haven’t studied physics, math, stats or chemistry, or you are just being disingenuous.
A mathematician, with no expertise at all in physics, can nonetheless read a physics paper, and if there is a math error in it, expose it. Similarly, and perhaps a better example, an economist with no background in climate science, or even dendrochronology, can expose the glaring misuse of stats in the hockey stick graph.
It was on a thread on this forum years ago that a NASA climate scientist insisted that a paper by Keith Briffa, could not be understood by people who were not climate scientists. I asked him what was in the paper that could not be understood by someone with a first year stats class under their belt. He refused to answer the question, and when pressed to do so, became so abusive that he was permanently banned from this forum. It was obvious to all who read that thread that the miscreant could not justify his claim that one needed to be a climate scientist to understand Briffa’s paper.
Not only is Happer qualified to speak on this matter, he is eminently”/i> qualified. If there is a statement he made which you believe to be untrue, than by all means, provide evidence to support your position. If not, then STFU.
May we now return to a discussion of the science?
You don’t Jason sans generalist boots, and big league ones at that.
==================
+97
Davidmhoffer.
The links to those previous threads in very informative. Gosh, perlwitz really whipped your asses. Richardscourtney’s obfuscations, false allegations, distractions and misrepresentations are blatant. Faced with reasoned discussion and valid statistical analysis he had to fall back on distraction based on an absurd interpretation of something perlwitz said.
In one exchange with yourself Jan said:
“you asserted following about what I allegedly claimed:
In either case, as you say, it has been supported by the 75 people whom you have repeatedly claimed are 97% of ‘climate scientists’.
Please provide the original quotes where I allegedly said such a thing,”
To which you reply:
“Jan Perlw1tz;
A climate scientist is a scientist who does research and publishes in scientific journals on past, present, and future climate of Earth, as a whole or aspects of it. There isn’t a big problem to define what a climate scientist is.”
You fail to justify your allegation, unless you think there are only 77 people doing research and publishing in scientific journals as described.
Perlwitz certainly came out on top.
Perlwitz says later:
“I’m curious what Courtney, Stephen Richards, and their likes are going to say and do, when it is clear after 20 years that I, together with mainstream climate science, have been right and there is still an intact global warming trend in the global temperature anomaly also for periods starting around 1997, when global warming allegedly “stopped”, according to Courtney and likes.
Reasonable folks, who have believed in the “skeptic” meme will probably acknowledge that they got fooled by internal natural variability and scientifically flawed statistical analysis presented to them by “skeptics”. I suspect, though, that the Courtneys and Richards will totally delve into lunacy and conspiracy fantasies then, if they haven’t already done so.
Well, I’m going to tell the crowd here then, regarding the global warming trend, “I told you so!”.”
Well he is not here to say it right now, but I have allowed him to do so.
[Left in queue for Anthony to approve. .mod]
Perlwitz also threatened some violence, and got his ass banned. Like many alarmists such as yourself, he’s quite emotional and prone to outbursts. IMHO, he’s a jerk.
But see here’s the bottom line, mother nature doesn’t care about our puny opinions, she’ll do what she wants. Right now, she’s cooling down the planet, though some people have a hard time accepting this.
seaice1;
Perlwitz certainly came out on top.
If you believe that refusing to answer a simple question is “coming out on top”, by all means. Perhaps I could interest you in a used unicorn as well?
Davidmhoffer:
I didn’t get as far as the violence, and I certainly can’t condone that. But he did not avoid your question, he justifies not answering it here:
“Why should I have the burden to answer your question “what in Briffa’s paper could not be understood by someone with good math skills and entry level stats?” I do not recall to have claimed that this was the case. Without me having claimed such a thing your question presumes an assertion about me, which is a falsehood. It’s called a loaded question. I do not see any reason why I should have to answer your loaded question”
You then failed to provide the quote that would justify your question.
Having just seen you do exactly the same thing here to me it by suggesting I said there is zero valid cross over between fields of knowledge when I actually said the opposite. When asked to provide the quote all you say is LOL.
So it was in fact you that avoided the valid question, which was provide the quote showing that perlwitz said what you suggest he did.
So, so far as I have read (not all the way to the end yet) Perlwitz certainly came out on top in the debate.
Sic semper tyrannus.
========
You then failed to provide the quote that would justify your question.
You and the pearls of wit guy have something in common. You like to play complex word games, and then when challenged on what you said, claim you didn’t say it, demand proof, and then argue about what those specific words actually mean. Anything to avoid the substance of the issue. Shall we argue about what the definition of “is” is?
I laugh at you because your word games are patently obvious. Your unwillingness to engage in genuine discussion of actual issues is blatant. Pearlw1tz would not answer the question because he would have had to admit that there is nothing all that “special” about climate science that prevents people with basic skill sets to examine it and point out it flaws. The argument that “he’s not a climate scientist” persuades no one but the very ignorant and gullible. You are no different. You dragged this thread off topic by challenging Happer’s credentials, then when challenged to dispute the claims he made instead, employed the precise same tactics, demanding proof of this or that as justification for not engaging on the issues Happer raised. You do not because you cannot.
You think yourself clever, someone who mops the floor with the fools at WUWT by virtue of your ability to play word games, cast aspersions, imply lack of knowledge, and then when challenged on it, claim you didn’t. You are in fact, just a coward. You spit your clever vile from an anonymous handle because you don’t have the guts to do it under your own name. You are incapable of engaging on the actual issues at hand, so you p*ss on the people who can, claim you didn’t do what you did, and further drag the thread off course.
Come back when you have the balls to post under your own name and engage on the actual issues.
Davidmhoffer. I have asked you several times to answer a simple question. Where did I say there is zero valid cross over between fields of knowledge?
I can show you where I said the opposite:
“When Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick discredited Mann’s hockey stick, they pointed out that the statistical methods he used were wrong.” They were commenting on areas within their expertise. They do not need to know about climate science to comment on statistics.”
See how full of sh*t you are? Your own evidence refutes your own claim. You claim you did not say there was zero cross over, then present as evidence of the opposite:
“When Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick discredited Mann’s hockey stick, they pointed out that the statistical methods he used were wrong.” They were commenting on areas within their expertise. They do not need to know about climate science to comment on statistics.”
So, by your own hand, you defined statistics as being OUTSIDE of climate science, then when challenged, tried to use that same statement to claim you never said there was no cross over. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
But the challenge remains open for you to refute any of Happer’s assertions directly. You don’t because you can’t. Your more interested in word games and you don’t even play those all that well.
Davidmhoffer, I know this stuff is difficult for you, and I have been away for a while and only just popped back, but you should try harder. The reason McKintyre can productively comment on a paper about climate science is exactly because there is crossover between disciplines. You have not answered my question.
David, I simply pointed out an appeal to authority fallacy. The people who responded are the ones that dragged it on by their errors and fallacies.
I never said that Happer could not or should not comment. I simply said that his professional expertise was not in climate science. That makes drawing attention to his credentials an appeal to authority fallacy. Just as I am suspicious when climate scientists or doctors talk about their preferred economic remedies to things they are aware of as a result of their genuine expertise. For example, doctors should be listened to when they talk of the link between dietary sugar and diabetes. They have no special expertise in the effects of a sugar tax, so doctors proposals for sugar taxes should be treated with caution. To say that they should be listened to on the sugar tax because the are doctors in an appeal to authority fallacy. To say they should be listened to on the link between sugar and diabetes is not a fallacy, but a proper respect for genuine authority.
If you has actually read my comments you would realize that I make many of the same points you make. mathematicians can comment on the maths in science papers. Statisticians can comment on the stats in science papers. I made that specific point in relation to McKitrick and the hockey stick.
So don’t blame me if people keep getting it wrong and I correct them.
You didn’t read the important part.
STFU
“seaice1” : just wondering. Are “geologists” qualified to comment on climatology?
I simply said that his professional expertise was not in climate science. That makes drawing attention to his credentials an appeal to authority fallacy.
A statement that could only be made by someone who either doesn’t understand the import of those credentials, or who is being disingenuous.
David Hoffer,
I would like to read the thread you referred to here, with the NASA guy mouthing off.
Do you know how I might locate it?
Menicholas January 10, 2017 at 8:00 pm
David Hoffer,
I would like to read the thread you referred to here
I can only partly point to it as it happened over multiple threads. The thread where it started is below. Look for the back and forth between myself and a guy named Perlw1tz. I have inserted a 1 instead of an i in his name to avoid this comment being sucked into moderation. The battle continued over subsequent threads where I kept asking the question and our host finally ruled that he could not comment further until he answered it. But I no longer recall which thread or threads that happened on. Bottom line is that rather than answer he insulted our host in a manner that got him banned entirely.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/
Seaice1
” I simply said that his professional expertise was not in climate science.”
What? Why waste words saying something so obviously untrue? It is plain (from experience and context) you intended to pronounce him ineligible to pass an opinion, like the obnoxious NASA scientist intended. Our speaker today is clearly a master of multiple sciences. Based on his explanations and coherent thesis, I would far rather listen to him than say, Dr Suzuki or Dr Mann.
I have never met a climate scientist in person. From what I read, from out the mouths of 97% of them my life will go better for them and me if I don’t. CAGW is so full of scientific misunderstanding and malfeasance that it cannot be sustained as a real science.
I have however met more than one expert reviewer of the IPCC reports and they are all skeptics and accept what today’s ‘feature artist’ says. None support the CAGW narrative. As a consequence of knowing them, I know that the AR’s are manipulated documents with deliberate and scientifically fraudulent actions taken to hide important contradictory information and to present conclusions intended to deceive the lay public. The very simplest proof is the fact that the second last report cites grey literature for 1/3 of its references: a cardinal violation undermining the entire exercise.
Put more simply, CAGW is for people who are bad at math.
…and here is where it ended:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/professor-critical-of-agw-theory-being-disenfranchised-exiled-from-academia-in-australia/
There were several intervening threads in which I kept asking Perlw1tz to answer that question. In one thread, he said he would answer, if I answered his questions first. I did, but he didn’t. Then he deni*d having made that agreement, so I kept pestering him. My memory is fuzzy on it now, but I think Anth_ny banned him for a H*tler comment, and then relented. Then banned him from commenting until he answered my questions. At some point he uttered a threat (unrelated to my discourse with him) and Anth_ny banned him permanently. The thread linked to above was the final chapter in the whole affair.
davidmhoffer–I think you have hit upon something crucial in this discussion. Yes, one does not need to be a “climate scientist” to understand if a particular climate proposition does not pass a critical test, such as falsification by experience, or some other form of nullification. It lies in having the knowledge and “understanding” of the scientific basis for a proposition to be held plausible. For the last 6 years, I have been on a quest to understand the mathematics and physics relating to the climate. I am approaching my mid-70″s in age, but, I keep to the task. I have been thinking that “model” based climate science is somewhat of a haven for those individuals who have been leading the charge against any contrary positions to AGW. I do believe many, if not the majority, of these “climate scientists” do NOT really understand most of the equations underlying the chaotic, dynamic, coupled system our climate exhibits. I mean, for example, the “Navier-Stokes” equations, which we know are not closed. When I study Joseph Pedlosky’s “Geophysical Fluid Dynamics” it drains me physically and mentally—I mean it is not easy for me, and I have always been quick on the uptake in many intellectual challenges. I wonder if these so called “experts” can demonstrate a thorough understanding of the mathematics and physics without the aid of a computer program? We constantly hear the computers are programmed with the requisite equations to represent the climate, but, anyone with a lick of understanding knows this is false. There are so many issues–i.e. initial conditions, finite representation, time variable boundaries and so forth, that preclude any model from having the ability to predict future climate. My goodness, computers are programmed with representations of the dynamic equations based on probabilities, and rounding errors, which in turn grind out values taken from a finite representation of nature. What results can we expect? Certainly nothing to base any action by a government, especially when a society could be devastated by such action. Politics…rational men should be in charge of the hen house.
Orange crowned cock crows
And so the dawn goes.
=============
Heh, the roosters are all boosters.
=====
Besides, I’d settle for Judy, Head Hen.
=======
I think you’ll find he’s both. He also refuses to or can’t think and if the thread above is anything to go by, doesn’t understand any concept of logic.
SteveT
seaice1: “Do you take advice from your doctors?”.
=========================
If my doctor started “correcting” data, airbrushing x-rays for instance, I’d seek another opinion.
If I had accepted uncritically the advice of, not just a doctor, but a specialist, I would very possibly be in a wheel chair today. The mere notion that there is zero valid cross over between fields of knowledge is the epitome of either rank ignorance or deliberate malfeasance.
“The mere notion that there is zero valid cross over between fields of knowledge is the epitome of either rank ignorance or deliberate malfeasance.”
And certainly not anything I have suggested.
And certainly not anything I have suggested.
It is precisely what you suggested.
+0.97
david – where did I suggest that?
david – where did I suggest that?
LOL.
Not if he was trying to bleed me.
Not if he was trying to bleed me.
ROFLMAO. As it happens, I have a rare condition which is fatal if untreated, and the only known treatment is, in fact, blood letting.
Marvelous, dmh; drip blood, glow sweat, tears of irony.
I’m reminded of an old French cardiologist who, when faced with tachycardia. and heart failure from fluid overload screamed ‘Ouabain or the knife!’
===================
This is a scam for grant money and fake jobs writing fictional “papers.” The truth is simple:
CO2 is a “trace gas” in air and is insignificant by definition. It would have to be increased by a factor of 2500 to be considered “significant” or “notable.” To give it the great power claimed is a crime against physical science.
CO2 absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight per molecule as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat producing 99.9% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.1% of it. Pushing panic about any effect CO2 could have is clearly a fraud.
There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover trapping heat. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces to work as greenhouses that admit and reflect energy depending on sun angle. Gases do not form surfaces as their molecules are not in contact.
The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased for his “hockey stick” was several Fahrenheit degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of world peace and abundance, longest ever.
Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 rises followed temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Therefore temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.
Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” by Heidi Cullen and Jim Hansen, but it is not per the energy absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is only present to 18 ppm. “Vegans” blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against meat consumption.
Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.
Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.”
Read the whole story in “Vapor Tiger” at Amazon.com, Kindle $2.99 including a free Kindle reading program for your computer. We have an inexpensive demo-experiment that proves CO2 increases have no effect on IR heat absorption until 10,000 ppm and then it cools the atmosphere by driving water vapor out!
Google “Two Minute Conservative” for more.
“CO2 is a “trace gas” in air and is insignificant by definition.” You realize that if you are right then the notion that plants need CO2 must be wrong? After all, how could something insignificant be the primary source of all life on Earth? That would make it rather significant, wouldn’t it?
“There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere.” Nice to have someone just straight out say it.
Please think.
CO2 is insignificant for global warming.
CO2 is significant for plants growth. No CO2 forget plants and animal life.
That is not what adrianvance said. He said it was insignificant by definition. If it is significant for plants why should we think it is insignificant for global warming? there is no logic behind thus at all.
do not overreach.
warmer times surely means relative abundance, but it never meant peace.
seaice1, CO2 IS a TRACE gas in the atmosphere. At 400 ppm, well, the remainder adds up to 999,600 ppm. Yup, a TRACE gas in the atmosphere. Just because all plant life miraculously extracts that one part in 2,500 for it’s energy and growth is just that, a miracle. Even NASA has identified that the earth is “greening” due to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations. And if we are truly fortunate enough to double the atmospheric CO2 concentration, it is still a TRACE gas in the atmosphere, for the remainder would still account for 999,200 ppm. Again, the true miracle of all plant life, the ability to extract such a TRACE molecule for continued growth.
And all of this nonsense regarding the definition of an expert, or not. Please read Dr. Patrick Moore’s speech to the Mechanical Engineering Society of London – if there is a true climate expert, look no further. Dr. Moore would like to see the atmospheric CO2 concentration at 2,000 ppm:
http://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2015/10/30/former-president-of-greenpeace-scientifically-rips-climate-change-to-shreds/
And remember, seaice1, that even at that level (2,000 ppm), it is still a TRACE gas in the atmosphere since the remainder constitutes 998,000 ppm.
At a concentration of 600 ppm, carbon monoxide would be considered a TRACE gas. However, if you breath it in at that concentration this TRACE amount will kill you.
Mr. Klipstein – EXACTLY!!! The epitome of an apple to orange comparison, that being comparison of physical processes to biological processes. There are compounds out there that can kill in the parts per billion range, sensitivity to life from a biological perspective can be (usually are) entirely different than sensitivity to processes from a physical perspective.
Okay, seaice1, here is a real life example of how utter ridiculous it is to compare concentration between biological processes and physical processes.
I live at approximately 51 degrees north latitude, therefore my doctor recommends that I take vitamin D during the winter months when I receive very little direct sunlight.
A whopping 50 micrograms per day.
To put this into perspective, I weight about 220 pounds, or 99.79 kg, or 99,790 grams. Dividing 50 micrograms (50 x 10-6) by 99,790, is 0.5 parts per billion (ppb). Yet in a biological sense, that is enough to maintain a healthy vitamin D balance in my body. Even if I take the mass of the vitamin D over the course of one year, that is still a mere 0.2 parts per million (ppm). Based on that, 400 ppm is an incredibly large number! But it is NOT, CO2 is a TRACE molecule in our atmosphere.
Again I reiterate, I have seen no evidence that contradicts that FACT that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 over the past 600 million years has been, for the overwhelming majority of that time, significantly higher than current, and based on the FACT that the earth currently has trillions of living species of plant and animal life on it is direct evidence that the historically high CO2 concentrations did NOT sterilize this planet. If all plant life had a voice, they would be screaming at our species for being so very stupid to want to further starve them of this TRACE molecule in our atmosphere. it is a true miracle that plant life can survive via the extraction of that one molecule in every 2,500.
A refreshing perspective from a highly experienced scientist and physicist!
Unsettling to the ‘consensus/settled science’ crowd, no doubt…
One also needs to read Happer’s ‘Major Statement’ written after his interview;
http://www.thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/happer-major-statement/
From his Major statement “Each human exhales about 1 kg of CO2 per day, so the 320 million people of the United States “pollute” the atmosphere with about 320,000 metric tons of CO2 per day. Talk about a “carbon footprint”!”
As an example of Happer’s expertise, he fails to distinguish between fossil carbon and recycled carbon in human breath. Every atom of carbon in breath has recently been removed from the atmosphere by a plant. Not so for fossil fuels, which removed the carbon from the atmosphere millions of years ago. Either he is more ignorant than he would have us believe or he is being disingenuous. The carbon footprint from breathing is zero. How can he not know this?
seaice1
Your statement brings to mind the analysis of Professor Salby that derives through several independent methods the anthropogenic CO2 present in the increased atmospheric CO2. I believe he concludes it must be less than 3%. Although I am not qualified to critique him Dr. Ed Berry an atmospheric physicist agrees with his work. Others have shown that the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase is not related to rate of anthropogenic emissions. In my understanding these observations seem to support Dr. Happer’s conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 is not a danger.
“Every atom of carbon in breath has recently been removed from the atmosphere by a plant.”
What an amazing statement. Have you ever heard of artificial sweeteners/colors/other additives? Some of them would be plant-derived, but many are not and are synthesized from petroleum-based feedstocks. Acetic acid as an example. The last numbers I remember seeing are that about 75% is manufactured.
How can you not know this?
Please, be more specific with your language and eschew obfuscation.
seaice1, always and never are seldom true. Your nice troll act would have been better if you were not so transparent.
I stand corrected, YOU ARE THE TRUE MIRACLE of this planet. The epitome of a troll who cannot comprehend the simplest of scientific FACT. The atmosphere is starved of CO2, and during the majority of the past 600 million years when it was not so starved, both plant and animal life flourished.
To expose a troll is to get them to say their names – you have mine ……
seaice1
Will Happer has extensive background in the transfer of energy via absorption and emission. How do you believe that MRI and NMR systems work? How do you believe CO2 is supposed to heat up the world?
Your lack of understanding of his background and how it can relate to climate science…. i.e. the main control knob…., is astounding.
Making this claim as you have without also including the context in which Happer made the comment is very dishonest. He did not claim that breathing has a carbon footprint, except in a mocking and unserious tone. He was making an analogy to show why treating CO2 as a pollutant does not make sense. it seems to have been your day’s work to simply discredit Happer and his efforts on behalf of sanity.
This comment got misplaced. It is meant for seaice1 at 3:55 pm.
How can seaice1 not know this?
===============
@seaice1:
Phil Jones rejected a request for data by saying, “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
He also said: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Here are a couple of quite easy to answer questions for you, seaice1.
1. Do you think the above statements represent good scientific practice?
2. Would you trust scientific findings in any field produced by people who were operating in that fashion?
Please answer both questions with a simple Yes or No. Please do not write paragraphs of text trying to evade the scientific integrity issues. Thank you for your consideration.
(This is the third attempt to post this–my first two had my no-longer-functional former email plugged into that submission textbox.)
@seaice1:
Phil Jones rejected a request for data by saying, “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
He also said: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Here are a couple of quite easy to answer questions for you, seaice1.
1. Do you think the above statements represent good scientific practice?
2. Would you trust scientific findings in any field produced by people who were operating in that fashion?
Please answer both questions with a simple Yes or No. Please do not write paragraphs of text trying to evade the scientific integrity issues. Thank you for your consideration.
I apologize for the multiple postings of the same comment: 12:07 PM, 5.09 PM and 5:18 PM. I guess I’ll have to wait until another post by seaice1 to confront him with these questions. Hopefully the glitch that temporarily prevented my comments from posting is taken care of. Thank you to the moderators for their work behind the scenes.
seaice 1 has demonstrated an amazing ability at avoiding the core issues at play in the interview and again in the responses to the many comments directed at him. Typical of skilled warmists he seems to think his evasion is not noted, it is indeed amazing how many mouse-holes one can escape to while defending the consensus. What seaice cannot do is break from the party line, they believe that being resolute in the face of failure is a winning strategy…stick with it my boy every year millions more get that the alarmist predictions are failed and they become ever more irrelevant, even the simplest of persons no longer flinch when the “wolf” never comes. In the larger picture sea is useful, studying the evasion techniques help us to expose them and neutralize their value at derailing debates and evading the fact that their hypothesis has been debunked by reality.
Often, I misread his moniker as ‘seance’.
=======
+10 It is just so tedious dealing with these professional evaders, kind of like playing a science themed game of Twister when you’d rather be playing Whack-a-Mole only to discover you are covered in their chicken shjt.
…some less kind than you misread I his name as well. kim, I have truly appreciated your wit and insights.
Often I misread it as “totally ignorant troll” ……
Agree with @hunter 100%
Thanks, appears very interesting!