William Happer on Climate Science: "They’re glassy-eyed and they chant"

Will-Happer

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Professor William Happer, who has been tipped as front runner to replace John Holdren as the Whitehouse Science Advisor, has described climate scientists as a glassy eyed cult.

Trump’s likely science adviser calls climate scientists ‘glassy-eyed cult’

William Happer, frontrunner for job of providing mainstream scientific opinion to officials, backs crackdown on federal scientists’ freedom to speak out

The man tipped as frontrunner for the role of science adviser to Donald Trump has described climate scientists as “a glassy-eyed cult” in the throes of a form of collective madness.

William Happer, an eminent physicist at Princeton University, met Trump last month to discuss the post and says that if he were offered the job he would take it. Happer is highly regarded in the academic community, but many would view his appointment as a further blow to the prospects of concerted international action on climate change.

“There’s a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult,” Happer told the Guardian. “It’s like Hare Krishna or something like that. They’re glassy-eyed and they chant. It will potentially harm the image of all science.”

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/15/trump-science-adviser-william-happer-climate-change-cult

Frankly I think this comparison is a bit harsh.

I don’t know how Krishnas behave elsewhere, but in Australia Hare Krishnas are a bit of a fixture. I enjoy an occasional feed at one of their vegetarian restaurants. Occasionally they wander over to talk about their religion, but they are not pushy – they take “no” for an answer. I have never known a Hare Krishna to demand someone else live according to their principles.

If climate scientists were that restrained about pushing their beliefs, about trying to inflict their life choices on others, I would have a lot less of a problem with the climate science community.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
392 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 16, 2017 12:32 am

Happner does have the right attitude. “Cultist” is sort of appropriate for a mass movement (in Eric Hoffer’s usage), but I would compare the greens and their climate change advocates to the Berkeley “sandalista” kitsch Marxists.

Reply to  Tom Halla
February 16, 2017 12:34 am

Oops, Happer, not Happner

eddie willers
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 16, 2017 9:32 am

Cousin of Eric Clapnor.

Steven Miller
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 16, 2017 11:42 am

This was a very unfair attack on Krishnas and glassy eyed, chanting cultists everywhere. If Happer had compared “climate scientists” to terrorists they would be crushed also. Happer definitely owes cultists an apology.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 16, 2017 3:17 pm

Happer might owe the cargo-cult a new “runway”…

Reply to  Tom Halla
February 16, 2017 9:17 pm

“Happer definitely owes cultists an apology.”
Why Steven! You sensitive snowflake you!
🙂

hunter
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 16, 2017 2:08 am

No, he doesn’t. Drainingbthe swamp is a long term process. What he is doing is shooting off his mouth. My bet is he will not last long if he even gets appointed. Trump is being destroyed because he thinks he rule a a government instead of having to lead a government. He actually seems to have thought he could just tell lifelong green radicals and lefties in government to shut up and do what he says. And call them names along the way. With no leadership of those agencies in place, little legal infrastructure to assist him in writing his EOs, and little coalition building with Congress. Maybe he really is crazy.

mikebartnz
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 2:16 am

OH Hunter you have been very well indoctrinated. You are the one that is crazy.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 2:20 am

If memory serves, Obama goes down in US history as the President who made the most Executive Orders to promote his own political agenda!

Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 2:29 am

Sucking up to the cultists has been tried, and been a failure. There is no compromise they will accept, so trying for one is a lost cause.

Steve Case
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 3:08 am

Tom Halla – at 2:29 am
Sucking up to the cultists has been tried, and been a failure. There is no compromise they will accept, so trying for one is a lost cause.

Bingo!

Reply to  Steve Case
February 16, 2017 3:21 am

Thank you.

George Tetley
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 3:31 am

Hunter ?
Like in Anteater ? Come back in 6 months when “The Donald” has had time to open the nest !

Ian W
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 4:01 am

Hunter the major difference between President Trump and President Obama executive orders are that Trump’s are to enforce existing laws (need’s no Congressional approval) while Obama’s were to vary or suspend enforcement of a law which were an end-run around a lackadaisical Congress. The fact that one Federal Judge supported an executive order that another Federal Judge opposed says more about the federal judges than it says about President Trump.

hunter
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 4:24 am

Y’all are missing the point a bit. I fear for his failure. Obama got away with massively abusing the EO because he *controlled* the government. Mr. Trump should have had his legal ducks in a row on his immigration EO. He didn’t. Happer should keep his yapper shut until he is in office, then procede. Keep quiet on EPA until you have a trusted reformer in position. Be prepared for the legal pushback *before* changing the policy. Obama has left extremists in place who admire Lois Lerner for what she did. And there are dozens, if not hundreds, of Lois Lerners in government, prepared to fight dirty and break laws to further their goals. Trump walked into the swamp ill prepared. Speechesvand bits of paper that are ignored is not leadership. Unless Mr. Trump, who I support, gets his act together fast he will fail, which means more trillions wasted on climate kook garbage, more corrupt goverment, mire illegal immigration. If some of you that is crazy, too bad.

Gary
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 5:21 am

Good observations, hunter. Effectively draining a swamp requires heavy equipment and experienced workers. Trump’s impulsiveness doesn’t serve him or us well and will hamper the effort.

RockyRoad
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 5:36 am

NO, hunter–President Trump could have had a million “legal ducks in a row” and it wouldn’t have mattered: The Marxist/Socialist Progressives own the 9th Circuit Court which ruled to stay the EO because they’re obstructionist jurists of the worst kind.
Most Progressive judges like to dabble in creative judicial activism (actually re-writing statues on the bench rather than weigh their constitutionality), whereas the 9th Circuit Court acted just like a bunch of “glassy-eyed cultists” that didn’t even have sufficient security clearance to rule in the case.
Not one word was directed towards the constitutionality of President Trump’s EO (which it was)–rather, they were butt-hurt that it would shut down immigration from 7 terrorist-torn countries that have no verifiable records on their (highly questionable) people coming into the US. President Trump was putting a crimp in their No-Borders Nirvana.
It’s just another politically-motivated ruling from the 9th Circuit Circus for Open Borders and Complete Amnesty. They’ve had an abysmal 80% overturn rate by the Supreme Court and this can be added to the list.
It doesn’t get more cultist or dangerous than that and President Trump’s reaction has made fools out of three judges on the 9th Circuit Court.

Sheri
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 6:28 am

Hunter: The EO was legal, the judge did not follow the law. If Trump were ruling, he’d have ignored the judge (as did Obama) or had him removed from the bench. He did neither.
As for EO’s, early on (as in the first month), EO’s are a wonderful way to undo damage done by the previous ruler. Later, the EO’s can be turned into legislation. Obama was still signing EO’s in January. He KNEW they would be overturned, but did not care. That was pointless.
Your comment saying you fear for his failure—he will be opposed and protested for months. It’s what happens when the Left loses—or more accurately, decides the Right does not understand they lost and just let the Left continue ruling. Nothing changes that except the Left getting their way. (Odds are the same would have happened had Hillary won. Protests and riots would have occurred then, too.)
Gary: Trump “looks” impulsive, but is he? That’s what the media expects, so why no give it to them? Plus, as noted, NOTHING Trump does will not be attacked, impulsive or well-planned. When judges can just ignore the law and no one stops them, there is no correct way to react. It all ends in being shut down by a judge ruling the country. One cannot “perform properly” in anarchy.

Mark L Gilbert
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 6:34 am

Umm… Crazy like a fox. He is dismantling the madness, and the hysteria of the elites and their attack dogs is delicious.

Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 6:51 am

Happer “shooting off his mouth” is irrelevant. Nobody who knows who’s who will have any doubts about where Happer stands on the issue anyway. He has testified before congress and he has stated again and again that he considers increased atmospheric CO₂ a net boon to humanity. Happer is an outstanding scientist who is not afraid to speak his mind without equivocation, and he would make an excellent science adviser.

MarkW
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 6:57 am

Obama survived 8 years while doing just that.

Tom in Denver
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 7:15 am

Hunter,
Two thinks will soon happen, and then you will see big changes.
1) the cabinet positions need to be put in place. for the EPA Scott Pruitt will be running the place.
2) Congress will pass a bill that makes it much easier to fire federal employees. This will put them in the same boat as the rest of us. If they don’t perform as expected, they are out on the street.
This will put arrogant bureaucrats, like yourself, into your place.

Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 7:41 am

Alan the Brit February 16, 2017 at 2:20 am
If memory serves, Obama goes down in US history as the President who made the most Executive Orders to promote his own political agenda!

Not even close, on an EO/year basis he had the fewest since Grover Cleveland’s first term!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders#Consolidated_list_by_President

TA
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 7:47 am

“Come back in 6 months when “The Donald” has had time to open the nest !”
I think that’s good advice. Trump doesn’t even have many of his Department heads in place yet, and dealing with Congress is like herding cats, but most of the chaos you see is manufactured by the MSM. They are the ones all out of breath, not the Trump administration.
Expect the MSM to characterize the Trump administration in the most detrimental way they can. That’s what they are doing now, and will continue to do, since that is all they have: character assasination. Meanwhile, Trump keeps moving forward with his agenda, while beating the MSM into submission with his tweets. I love it that Trump didn’t give CNN a question at his latest news conference, and you should hear the MSM whine about it! “The fix is in” the MSM proclaims, because Trump called on a couple of conservative reporters for questions instead of CNN. Like the “fix wasn’t already in for the Left” with the MSM handling the propaganda.
The MSM and the Left think they are winning by stirring up all this controversy. They are not. They are engaging in delusional thinking, while Trump has his eyes on his goals and is moving forward.

Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 8:30 am

Hunter, I agree. Having the right opinion about an issue does not necessarily mean doing the right things in politics. History is paved with contraproductive “improvements” all over the globe. I also think that you do not need to “drain the swamp” within weeks. Some minor changes in the right place with an incentive for the less biased scientists to support the changes will do to stop proliferation of climate alarmism and open the minds of the climate community slowly without giving them an incentive for resistance. With new enemies all along every change Mr. Trump’s draining strategy might end up drowning in the swamp.

Bruce M Strampe
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 8:36 am

Well now Hunter, What you describe is the last eight years. How does it feel to be on the receiving end of things for a change. Those of us that did not agree with those policies and empirical decrees simply waited our turn. We did not riot or beat up anyone but do not take that as agreeing with anything that was shoved down our throats. Lefties feel that they can demean anyone or anything that does not agree with them but will not tolerate the same when returned. Do what we did for now, just suck it up.

hunter
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 8:37 am

You who think this is going well for reform and skeptics are missing the point. By telegraphing moves, being undisciplined, by not putting a disciplined team in place he allows the opposition room to take control. By not selling Congress he stands alone against Attorneys General acting as dock puppets for Steyr, Bezos, Microsoft, big green, etc to o to Court and stop his agenda.wake up we are close to losing this big time.

seaice1
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 8:58 am

Alan, we have this thing called the internet which means you don’t have to rely on memory. Since all executive orders could be said to promote the presidents political agenda we can just count them. Obama is not top by a long way. He is behind Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, LB Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman, Nixon and way, way behind FDR. FDR has 3,522 compared to Obama’s 276.

Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 10:11 am

From USA Today Dec 16, 2014: Numbers of Executive Orders are down because Obama calls many Executive Memoranda

WASHINGTON — President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.
When these two forms of directives are taken together, Obama is on track to take more high-level executive actions than any president since Harry Truman battled the “Do Nothing Congress” almost seven decades ago, according to a USA TODAY review of presidential documents.
…..

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/16/obama-presidential-memoranda-executive-orders/20191805/

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 10:33 am

hunter February 16, 2017 at 8:37 am
I do not think you are sincere in your concerns for the administration. Seems that you goal is more to spread gloom and apprehension then encouragement.
Little things give you away like this statement “What he is doing is shooting off his mouth.” well that is telling on your mindset.
Or this, “Trump is being destroyed because he thinks he rule a a government instead of having to lead a government.” Sounds like and radical Democrat disruption tactic. Accuse the President of not doing his job by doing it.
Oh and again this one “Happer should keep his yapper shut until he is in office, then procede.” You really do not like the fact that Happer is speaking. To you he should remain silent and the public remain ignorant of his views, and no challenges or exposure of the disloyal elements within the various agencies.
Yes Hunter Disloyal. If you cannot support or implement the administration’s polices the proper course is to resign.
The fact that they are not doing so reveals their true loyalties.
Gitmo is still open for business
michael

MarkW
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 10:52 am

Is there a dictionary definition on the difference between Executive Order and Presidential Memorandum?

george e. smith
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 12:00 pm

The feckless ninth circuit three judge panel, actually made no decision in the case of the POTUS Trump Implementing the visa hold policy that Obama signed into “law”.
They simply punted; and made NO ruling on the merits of the case (which are unassailable).
So they just left in place that ruling by the Washington State 4-H club judge.
The absolute Constitutional authority of the POTUS to act as Trump did; and following Obama’s lead, was also pre-approved years ago by the Congress, who asserted that the President absolutely has such Constitutional power.
The Lefty Loonies and their MSM fake news on dead tree cronies, are simply going to get washed away when the new AG kicks into gear.
But it is so much fun watching the crazies whine and cry, that The Trump is in no hurry to show them the bum’s rush. So Obama deported 2.5 million criminal invaders, or was that perhaps 25 million. I know it is way more than any President before.
G

Joel Snider
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 12:14 pm

Hunter, you really don’t know what your seeing, do you?

JohnKnight
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 12:19 pm

hunter,
Of all the contentious matters Mr. Trump must fight with well entrenched powers that be over, if he is to begin draining the proverbial swamp for real, it seems to me “climate change” is one he has little reason to be coy about, or needs to “sell” Congress on. If Congress was not already “sold” on resisting/ditching the climate alarm agenda, we would have seen something more than a non-binding non-treaty “won” by Mr. Obama in Paris, it seems simple logic tells us.
Hence, it’s a realm wherein pointing out that zealotry (particularly among the very public promoters and mass media enablers) has been detected by seasoned scientists, is potentially useful, it seems to me. There’s no sign (I’ve seen) that the general public is actually alarmed about climate change, so it can serve as an example of sorts, of how corrupt and self serving the forces aligned against Mr. Trump’s efforts to drain that swamp can be . . while they’re acting like it’s crazy to speak of them being corrupt and self serving. Just what the doctor ordered, so to speak.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 12:28 pm

It is not the job of employees at any organization to extend their personal beliefs onto the organization in a way that fundamentally changes the function of the organization. This is the problem with much science and journalism today. It is advocacy disguised as information.

MarkW
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 12:50 pm

george, at least one of the judges on the 9th has requested an en banc hearing. So there’s still a chance that the 9th will overturn the stay.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 1:14 pm

Mark W,
Memoranda are sneakier than EOs. But thank God, easier to change or revoke.
A presidential memorandum is a type of executive action issued by the president of the United States to manage and govern the actions, practices, and policies of the various departments and agencies found under the executive branch of the United States government. It has the force of law and is usually used to delegate tasks, direct specific government agencies to do something, or to start a regulatory process. There are three types of presidential memoranda: presidential determination or presidential finding, memorandum of disapproval and hortatory memorandum.
Sometimes used interchangeably, an “executive order” is a more prestigious form of executive action that must cite the specific constitutional or statutory authority the president has to use it. Unlike executive orders, memoranda are not required by law to be published in the Federal Register, but publication is necessary in order to have “general applicability and legal effect”. The Federal Register gives publication priority to executive orders and presidential proclamations over memoranda. Memoranda can be amended or rescinded by executive orders or another memorandum, but executive orders take legal precedence and cannot be changed by a memorandum.

cwon14
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 3:36 pm

Respectfully Hunter, you’re wrong on this. Happer is absolutely necessary and at one level right away. Skeptics of the 1st grade who endlessly appease the Leftist wing of core climate change advocacy and you can include Watts, Curry and Fabius Maximus are a big part of the problem. The Happer/Lindzen/Trump skeptics are correct. It was and is always political BS first and a preposterous pseudoscience proposition as the backstory.
A political cult or their appeasers will never be debunked with actual science if political motivations and events aren’t held to absolute account. That’s why having a mascot like Dr. Curry, her tortuous 10 year slow walk skeptical epiphany, her sudden awaking to “craziness” in climate science that in itself avoids labeling a 50 years Greenshirt global domination movement which she remains sympathetic to are all the wrong skeptical messengers.
Trump and Happer and the world in fact need your support. Of course the odds against a bogus science and agenda cartel over 50 years in the making was never going to be easy. Time that skeptics get their heads straight and realize why this opportunity to have Happer in government at all contradicts all your doubts on tactics. There simply isn’t the time or counter infrastructure of counter media/academia/green shock troops to do it the Obama way. Trump has to execute, make the case to the vast numbers of Americans who despise the core warming people and understand them exactly for what they are.

Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 9:21 pm

Hunter writes: “Y’all are missing the point a bit.”
Good point Hunter. Well taken.

Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 9:35 pm

Hunter writes: “Trump is being destroyed because he thinks he rule a a government instead of having to lead a government.”
I think you’re right about that, it’s a naivete that comes from a life in private business that leads him to think he needs to seek the approval of his board (of which he is chair), then issue orders that will be carried out faithfully by people e can fire for insubordination if necessary, which isn’t the case.
He does need to get his act together and do some serious coalition building and he needs to do it right sharp or he’ll end up being tossed (or worse). His problem is he ran on a platform against “political correctness” and he’s living it. He doesn’t have a problem with people like Happer who just speak their mind, he encourages it. But I think you’re right saying it will get him in trouble unless he reins it in soon. He’s going to need to learn the DC Two Step.

Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 9:51 pm

Hunter: Finally, though I agree with your idea Trump will need to do some coalition building over the next 4 years, now really isn’t the time. While he’s building his cabinet it’s impossible, in a very real sense establishing his cabinet is coalition building.
He needs his cabinet first.

Alan McIntire
Reply to  hunter
February 17, 2017 4:55 am

Washington was a Virginia slaveholder who discovered that in Virginia, slavery was not economical. Since his wealthy wife owned a large fraction of the slaves, the slaves were freed upon his wife’s death, after his own. Washington made provisions in his will that part of his estate would be sold off, and the proceeds used to teach each of his former slaves a trade so they could be self supporting.
In contrast, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe were also Virginia slaveholders who did NOT free their slaves.
All three of them died broke.

Carbon BIgfoot
Reply to  hunter
February 20, 2017 6:40 am

Hunter it is apparent that you don’t know Dr. Happer. In 2015 he received the Frederick Seitz Memorial Award at ICCC-10. I was honored to be there and listened to the Keynote Address by Dr. Happer. Enjoy the frankness and the acerbic wit of this great scientist starting at 9:00 of the following video:
https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/videos/dr-william-happer-phd-keynote-3-iccc10

BFL
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 16, 2017 7:17 am

AGW types are more like Scientology cultists who go after not only people that criticize them but anyone who has left the cult with potential organized public and legal harassment. My theory is that Climastroligists are controlled by Xenu Thetans and need exorcising.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu

jfmo
Reply to  BFL
February 16, 2017 7:47 am

Like Scientologists with government backing.

Moa
Reply to  BFL
February 16, 2017 2:11 pm

+1 LOL !

george e. smith
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 16, 2017 10:08 am

Well that would be one hell of an advance over what crap has gone as science advice to the POTUS for the last eight years.
Finally somebody substantial we can look up to.
G

tom s
Reply to  Tom Halla
February 16, 2017 10:49 am

Good one Eddie. I had forgotten about that fail.

rogerthesurf
February 16, 2017 12:33 am

Well he sounds like my kind of man.
I’m interested to hear if Donald Trump can tackle Agenda 21 / 2030 – the most insidious progressive indoctrination there is in my view.
He did mention school curiculums which seems to be a start.
In our schools we get such things as this – https://thedemiseofchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/exemplar-3-2008-exam.pdf
I bet it is in US schools as well.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

Griff
Reply to  rogerthesurf
February 16, 2017 12:52 am

What you write about is imaginary – it doesn’t exist.
I can’t label it as what it is because it is one of the trigger words for moderation.
Really, belief in this you mention is no better than Medieval superstition and yet you are endorsing this man’s ignorant condemnation of his fellow scientists?
Its no wonder that criticism of climate science is regarded as a fringe political movement…

Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 12:56 am

Another message from our own glassy eyed cultist. . .

Me
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 1:02 am
Jer0me
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 1:31 am

Agenda 21 doesn’t exist? In which universe?

AndyG55
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 1:51 am

DENIES what is clearly written
DENIES climate change history
DENIES data that is right in front of his face.
Griff is the ultimate CLIMATE CHANGE DEÑÏËR

Greg
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 1:55 am

The highly political and non scientific behaviour of a lot of climate scientists has shattered the mythical image that many people had of scientists as perfectly objective, apolitical searchers of truth.
The failure of other fields to round on climatologists, telling them to get their act in order simply highlights that they don’t won’t a light shone on their domains of study either.
This clearly has damaged this foolish idealistic image society has for scientists and that is probably a very good thing.

mikebartnz
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 2:19 am

Griff I feel so sorry for you as life just isn’t going your way and it isn’t for the next four years so just suck it up.

JJB MKI
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 2:55 am

@Griff
Projection as a fundamental mindset (“Medieval superstition”) and the pathological inability to question, criticise or accept criticism of received wisdom. What are those two qualities indicative of?

Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 3:38 am

Griff
Now, if you can dig out some kind of ‘russian connection’ dirt ….

toorightmate
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 3:47 am

Griff,
Just sit down and eat your KELLOGS Corn Flakes – like a good boy.

Alan Vaughn
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 4:22 am

Griff,
Doesn’t exist??? Are you kidding?
The entire scam of CAGW and nowadays: ‘climate change’ was invented to cover up and at the same time, justify Agenda 21 / Agenda 2030. The Socialists who now own and operate the UN, literally invented a ‘global problem’ (i.e. hoax) that needed a global solution that can only be administered and CONTROLLED by a Socialist world government that will CONTROL everything that everyone does. The ‘global problem’ of course being human-caused CO2 emissions causing the planet to heat up catastrophically (CAGW), or to cover all scenarios: CO2 emissions causing any ‘climate change’.
I’m just concerned that Mr Trump might not know about it or, worse – thinks like you Griff and what I used to think myself until about 15 years ago, when I used to dismiss it as just another conspiracy theory. Oh how I wished it was only that.
Agenda 21 or, nowadays more specifically referred to as Agenda 2030, has the potential to not only be the biggest hoax in history, but the biggest HOLOCAUST and you better believe it, or perhaps you’re just saying what you say, because you actually support it? I know the UN and their complicit governments don’t want us ‘little people’ knowing too much about it.
https://geopolitics.co/2017/02/04/u-n-official-reveals-real-reason-behind-the-global-warming-scare/
http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom267.htm

Sheri
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 6:38 am

Griff:
What you write is imaginary and does not exist.
I cannot say what it is or it triggers moderation and my thesaurus has no good choices to replace it.
What you write is just superstition and group think allegiance to a bunch of people who believe exactly as you do. Requires no thought, just have to believe. Yet you lash out at all who would question your allegience to the group.
It’s no wonder climate science is regarded as a religion now.
(There, that comment is EXACTLY as valid as yours.)

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 6:59 am

Dang, you guys didn’t leave enough of Griff for me to have a go.

Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 7:12 am

Okay, I have to join the pick-on-Griff party now:

What you write about is imaginary – it doesn’t exist.

Enough said.

rogerthesurf
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 11:44 am

Griff,
So the link I give above is imaginary then, or perhaps you think it is good schooling for your children?
Most of us would say its an example of anti capitalist brain washing.
Cheers
Roger

rogerthesurf
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 11:52 am

Me,
A quote from your link “Activists, some of whom have been associated with the Tea Party movement by The New York Times and The Huffington Post, have said that Agenda 21 is a conspiracy by the United Nations to deprive individuals of property rights”
Check out this UN Document then
https://thedemiseofchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/unitednations-conference-on-human-settlements_habitat1.pdf
In particular page 8. The red highlights are mine.
“UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON HUMAN SETTLEMENTS” is part of the Agenda 21 “initiative”.
Cheers
Roger

Joel Snider
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 12:16 pm

Grift is projecting again. He’s describing himself.

catweazle666
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 12:17 pm

The only contributor round here posting utter tripe that is no better than Medieval superstition is YOU, Grifter.
As to condemnation of scientists, after your deliberate lies about Susan Crockford and Willie Soon, you really do have some d&mn gall.
How do you live with yourself?
Ah, I forgot, the end justifies the means in your egregious peer group – especially if you can make a few quid out of it, and who cares about the pensioners who can’t afford to eat and heat, and the damage to endangered species like the big raptors? Not you, that’s for sure.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 3:28 pm

Griff, that “fringe movement” solidified to defeat progressive socialism in a fair election. The map of counties tells the tale. You only become more obnoxious by pressing your opinion as an onlooker, hotrod.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 3:45 pm

re Griffy’s comment ‘…you are endorsing this man’s ignorant condemnation of his fellow scientists?”
How ironic that a warmest is decrying condemnation of fellow scientists.
Note: in the recent polar bear discussions, Griff did exactly this (condemnation) of Susan Crockford, and has yet to apologize.

Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 6:03 pm

What you write about is imaginary – it doesn’t exist.

<– You mean they don't share a strategy, tactics and coordinate action? Of course they do. [Presumably] Joe Romm to [green billionaire] Tom Steyer:

“I think it’s fair [to] say that, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change for 538.”

link
If Joe Romm (anti-nuclear power, climate catastrophe, media person) does not qualify as glassy-eyed cultist, no one does.

Reply to  rogerthesurf
February 16, 2017 1:41 am

“Well he sounds like my kind of man.”
And many sceptics’ too.
from wikipedia :
“Views on global warming
In February 2009 Happer testified before the U.S. Congress, “I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind”, for among other reasons because of its beneficial effects on plant growth.[9]
The Daily Princetonian quoted Happer:[15]
“All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it’s not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide,”

TA
Reply to  vukcevic
February 16, 2017 7:53 am

“The Daily Princetonian quoted Happer:[15]
“All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it’s not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide,”
My sentiments exactly! Trump needs to pick this man. 🙂

Chris
Reply to  rogerthesurf
February 16, 2017 2:57 am

“I’m interested to hear if Donald Trump can tackle Agenda 21 / 2030 – the most insidious progressive indoctrination there is in my view.”
Yeah, because reducing poverty, reducing deforestation, maintaining biodiversity and the rights of indigenous peoples are not things the world should be trying to do. Sheesh.

Reply to  Chris
February 16, 2017 9:59 am

Agenda 21 / 2030 is NOT about any of those things. It is foremost, an attempt to insidiously install a global Socialist Government and eliminate any Rights of the Individual! When Everyone is in Poverty except the Elites, then one can declare Poverty is reduced because there is no Prosperity.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
February 16, 2017 10:26 am

Socialists say that they want to reduce poverty, yet there programs are universally designed to maximize poverty. Except for the lucky few who get to run the programs.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Chris
February 16, 2017 11:00 am

Chris,
Yeah, Hugo Chavez said all those good sounding things too. Look how well that turned out.

Reply to  Chris
February 16, 2017 6:14 pm

rights of indigenous peoples

To stop economic development not on their land? Is that like the rights of the climate faithful to force everyone to say the arctic is melting?

Chris
Reply to  Chris
February 17, 2017 5:54 am
Taylor Ponlman
Reply to  rogerthesurf
February 16, 2017 7:33 am

Roger,
These are perhaps the scariest exam papers I’ve ever read (in DemiseofChristchurch). The quote from Erlich’s book is the topper. In any sensible exam, the question would have been: “Expliin why this man has been utterly wrong for forty years”.

dan no longer in CA
Reply to  Taylor Ponlman
February 16, 2017 9:57 am

And yet, Stanford is still paying Erlich a salary, a man who has predicted four of the past zero catastrophes. I had a higher opinion of Stanford until I learned of this.

rogerthesurf
Reply to  Taylor Ponlman
February 16, 2017 12:04 pm

Taylor,
Agreed. Furthermore if you search the website I quote in my blog, you will see that the base documents for the course – (the example I give you is only one of many), are Agenda 21 and the Brundtland Report aka “Our Common Future”, from the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) was published in 1987.
This is an example of the overhauling of the schools system here in the 1990’s.
Although I had children at school at the time, I never saw this course or its base material ever discussed in public or by the staff of the schools I was associated with.
When I asked for an explanation of this exemplar and the course in general, I received this answer.
https://thedemiseofchristchurch.com/parata-answer/
Cheers
Roger

Barbara
Reply to  rogerthesurf
February 16, 2017 1:48 pm

rogertheserf
CEGN/Canadian Environmental Grantmakers’ Network
‘En Route To A Low-Carbon Future’, April 30, 2015, a 27 page report.
Re: The role of foundations/philanthropy in achieving this objective.
Note: The wind turbines on the cover of this Report.
http://cegn.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/EnRouteToALowCarbonFuture.pdf

rogerthesurf
Reply to  Barbara
February 16, 2017 2:50 pm

Barbara,
And your point is?
There is no route to a low carbon future unless a method or methods to produce energy that are close or less expensive than the current fossil fuel technology are found.
Unless this technlogy is found, (and there is no sign of it yet), any attempt to force a low carbon regime with the current technology, will result in economic collapse and and consequent population difficulties such as starvation and extreme deprivation.
For example, without current cost energy being available, it will be impossible for the farming sector to achieve enough production to feed the current population levels. There would be hardship in all sectors of the economy, including transport and manufacturing.
In case you are of the opinion that subsidies and philanthropy will prevent the problems I briefly describe above, well forget that too. Subsidies from governments do not make things any less expensive – simply the population simply pays for the subsidized product through taxation and in fact pays more because of government overheads.
If energy technology costs are higher than the population can possibly pay, a subsidy makes absolutely no difference and will make things worse.
If you think philanthropists can and would handle the cost of making an economy low carbon, will forget that too. As wealthy as they are, they simply dont have what is needed (and I doubt the will)
If you ever studied Economics 101 you would be able to figure this out for yourself.
So the point of your article is?
Cheers
Roger

Barbara
Reply to  Barbara
February 16, 2017 7:46 pm

My point is:
The public should know where the money comes from to fund these kinds of activities and who the parties are that are involved.
Read this Report.

rogerthesurf
Reply to  Barbara
February 17, 2017 5:55 pm

Barbara,
IF you look up “Supporters” on the CEGN website, you will find the following supporters.
Max Bell Foundation
The Calgary Foundation
Carthy Foundation
De Gaspé Beaubien Foundation
The Catherine Donnelly Foundation
Donner Canadian Foundation
The Echo Foundation
Ivey Foundation
The Lawson Foundation
The J.W. McConnell Family Foundation
The McLean Foundation
George Cedric Metcalf Charitable Foundation
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
Gosling Foundation
Mountain Equipment Coop
North Growth Foundation
Oak Foundation
Ontario Trillium Foundation
Pricewaterhouse Coopers Canada Foundation
Real Estate Foundation of B.C.
The Salamander Foundation
The Schad Foundation
Sitka Foundation
Suncor Energy Foundation
TD Friends of the Environment Foundation
Tides Canada
Vancouver Foundation
The Walter & Duncan Gordon Foundation
Wilburforce Foundation
Winnipeg Foundation
The Rockefeller Brothers http://www.rfb.org tend to finance such organisations as above but I could only find
“Tides Canada” on their search engine.
However if you wish to follow the money, most foundations, especially if they are registered in the US, will list their “supporters” on their website. Often under their “about” page. But of course as they don’t generally like doing this, one may have to search a little more. Donors are usually listed somewhere in their financial reporting.
For instance Tides Canada list their donors at 2014 at http://tidescanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2014-ar-web.pdf
Certainly at least some of those supporters, such as the World Wildlife Fund appear in the Rockefellers grants list.
These foundations and groups typically invest in “initiatives” such as CEGN which reflect their political views and ambitions.
However all of these “foundations” only exist in order to wrest funds from governments – AKA the tax payer.
Please be assured that if any of these “initiatives” such as found in CEGN are ever implimented in any form, it is you and me as tax payers who foot the bill.
Trust this answers your question at least to some extent.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

Ore-gonE left
February 16, 2017 12:35 am

Too bad this isn’t a Cabinet position. I would pay to watch the hearings to watch the Democrats heads explode. Hollywood we come unglued as well. The Senate hearings would make Robert Bork’s battles with the Senate look like a walk in the park. Thanks Mr. President for making these kind of choice picks for your administration, that is sure to put this federal bureaucracy in a new course correction.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Ore-gonE left
February 16, 2017 3:51 pm

Ore-gonE left
I suspect you (we) will get some of this fireworks with the nominees for EPA administrator.
Popcorn popping, liberal heads popping – all good stuff.

Dave
February 16, 2017 12:44 am

Glassy eyed cult….. LOL, I like him already@@@

Reply to  Dave
February 16, 2017 7:19 am

Doesn’t CO2 have some sort of resonance frequency or something with glass? I’m speaking from ignorance based on a wisp of a memory, so forgive me, … or not.
Anyhow, the glassy eyes and attraction to CO2 could explain some things (if my memory wisp is correct). (^_^)

PiperPaul
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
February 16, 2017 8:36 am

Some are even swivel-eyed (loons)!

gnomish
Reply to  Dave
February 16, 2017 12:46 pm

yay- this is a winning gambit because the howling against it is proof of the premise! well played!
(it is the same type of tactic that was a winner for lewandosky and the ‘conspiracy ideation’ trick and which not one man of 1000 had the wit to comprehend.)

February 16, 2017 12:52 am

Happer has certainly got the attention of the snowflakes who are beside themselves with angst.
However, it’s more important that he’s a good scientist – the snowflake’s angst is just icing on the cake.

Griff
February 16, 2017 12:54 am

Seriously? This man is being considered for a responsible position in government when he makes remarks about scientists who will fall under his authority like that? when there is no shred of actual evidence against any US scientist.
Evidence first, then convict we follow in the UK. Has the Us abandoned the principles of a civilised society?

Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 1:08 am

Dear Dear Griff, it’s not like he hasn’t interacted with them for decades.
He has PERSONAL experience with the maggots nest of federal activist scientists, for decades.
He’s read their papers.
He’s talked to others about them.
He hasn’t just pulled this out of the ether.
I’m not sure which principle of a civilized society is being abandoned, but I can’t see one. I see an adult taking charge.

HAS
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 1:09 am

Must say I agree, evidence first, then convict. Seems to also be what Happer is suggesting.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  HAS
February 16, 2017 1:42 am

+1 I was going to respond along the lines of evidence that aCO2 is the driver of climate change given, according to the IPCC climate is the average (Made up), of weather over 30 years. Provide the evidence, difficult when there is none, so, like averages (Climate), it’s made up.

AndyG55
Reply to  HAS
February 16, 2017 1:48 am

+ another 10 🙂
time these shysters were brought to account… you included, griff.

jones
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 1:11 am

Oh Griff you poor thing. If only you would open your mind.
If you truly thought those submitting comments here were actually evil or even just bad you wouldn’t waste your time. Actually, I’m fairly confident most or all here are very nice, sociable people.
So why do you bother?

JJB MKI
Reply to  jones
February 16, 2017 3:05 am

Because like many who might have been manipulated by a cult mentality (through no fault or even knowledge of their own – most cult members are intelligent people who have been seduced by ideals of ‘something better’ that others might not have the imagination to hold) he might simultaneously be drawn to question his belief system, thereby reducing the pain of cognitive dissonance, yet deeply resent anyone who encourages him to question his belief system as a defence against the fear of uncertainty. Sometimes people in the grip of an unquestioning cult mentality might need to seek confrontation with people in the ‘outside world’, experiencing vitriol and abuse as a result, which serves to reinforce conviction in the sanctity and righteous purpose of the cult.

AndyG55
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 1:46 am

“Evidence first,”
Masses of evidence, griff..
.. you just ignore it because you haven’t got the brain-power to comprehend or process it.

M Courtney
Reply to  AndyG55
February 16, 2017 6:14 am

Other interpreations of evidence, even interpretations that turn out to be wrong, are not indications of stupidity.
Assuming evreyone whoidisagreees with you lacks brainpower is the first step in succumbing to Groupthink.
And we’ve seen there that leads.

Chris
Reply to  AndyG55
February 16, 2017 7:55 am

Yeah, just like the masses of evidence presented by skeptics. Arctic ice is recovering! Nope, it’s declining rapidly. The Pause! Nope, that’s over. But wait, Antarctic ice is growing. Nope, it’s now at an all time low. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-antarctica-ice-idUSKBN15T2SH

MarkW
Reply to  AndyG55
February 16, 2017 9:24 am

I love it when you alarmists try to do science.
A one year drop after a large El Nino is proof of nothing.
The same El Nino ended the pause, and now that the El Nino is gone, in a year or so the pause will be back and it will be over 20 years long.
Antarctic ice, not talking about the same thing.

tom s
Reply to  AndyG55
February 16, 2017 11:30 am

Oh no, a little less sea ice around the growing land ice in the Antarctic where current interior temp is -42C at NZSP, which is actually not far from the coast, and it’s mid summer. Sea ice does not affect sea level.

DonM
Reply to  AndyG55
February 18, 2017 11:38 pm

Its not really a lack of brain power. Its more of an emotional response leading to an erroneous belief (system) that can’t, for whatever reason, be overcome logic or reality.
Followers of CAGW, socialism, the anarcist movement, and the like are all similarly aflicked; lending toward being labeled as “useful idiots”. Maybe “useful self-deludeds” should be used so we don’t insult their intellegence.

Greg
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 1:59 am

Evidence first, then convict we follow in the UK. Has the Us abandoned the principles of a civilised society?

No, evidence first, then delay until you can say the time limit for prosecution has passed. That is how the UK hands things. Otherwise UEA CRU would have been prosecuted.

Greg
Reply to  Greg
February 16, 2017 2:04 am

….when there is no shred of actual evidence against any US scientist.

Well if you let the accused decide what questions are going to be asked during an “investigation” you are not likely to find that he has done anything wrong are you?
There was plenty of evidence that Peter Gleick had committed wire fraud since he basically admitted it. Oddly, though that evidence exists, he was not prosecuted. Statute of limitations runs out this month IIRC !
Yep, it seems that US has “abandoned the principles of a civilised society”

Trebla
Reply to  Greg
February 16, 2017 4:18 am

Glassy-eyed cult? Shooting off at the mouth like that just confirms the opinion of most warmists that skeptics are a bunch of Neanderthals. I’d much rather the opinions of somebody like Dr. Judith Curry whose measured, considerate words based on healthy, scientific skepticism carry much more weight with me.

hunter
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 2:11 am

“Evidence first” from Griff, a climate kook true believer. And who says Griff has no sense of humor?

mikebartnz
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 2:24 am

Griff have you forgotten what those so called scientist were doing when the Climategate emails came out. You are coming across like a poor prostitute.

Chris Wright
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 3:11 am

Griff,
Are you serious? There is a mountain of evidence, I suggest you read the Climategate emails.
There is a mountain of evidence against one Michael Mann. I suggest you read Steven McIntyre.
In his 2008 paper Mann literally turned a cooling trend into a warming trend.
And what about the NOAA temperature adjustments? The graph of their adjustments, published by the NOAA, shows the adjustments. Looking at the graph, you don’t have to be a cynic to smell a huge rat. The graph is just too, shall we say, convenient. I would say the probability that all the random adjustments resulting in a perfact rising trend is practically zero. Of course, these “adjustments” (they are still busily adjusting past data as well as currenty data) are being done by precisely the same people who want to “prove” global warming. Such behaviour, if carried out in a public company, would quickly have the company officials behind bars.
.
I recently watched an extraordinary film about Scientology for the second time (The title was similar to “Scientology: Going Clear”). Time after time I was reminded of chilling parallels between the Scientology cult and some aspects of climate science. If Happer calls climate science a “cult” then he is not entirely wrong.
.
This is one of the crimes of many (but not all) climate scientists: they make Scientology look good.
.
I passionately hope that, in time, Trump, and his excellent appointees, will finally drain the climate science swamp.
Sorry, Griff, but the tide – and the political climate – is turning against you.
Chris

Non Nomen
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 3:54 am

It is just a matter of perception. There are so many weirdos around in abundance like Mann, Hansen, Schmidt et al, you name them, you know them better than I do, that for somebody who never learned to think for himself the world of weirdos seems to be the normal world.
The guys with common sense like Happer, Ball, Curry are still a minority, which I expect to change soon. Then the word will call a spade a spade again and send the weirdos to playing grounds where they can’t do no harm any longer.

jj, too
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 4:26 am

Griff,
…when there is no shred of actual evidence against any US scientist…
Right there it shows you have not been paying a whit of attention over the past 20 years to the various climate exposes’. Be careful or you will risk a loss of credibility.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  jj, too
February 16, 2017 4:27 am

Griff never had any to lose, but does provide comic relief here.

Shawn Marshall
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 5:08 am

Great interview with Dr. Happer which shows that he is an accomplished scientist, a renaissance man, and a solid thinker. He is none of the things you smear him with:
http://www.thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/william-happer-interview/

billw1984
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 5:16 am

As science adviser, scientists don’t really fall under his authority. It won’t hurt for him to tone it down. On the other hand, it is refreshing to hear someone call out the loonier side of climate studies.

MRW
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 5:18 am

Griff,
You obviously have no clue who Dr. Happer is. Happer was studying the radiative qualities of CO2 in the atmosphere before the first PhD in Climate Science came off the conveyor belt at the Univ of Wisconsin in 1979.
And as for occupying a responsible position in government, he was director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science under Bush Père. And he was Chairman of the JASON Advisory Group. Read up on them and ditch the ignorant comments.

gregfreemyer
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 6:18 am

>> when he makes remarks about scientists who will fall under his authority like that?
The job has no authority in regards to any scientists. It is to help the President understand and interpret science. The President has all the authority. And Trump has already said far worse about alarmist climate scientists.
It is great that Trump is looking to a physicist as his advisor. They tend to have a solid understanding of the complexities of science and the difficulties of meeting the burden of proof.
The precautionary theory isn’t science. It’s politics.

dan no longer in CA
Reply to  gregfreemyer
February 16, 2017 10:08 am

Yes, if the precautionary theory were true, you would be obliged to join every religion and cult in existence, including the cults that require you to transfer all your worldly possessions.

Sheri
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 6:41 am

Under Obama, yes. That’s why Trump was elected. People got tired of “guilty” with no possibility of a trial under Obama.
I haven’t seen much evidence in your comments. Perhaps that why people think you’re irresponsible and uninformed. Check the mirror.

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 7:01 am

No shred of actual evidence????
This form the troll who time and time again claims that it’s proven that CO2 is going to kill us and that renewables both work and are economical.

Barbara
Reply to  MarkW
February 17, 2017 9:15 am

If the CO2 situation is as critical as climate alarmists claim it is, then fossil rationing should be imposed.
But there is no money in rationing. Instead, complicated carbon taxes are proposed which produce additional money sources for governments and such things as carbon trading markets where plenty of money can be made.

Barbara
Reply to  MarkW
February 17, 2017 9:22 am

Should be fossil fuel rationing.

Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 7:29 am

Seriously? This man is being considered for a responsible position in government when he makes remarks about scientists who will fall under his authority like that? when there is no shred of actual evidence against any US scientist.
Seriously, … YES.
So, commenting on one’s perceptions, based on years of experience and contact now requires EVIDENCE, before making a public comment to characterize one’s stance.
Okay, from now on, I expect EVIDENCE to back up each comment here.
MY own evidence should be self evident. (^_^)

Dale S
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 7:50 am

Griff, the position in government is for leading the Office of Science and Technology Policy, an advisory department with a small staff. He’s not making remarks about the scientists “who will fall under his authority”, nor will he “convict” anyone of anything. It’s not a judicial role, and there’s no reason to expect or demand that the OSTP come in with no scientific preconceptions.
What he will do is advise the executive department on how much support and attention they should give to the scientists he’s referencing, and how it should affect and inform executive policy. Climate isn’t an area where relevant information is under a seal of government secrecy, and it’s certainly an area he’s spent time looking at; if he’s not capable of making judgments, even harsh ones, about scientific issues and/or scientists before being nominated, he’s not fit for the job.

Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 7:59 am

Griff,
“Evidence first, then convict we follow in the UK.”
Due process is generally reserved for crimes, not science. I’ll agree that crimes have been committed, but it’s less interesting to see these ‘glassy eyed’ cultists go to jail than it is to get them out of the way so that the scientific method can prevail once more. Few on your side understand that science is not about evidence, since data can be easily tweaked and/or fabricated, but is about rigorously testing any hypothesis that attempts to explain the data and every test applied to the hypothesis of an absurdly high sensitivity claimed by the cultists you hold in high esteem, falsifies it.

Vlad the Deplorable Impaler
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 8:24 am

Question, Griff: did you ever hear of the case of Dr. Willie Soon, and the New Mexico Representative who went on a ‘witch hunt’ against him, without any evidence of wrongdoing on Dr. Soon’s part?

George Daddis
Reply to  Vlad the Deplorable Impaler
February 16, 2017 9:07 am

Griff, do your homework first. Investigate John Holdren’s CV and then compare it to Happer’s
Holder’s mentor: Paul Erlich
Holdren led the opposition to Willie Soon by innuendo , not fact, in the Harvard faculty lounge to have him discredited and then bragged about it (Climategate E-Mails).
Holdren wrote a book that included the suggestion the US should consider mass sterilization though our water supply.
Happer’s “crime” is apparently that he is asking scientists to use facts and observations to back up their press releases.
Holdrens resort to the “97% of scientists” claim as proof of his position would be sufficient evidence to back up my poor opinion of him.
– argument from authority
– based on demonstrably false studies (Cook, Doran/Zimmerman, Oreskes et al)

MarkW
Reply to  Vlad the Deplorable Impaler
February 16, 2017 10:31 am

Idle question. Does Deplorable modify Vlad, or those being impaled?

Vlad the Deplorable Impaler
Reply to  Vlad the Deplorable Impaler
February 17, 2017 7:26 am

MarkW: yes!

Snarling Dolphin
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 11:51 am

“Evidence first, then convict we follow in the UK.”
Yes Yoda, there is a disturbance. I feel it too.
I think what you may have meant was, “Models first come. Fit make data then. Hmm?”

Joel Snider
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 12:17 pm

‘Has the Us abandoned the principles of a civilised society?’
Progressives have.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 12:25 pm

Griff,
…when there is no shred of actual evidence against any US scientist…

Gleick is one.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 3:55 pm

Griff
Take a deep breath; few, if any, scientists are under this man’s authority. He is an advisor to the President.
Just a guess, but his comments so far are much more informed than Mann’s toxic responses to challenges.

Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 6:26 pm

When the climate faithful make remarks about scientists comparing them to Holocaust revisionists that’s OK, because it’s Griff approved?

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
February 16, 2017 1:02 am

Looks a great appointment and absolutely right to describe a glassy eyed cult, could have added immune to reason and that’s going to be the real problem. I do agree that it is unfair to link the Krishna cult to green eco-loons. In London the Hare Krishna people provide a lunchtime meal to poor students at University College. People pay what they can afford towards the cost and that can be nothing if they haven’t any money or a bit more than the likely cost if they can. They don’t try to convert or demand anything in return. That isn’t at all like Greedpeace or their cult chums seeking to impose sustainable poverty on the world’s population.

February 16, 2017 1:04 am

Apparently ‘glassy-eyed’ was first used in a novel by the Polish-British writer Joseph Conrad (1857-1924)

Nigel S
Reply to  vukcevic
February 16, 2017 7:31 am

The horror! The horror!

Neillusion
February 16, 2017 1:18 am

Aren’t all eyes glass-like?

Archer
Reply to  Neillusion
February 16, 2017 3:05 am

The meaning of the term is more specific to eyes that resemble a glass eye – something dead and unmoving. Living eyes are constantly moving and take on a more vibrant quality. Glassy eyes appear lifeless and dead. If you’ve ever seen someone drunk, or in a stupor, you may have seen them glassy-eyed.

Neillusion
Reply to  Archer
February 16, 2017 3:12 am

Ah, yes. Not to be contrary but isn’t that the opposite of what the CAGW enthusiasts display – they seems over-excited, frenzied, passionate believers…

Steve Case
Reply to  Archer
February 16, 2017 3:35 am

“Glassy eyed cult”
Dopers are glassy eyed. Isn’t the term synonymous with stoned?

David A
Reply to  Archer
February 16, 2017 3:59 am

Well, that discribtion is here…
https://youtu.be/VUuH4TEmgLo
Who new; climate sharks.

TA
Reply to  Archer
February 16, 2017 11:26 am

“If you’ve ever seen someone drunk, or in a stupor, you may have seen them glassy-eyed.”
There is also what is called the “thousand yard stare”. Usually used to describe war-weary soldiers.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Neillusion
February 16, 2017 3:59 pm

Neillusion
Question: “Aren’t all eyes glass-like?”
Answer: no

Jer0me
February 16, 2017 1:35 am

I’ve been calling “Clinatw Science” a form of collective insanity for a while. I’m glad that someone who has personal experience of these people agrees. It makes me less worried about climate, and fixing “climate science” itself.

February 16, 2017 1:44 am

William Happer – a physicist who understands the scientific method. He would be a breath of fresh air in what has become a heavily polluted and malodorous government scientific swamp.

AndyG55
February 16, 2017 1:44 am

“about trying to inflict their life choices on others”
WHOA.. I only wish I had the life choice that Al Gore or Di Paprio inflict on themselves.
Or the yearly jaunts to exotic venues to attend a couple of seminars while getting pissed, rooting and generally enjoying the local high-life.
The VERY LAST THING they want to do is inflict their life choices on others. !!!

Sheri
Reply to  AndyG55
February 16, 2017 6:46 am

Probably should have said “inflict their life choices for people other than themselves on the general population”. It’s a clear case of “I’ve got mine, who cares about you?” I actually think it’s designed to keep people from succeeding because these people fear competition. They “lucked out” and got rich and they know it. It wasn’t a “choice” so much as winning the lottery. Now, no one else should win.

February 16, 2017 1:44 am

Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly,
Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

Weylan McAnally
Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
February 16, 2017 11:29 am

Wisdom from Men in Black
Agent J: Why all the secrecy? People are smart.
Agent K: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.

mikebartnz
February 16, 2017 1:48 am

He is probably referring to an age many moons ago like I can recall of the Moonies.
The Moonies ran the Greyhound station in San Fran and the Hare Krishna ran another area and another group ran yet another area.
I will never forget how an alchy approached this woman in the Greyhound station and warned her about the Moonies. He was so right and it reminds me of this joke.
A drunk man who smelled like gin sat down on a subway seat next to a priest.
The man’s tie was stained, his face was plastered with red  lipstick, and a half empty bottle of gin was sticking out of his torn coat  pocket. He opened his newspaper and began reading.
After a few minutes the man turned to the priest and asked,” Say, Father, what causes arthritis?”
“My Son, it’s caused by loose living, being with cheap, wicked women, too much alcohol and a contempt for your fellow man, sleeping around  with prostitutes and lack of a bath.”
“Well, I’ll be darned,” the drunk muttered, returning to his paper.
The priest, thinking about what he had said, nudged the man and apologized.
“I’m very sorry. I didn’t mean to come on so strong. How long have you had arthritis?”
“I don’t have it, Father. I was just reading here that the Pope does.”

Reply to  Eric Worrall
February 16, 2017 4:16 am

Pope John XII is the one that you don’t want to know about.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Eric Worrall
February 16, 2017 4:26 am

This is a far from exhaustive list, since a vow of celibacy wasn’t even required for priests until AD 1139:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
Of course this stricture was frequently ignored thereafter.

Sheri
Reply to  mikebartnz
February 16, 2017 6:51 am

It’s really dependent on the person, not the group. I never had a problem with “Moonies”—never was pushed by them. However, in all beliefs, including religion and climate science, there are those who need everyone else to think like they do. Those are the pushy ones who turn people off. There are a very large number of atheists who behave precisely the same way. It’s about the person’s need to have a group agreeing with him/her (or a new convert that is way over the top in enthusiasm).

feliksch
Reply to  Sheri
February 16, 2017 9:38 am

A branch of the Unification Movement (“Moonies”) organized the “Unity of Sciences” conferences, which were attended by the top people of their fields – Sir John Eccles may known to many old hands, or one Dr. Fred Singer, and others very well known here. Another branch organized the conference “The Imminent Fall of Communism” (or so) in 1985, which got a certain historic development really rolling. “Glassy eyed” people don’t do this kind of things; that is not to say that there were and are such people in the Unification sphere, especially in California in the seventies, but they anyway came from other backgrounds.

MarkW
Reply to  Sheri
February 16, 2017 10:55 am

All movements have a few wackos that attach themselves to it.
Some movements the wackos run the show.
The trick is telling which is which. (And it can change over time.)

Javert Chip
Reply to  Sheri
February 16, 2017 4:12 pm

Sheri
As a (now retired) businessman in the 1980-90s, I remember swarms of very pushy Moonies (or krishnas, whatever) hovering around major airports (LAX was a prime spawning ground). Mobs of these possibly well-intentioned (save your soul, sir?) zealots would mob passengers. Eventually people started using hand-held toy clickers to fend off the swarm (this actually worked; darn if I understand why).
Like wanna-be climate scientists, they really didn’t know what they were talking about, didn’t respect alternative opinions (or the word NO), and pretty much wanted your money.

mikebartnz
Reply to  Sheri
February 16, 2017 5:54 pm

Sheri the Moonies were bad news and really stuffed up a lot of peoples lives. They had a house in San Francisco and then a compound outside of it and once they got you to the compound you were lucky to get out. There were people that actually made a living out of deprogramming the ones that got out.
At first there was no protein in the diet so it made it easier to manipulate the new arrivals.
As I said above the Moonies had the bus station and there were pairs of them scouting for vulnerable victims.

Leo Smith
February 16, 2017 1:58 am

My Big Green Jihad
By Adolf Michael Mann.
Available in English, Arabic and German (meine großen grünen Kampf)

hunter
February 16, 2017 1:59 am

Another example of a person wasting the opportunity to get something done by indulging in shooting off his mouth. Mr. Trump is doing an historical mind blowing flash and burn. Sitting in the Oval Office puts you in charge of the government. But not always in control. At this point the desperately needed reforms of the EPA are not likely to succeed. We declared victory way too soon. Mr. Trump seems to have thought he could drain the swamp without first getting his team in place over the bureaucracy. He is proven wrong. Swamps have alligators and deadly snakes. And people who hate him. He is a fool if he does not change course dramatically. The swamp is pushing back and the swamp controls the government. We who pushed for reason and rational thought are in trouble.

mikebartnz
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 2:31 am

Hunter it is very hard to see which side of the fence you stand on with a post like that but I can’t help but think you are the fool.

hunter
Reply to  mikebartnz
February 16, 2017 4:34 am

I am on the side of the fence that actually wants to win something worth winning. Popping off with name calling, declaring victory before victory is won, telegraphing moves so the enemy has time to disrupt the move, which is the side that my President seems to be on, along with you, is not so interesting. You don’t seem to understand that this is not a reality TV show. I despise the climate consensus. Happer popping off in an interview indulging in calling them names is not going to bring victory closer.

Ian W
Reply to  mikebartnz
February 16, 2017 6:50 am

hunter February 16, 2017 at 4:34 am
It would appear you are not paying attention. For example: “telegraphing moves so the enemy has time to disrupt the move, which is the side that my President seems to be on, along with you, is not so interesting.”
This is precisely what President Trump has not been doing. In fact it is irritating the people like you who want him to go publicly to Congress and ask for things that are within his remit. You forget you are dealing with a negotiator whose first proposals are never what they expect to get. You seem to expect a politician who never does what (s)he says (s)he would do.
Trump made an address at Gettysburg a few weeks before the election providing a ‘contract with America’ – much to the amazement of some and the chagrin of others. He won more states than his opponent and is therefore the President – he is stepping through that contract and doing what he said. While all his opponents spend their time unconstructively working to rule, spreading false rumors and throwing grit in the gears – obviously under the misapprehension that this will win over the voters that supported Trump. Thus demonstrating conclusively why they lost the election at all levels.

Reply to  mikebartnz
February 16, 2017 10:55 am

Hunter. Do you mean something outrageous like http://ofa.barackobama.com/climate-deniers/#/

michael hart
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 2:56 am

Hunter, as others have said up-thread, there is no rational deal to be struck with some of the greenery, so a confrontational approach is the only one left available.
There are also an awful lot of sensible people in the system who have been intimidated into silence. They need to be given the encouragement of knowing they have someone at the top who will defend them openly and vigorously.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  michael hart
February 16, 2017 3:32 am

Michael: You’re right, there is no rational deal to be struck. But that betokens the kind of people Trump is dealing with: they are not Greens, really, they are dyed in the wool activists for their own ideal of world government. Greenery was a means to an end. Banning Diesels is the next bandwagon (non-diesel, of course!)

gnomish
Reply to  michael hart
February 16, 2017 1:12 pm

i have no trouble understanding the meaning of the words Hunter uses.
it’s English; i simply parse it. (i don’t need to resort to a dictionary because he’s not being the slightest bit obscure or misusing the language)
more than that, though, because he is speaking clearly i can comprehend the central theme very easily.
it’s a lesson that any winner knows very well:
Fighting and winning are 2 entirely different propositions.
it is, however, a bit saddening to see how many functional illiterate, reactionary (glassy eyed) commenters feel a compulsion to snarl and bark at something that they imagine (because they aren’t thinking) violates some catechism of ‘good.think’.
when a forum goes into its senescent phase, these are among the first symptoms:
over time, a catechism becomes established
one or more forum gurus vie for ascendance (even nanocelebrity powers are narcotic to some)
newcomers are subjected to an auto.da.fe
the forum self selects a choir and becomes an echo chamber
anyone who fails to adhere to the orthodox rhetoric is run off
forum ceases to recruit new members
it becomes a cult
it loses relevance as a personal vehicle for those who remain because it’s boring.
it sinks below the threshold of relevance for all.
i’ve seen this happen many dozens of times and the pattern of the progression is easy to follow.

Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 7:07 am

Keep in mind that what you are reading about Trump now is filtered through the same media who went after him mercilessly during the campaign. You saw how well that worked for them; the media have as much egg on their faces as Clinton, or more.
They are now waging war on Trump as he works to find his feet as a president; no 100 day grace period for him. What they don’t realize is that they are only further destroying any trust and credibility that they might have had left in the aftermath of the election. They suffer from the same delusions as their friends in the Democratic party.
(And no, I’m not happy about this — I find the degeneration of formerly independent media to mere propaganda mills deeply troublesome.)

Sheri
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 8:28 am

hunter: There are multiple ways to drain the swamp. There’s pumping, channeling the water elsewhere, and high explosives. All three work, but in different time frames.
Many people voted for Trump because of his brashness and straightforward speech. It’s what they
As for the alligators and snakes, consider there exists no “media proof” vest. The reality is no matter what Trump does, he will be opposed and vilified. The media hates him. Currently, they run the country. People did a massive freakout over the election. Apparently you were one who hoped The Donald walked on water. No, he doesn’t and with the anger and the press and the lawlessness of the last 8 years, there is NO good way to make this work. Kind of like D-Day.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Sheri
February 16, 2017 4:16 pm

Ooooh. Media-proof vest. I’m gonna use that. Good one.

TA
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 11:33 am

Trump just gave the best news conference evah!
He blew up all the lies the MSM has been telling about him and the Russians, and rubbed it in the reporters faces.
Trump did deign to call on reporters from CNN and the other major news outlets this time, instead of snubbing them like he did in the last news conference.
It was a really good new conference. Trump said everything at the White House was running like a fine-tuned machine, and the only chaos was the MSM’s reporting of it.

Joel Snider
Reply to  TA
February 16, 2017 12:19 pm

I’ll second that. Calm, reserved, good-natured, even when he was taking CNN to the woodshed. What’s making him a good statesmen is that he gets people to show you who they are.

February 16, 2017 2:19 am

Maybe he should sharia law Islamic cult as a comparison. Resistance is futile.

willhaas
February 16, 2017 2:52 am

The AGW conjecture sounds quite plausable at first but when one looks critically at the details it all falls apart. The fact that they have to use “scientific consensus” as a reason to believe tells me that something has to be wrong. It turns out that there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. The computer models they use are no better than make believe and the hard coding in that more CO2 causes warming is begging the question. The radiant greenhouse effect sounds iteresting but it has not been observed in a real greenhouse, the Earth’s climate system, or anywhere else in the solar system. Without the radiant greenhouse effect, AGW is just science fiction. If CO2 really affected climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. If you do not accept the AGW conjecture as some sort of gospel then you are labled some sort of heritic and are told that your efforts will only end up hurting your children and that you must be working for some right wing organization or for the fossil fuel industry. It seems to be a religion. Of’course those who earn their living from it are quick to rationalize and defend it.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  willhaas
February 16, 2017 6:38 am

“The AGW conjecture sounds quite plausible at first” – that’s what I felt when I started to take a critical look. It quickly begins to unravel when you try to apply AGW ‘science’, there is nothing to apply. When presented with very basic and simple questions, AGW ‘science’ offers no formulas, no laws, no axioms, nothing to reason with.
Combine this complete lack of real science with the clear, irrefutable science that Carbon Dioxide is necessary for life and more CO2 supports more life, what are we to conclude?

Javert Chip
Reply to  Thomas Homer
February 16, 2017 4:21 pm

Agreed – “Climate science” is really a collision between statistics and bad data.
However, you gotta admire the creativity of grafting tree ring and satellite data (normally this would get a scientist fired or at least laughed out of the room).

Reply to  willhaas
February 16, 2017 7:13 am

Exactly. The whole haggling over “average temperature” — did it go up? is it statistically significant? pause or no pause? buoys or ships? — is completely laughable and utterly irrelevant. It is the lapse rate that should tell the story.

Margaret Smith
Reply to  willhaas
February 16, 2017 7:23 am

willhaas on February 16, 2017 at 2:52 am
“It turns out that there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. The computer models they use are no better than make believe and the hard coding in that more CO2 causes warming is begging the question.”
“begging the question ”
Someone who understands that almost universally misused phrase.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Margaret Smith
February 16, 2017 1:00 pm

That misuse is also a pet peeve of mine. Without an executive order, however, the pernicious confusion of the name of a logical fallacy, ie “begging the question”, with the phrase “raising the question” is liable to persist.

Reply to  willhaas
February 16, 2017 8:09 am

“… has not been observed in a real greenhouse”
Of course not. The way that a greenhouse works and the way GHG’s effect the surface temperature have nothing in common. If you want to model the atmosphere as a greenhouse, you need to remove about half of the glass roof panels in order account for the transparent regions of the spectrum.
You are wrong about the radiant GHG effect not being observed as it is well observed in out atmosphere. If it wasn’t the case, there would be no attenuation of emissions in the GHG absorption bands as seen from space.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  co2isnotevil
February 16, 2017 9:49 am

aaahhhh. But what is the percent attenuation of CO2 versus H2O? If CO2 causes a large increase in H2O vapor, then why wouldn’t the additional H2O vapor cause an even greater amount of water vapor? That isn’t what has been seen or measured.

MarkW
Reply to  co2isnotevil
February 16, 2017 10:33 am

That CO2 would cause an increase in H2O was predicted, but to date the effect has not been documented in the real world.

Reply to  MarkW
February 16, 2017 6:36 pm

“That CO2 would cause an increase in H2O …’
This is only because water vapor increses with increasing temperature. The problem is that it you do the math, the second order effect the increase in CO2 had on the surface temperature which then had on water vapor concentrations is so small. it;s hardly worth consideration.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  co2isnotevil
February 16, 2017 11:58 am

“You are wrong about the radiant GHG effect not being observed as it is well observed in ou[r] atmosphere.”
It has not been observed in the Mars atmosphere which is 95% Carbon Dioxide – why is that?

Reply to  Thomas Homer
February 16, 2017 6:51 pm

Thomas,
“– why is that?”
It has, it just that CO2 alone doesn’t have a very large effect and Mars has little if any H2O vapor whose majority effect is from clouds. You should calculate the ppm of CO2 Mars would have if it had 1 ATM of O2/N2 in addition to its current amount of CO2. The measured incremental ‘warming’ is consistent with this amount of CO2, at lest per the physics … not per the over inflated IPCC sensitivity.

MarkW
Reply to  co2isnotevil
February 16, 2017 12:56 pm

Mars is warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  co2isnotevil
February 16, 2017 1:30 pm

“Mars is warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.”
That’s not the question, the question is how much warmer is it with its current 95% CO2 atmosphere than if it had an equal mass of Nitrogen rather than CO2.
Mars loses about 200 F each and every night, so when and where is the atmosphere warmer?

Thomas Homer
Reply to  co2isnotevil
February 16, 2017 1:34 pm

Notice that MarkW merely makes the claim that “Mars is warmer …”, he doesn’t start by producing any formula where we can insert the proper parameters. That’s because there are no formulas that quantify this “Greenhouse Gas” property, the only physical property that can’t be measured (of course that means that it’s not an actual physical property).

willhaas
Reply to  co2isnotevil
February 16, 2017 4:05 pm

As derived from fitst principals, what amounts to a convective greenhouse effect, accounts for all 33 degrees C that the surface of the Earth is warmer because of the atmosphere. It is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere, the depth of the atmosphere, and the pressure gradient as provided for by gravity. It has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of trace gases. Additional warming caused by LWIR absorbing and radiating gases has not been observed. If over the past two decades the IPCC has been able to measure just how CO2 affected global temperature then they would have published a single value for the climate sensivity of CO2 but in their last report the IPCC published the exact same range of guesses that they published in their first report.

Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
February 16, 2017 3:11 am

“Glassy eyed” – nice. I use the term ‘dead’ or ’empty’ eyed
Takes strength, but here’s a simple experiment you can all do to see the Glass Eyes:
Stay sober, entirely dry for as long as you can, at least 6 months. NO GROG at all.
Then take yourself into a busy pub or bar late in the evening, maybe a weekend and especially if someone’s having a party in there.
Go to the bar and as best you can, get a female bar-person to get you a soft drink. (Girls have an intuition that boys don’t, we all know that. Is it actually in their genes?)
First thing you’ll see is how she responds quite differently to you compared the other punters. No real matter, that’s not your mission here.
Now move away from the bar, through the crowd to try find a seat/standing space, even just somewhere to put your drink down.
What you see may scare you, it did me. You are in a slow-motion land of zombies, they have ‘dead eyes’ and they just loom at you, barely in control, and frankly, are somehow quite threatening. They just walk into you.
Fine you say, they’re drunk. C’mon man, what do you expect?
Then, take yourself to a shopping mall, supermarket or even just walk down a busy sidewalk to conclude your experiment – maybe even go for a drink.
Probably not because – You will see The Same Zombies as were in the drunken bar……..

Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
Reply to  Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
February 16, 2017 3:21 am

and if *anyone* takes away the message that I’m suggesting climate scientists are all permanently drunk – there is professional help out there for you.
go get it and take care. x

Jason Calley
Reply to  Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
February 16, 2017 5:31 am

Hey Peta! Yes, good examples… One of the most difficult things is to see (and recognize!) what is right in front of you. Most children are raised by Zombies and grow up thinking that being a Zombie is normal. One big step to recovery is to kill your TV.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Peta from Cumbria, now Newark
February 16, 2017 4:33 pm

Ok, enough glassy eye stuff; time for my wooden eye story:
A young man has a farm accident, injuring his eye. He’s poor, and the damaged eye is replaced with a wooden eye. The young man is very self conscious.
He overcomes his insecurity and goes to a local dance; across the room, he spots a beautiful young woman who also looks very self conscious. Unknown to him, she loves to dance.
He summons the courage to walk across the room, introduce himself, and ask if she would like to dance with him…she responds “WOULD I!”

Lancifer
February 16, 2017 3:39 am

Holdren to Happer. What an upgrade! This just gets better and better.

michael hart
Reply to  Lancifer
February 16, 2017 8:52 am

It is difficult to not be impressed by such a prospect.
The down side is that we sank so low as Holdren, Ehrlich’s pseuo-intellectual progeny.
Shelob was descended from Ungoliant.

brians356
Reply to  Lancifer
February 16, 2017 12:52 pm

Holdren gets a bad rap in one way. He actually said he thinks we are about to enter a new ice age, but that CO2 is probably delaying that. Of course his “100k years” is a WAG from a wag, and spoils any semblance of plausibility.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-co2-emissions-will-delay-next-ice-age-by-100000-years-a6810436.html

co2islife
February 16, 2017 3:41 am

Dr. Happer is making the exact case made in this article.
Just How Much Does 1 Degree C Cost?
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/25/just-how-much-does-1-degree-c-cost/
The facts are, there are huge benefits to higher CO2, and the money wasted on the war on climate change could be redirected towards issues that would actually improve the lives of Americans and environment. The entire environmental movement is wasting a huge opportunity and neglecting their true cause by focusing all their efforts on this nonsense.
Hey California!!!, Wind and Solar Don’t Work in a Flood
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/comment image?w=840

Warren Latham
Reply to  co2islife
February 16, 2017 4:04 am

Brilliant !

co2islife
Reply to  Warren Latham
February 16, 2017 4:55 am

Thanks for the comment.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  co2islife
February 16, 2017 4:06 am

Better if the money not be spent by government at all. The US runs a one trillion dollar deficit on a four trillion dollar budget annually.

co2islife
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 16, 2017 4:55 am

Yep, that is even better.

Griff
Reply to  co2islife
February 16, 2017 4:40 am

Wind and Solar DO Work in a Flood… so long as they aren’t actually under water. Do note coal fired power stations etc don’t work while under water either.

co2islife
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 4:59 am

The point was sarcasm, but I get your point.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 5:58 am

It could be that the money wasted on building and trying to maintain Wind and Solar took money that would have been better spent on maintaining flood-control systems.
In fact, you’ll find that’s the problem with California–and the fact they thought their drought would last forever.
It’s a case of stupidity magnified by cultist propaganda, and you’re a victim (or advocate based on your many indoctrinated comments).

Juan Slayton
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 6:20 am

Wind and Solar DO Work in a Flood…
Hmm…. Well, I do have solar and it does work just fine. Until the grid goes down….

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 6:36 am

Solar doesn’t work well under the atmospheric rivers which produce floods.

Sheri
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 8:47 am

You can sand bag around a coal plant. Not so with energy from weather. In a flood, the power outages are usually the least of your problems anyway. If the turbines are on a flood plane, bases require more materials, thus increasing cost and environmental damage.

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 10:33 am

Speaking of sandbagging. Griff has been quieter than usual lately.

February 16, 2017 3:41 am

We always have to be careful, because science and promotions claiming to be science can run in fads. Let me see, there was a fad about spinal fusion surgery to cure back problems. Okay, that flopped. Then there was a fad on disc pad inserts to cure back problems. Okay, that flopped. No, did not involve me, but some fields of study are just prone to larger generalizations and conclusions of success than the data can possibly warrant. Oh wait, if you eat blueberries, the anti-oxidants help prevent cancer. Uh, no, that flopped too. Cranberries? Eh, probably not going to work either.

Sheri
Reply to  Donald Kasper
February 16, 2017 8:56 am

Spinal fusion may have flopped, but it was quickly replaced with laser ablation “cures”. I am subjected to half a dozen commercials daily telling me that works. (When the commercial said scoliosis was one of the things they treat, I knew it was a scam.) One fad replaces another (as you noted), so what we get is just one long string of fads. Science is pushed out.
My “Pretty Boy” senator who used to be a doctor-type person pushes all those pseudoscience cures on a segment on TV all the time (called “helping you help yourself” and based on whatever fad happens to be out there at the moment). He’s trying to be the new Dr. Oz, I think. I really wish this stuff would “flop” permanently but human beings are not rational creatures so much of the time, I don’t see any hope of that.

David A
February 16, 2017 4:01 am

The cult of Climate Sharks;
https://youtu.be/VUuH4TEmgLo

brians356
Reply to  David A
February 17, 2017 10:17 am

Robert Shaw was one of the most underappreciated actors of all time. Hard to credit, but he was only 51 years old when he died.

Warren Latham
February 16, 2017 4:02 am

Marvellous news indeed !
Mr. Happer is the best man for the job and he rightly deserves the honour, not least because of the crap and the insults he has endured for many years whilst standing his ground in defence of correct and proper science beliefs. He is a most honourable and dignified man.
Before January 20th. the “swamp” was full of RICO-gators. Now, with the help of the Chief of Deplorables, that swamp is being drained. Whoopee !
I am certain that WUWT will have been viewed by the “chief” and his helpers.

Ed Zuiderwijk
February 16, 2017 4:08 am

It has already damaged all science. The whole ‘we don not need experts’ idea in the populist movements in Europe follows from a loss of confidence in the veracity of what the ‘experts’ claim.

Griff
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
February 16, 2017 4:38 am

Yes, the constant climate skeptic output has undermined belief in science…

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 4:49 am

Got that backward. Most people know that CACA advocates are lying, so their propaganda campaign has indeed done grievous harm to the reputation of science.
Because of the warmer than average winter of 2015/16, Gallup last year found that 41% percent said that global warming will present a problem in future, up from 37% in 2015 and, by one point, the highest in Gallup’s trend dating back to 1997.
Those numbers are now likely to fall again to their 2010 low, before the steady drum beat of Obama’s propaganda campaign, driven by Green industry shills, picked up pace, or lower.

tim maguire
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 5:02 am

That’s a naive view of science under the best of circumstances, Eric. It’s laughable when applied to climate science, which embraces exactly none of the methods of good science. There is, objectively, nothing scientific about it except the way it talks about itself (which is why I call it a cargo cult–all the forms, none of the substance).

emsnews
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 5:02 am

No, super cold winters and not very warm summers are doing a bang up job of it.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 6:04 am

Correction: “the constant climate skeptic output has destroyed the credibility of “global warming” advocates masquerading as scientists”.
Fixed!
And if you don’t accept that fact, just look how “global warming” rates on polls taken in the US or how stupid it made Obama and his administration look when they talked about the subject.
It was embarrassing to say the least.
(It was those activists masquerading as scientists who have damaged real science, Griff, so please direct your ire at the proper demographic.)

M Courtney
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 6:38 am

What destroyed belief in Climate Science?
1) Climategate. They were shown to have knowingly over-stated their confidence. Anyone can make a mistake but these guys claimed less uncertainty in public than they did in private.
2) Trying to reverse the null hypothesis. If the burden of proof is moved to those who claim things aren’t related then we must assume that witches raise storms too. It’s anti-science.
3) The Tropical Hotspot. It was necessary for AGW to be newsworthy. But it wasn’t found as predicted. OK, that’s science. The hypothesis is dropped and scientists moved on. But Climate Scientists just dropped the Tropical Hotspot yet still claimed that AGW was newsworthy. Not credible.
4) Fiddling with the raw data. Yamal, Mann’s Nature Trick, Karlization… the list goes on. Even if the Climate Scientists were right they couldn’t possibly know it anymore.
5) The less publicised IPCC technical reports that are fitted to meet the conclusions of the Summary for Policy Makers – that’s the wrong way round. If policy followed the science we would never have wasted all these resources on fear and folly.
6) The fact that the models don’t predict what happens and the error bounds never tighten. Rio was 30 years ago. Computers have improved. We have more satellites to observe. But the error bounds never narrow. Do the scientists know that the errors exist because they are missing important factors – that the theory is rubbish? If so they would save some credibility if they admitted it. Or worse, do they not care about gaining understanding and just want to delay the time when the models have drifted so far from reality thatthey cannot be concealed anymore?
7) Relying on splicing smoothed temperature proxies with direct measurements. It’s not science. Everyone knows that’s propaganda. And why don’t they question their proxies anyway? Are we sure that CO2 can’t migrate at all through ice in the open over 100,000 years?
We could all go on but it comes down to this:
Phrenologists, Astrologists and Climatologists have no credibility because they make failed predictions and have no methodology to improve them.

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 7:13 am

In Griffs world, it’s not crime that’s a problem, it’s the people who are trying to stop the crime.

Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 8:17 am

M Courtney — brilliant summary.

Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 8:19 am

“the error bounds never tighten.”
Not only do they never tighten, they actually expand from past to present.

Sheri
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 8:59 am

So skeptics are far more convincing that the climate scientists? You’re really saying climate scientists are losers, defeated by people without PhDs or government grants. That’s an interesting admission.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Griff
February 16, 2017 10:17 pm

“Phrenologists, Astrologists and Climatologists have no credibility because they make failed predictions and have no methodology to improve them.”
Or they make “predictions” which are so vague as to be useless.

rms
February 16, 2017 4:11 am

Of course, should he be nominated/approved, he’ll be a big target to be “taken out”, as they just did with General Flynn.

hunter
Reply to  rms
February 16, 2017 4:41 am

Exactly. The corrupt judges on the bench will continue to interfere whenever given the opportunity. President Trump went off half cocked. He should have gotten his Cabinet in place. The left wins by being incremental like a ratchet. Trump has been goaded into lashing out in an uncoordinated manner that has the bureaucrats in open revolt. He should have quietly extended control before making strong moves. He may, may pull this out. I deeply want him too. But it does not look hopeful right now. I sincerely hope he proves me wrong.

tim maguire
Reply to  rms
February 16, 2017 4:59 am

It is my hope that Trump learns from that debacle–he’s been in chaos, in disarray, in free fall many many times. Now he’s in the White House.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  tim maguire
February 16, 2017 5:40 am

Trump is facing the equivalent of a Denial of Service attack. There is an orchestrated plot to undermine his office, unlike anything seen before. It I being carried out by the very people who threw up their hands in horror when Trump even hinted at checking the result if Clinton won. Now look at her supporters. Their lack of support for their COUNTRY, not the POTUS will not be forgotten.

MarkW
Reply to  tim maguire
February 16, 2017 7:20 am

When Obama was elected, a handful of people in Texas mentioned that secession was an option, and the liberals went bonkers.
From the latest survey that I have seen, 30% of the people in California want to their state to secede.

Reply to  rms
February 16, 2017 9:18 am

I don’t think the position is subject to confirmation/approval. It is appointed.

TA
Reply to  rms
February 16, 2017 12:00 pm

“Of course, should he be nominated/approved, he’ll be a big target to be “taken out”, as they just did with General Flynn.”
Flynn took himself out. Flynn didn’t tell the whole truth to Vice President Pence about his conversations with the Russians, and then Pence went on national tv and repeated what Flynn told him which later turned out not to be exactly true. That’s why Flynn was fired, not because he was talking to the Russians.
As Trump said today in his news conference, it was Flynn’s job to be calling the Russians and every other nation on the planet as part of his job as National Security Advisor. Flynn misrepresened his conversation to the Vice President and caused the Vice President some public embarrassment, so he was canned. You don’t make your boss look bad and keep your job long under normal circumstances.

tim maguire
February 16, 2017 4:58 am

It’s been my position for years that CAGW is a cargo cult, but I’m not so sure that that criticism applies to climate scientists. They are just responding normally to incentives. They are going where the money is.

RockyRoad
Reply to  tim maguire
February 16, 2017 5:52 am

Well, your perception of Professor William Happer is as inaccurate as all the other Fake News being generated regarding “climate science”, tony.
Tell me, when are you going to request a full tuition refund from the institution of “higher education” that brainwashed you into believing the “global warming” meme and many other Marxist/Socialist fantasies?
But getting to the point, how much fossil-fuel energy do you use in transportation, consumption of durable goods, eating and occupying your home in a safe and comfortable manner?
It’s rather hypocritical to call someone “right-winged” because they advocate for your elevated standard of living!
Or worse: your comments indicate you are the one who’s “barking mad”.

MarkW
Reply to  RockyRoad
February 16, 2017 7:21 am

Good reply. Wrong place.

Javert Chip
Reply to  RockyRoad
February 16, 2017 4:40 pm

Wow! Great rant. Who was it aimed at?

Sheri
Reply to  tim maguire
February 16, 2017 9:09 am

“Responding to incentives” and exercising a complete absence of morality. Drug dealers and scam artists respond to “where the money is” too. Doesn’t make it right. Legal is not moral.

tony mcleod
February 16, 2017 5:03 am

Think I’d rather glassy-eyed over barking mad.comment image

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  tony mcleod
February 16, 2017 5:11 am

I guess you’re qualified to comment on madness, from personal experience. But clearly you’re not qualified to comment upon science, unlike Dr. Happer, whose distinguished career has included so much public service. Do you even know what adaptive optics are, which have enabled terrestrial satellites to make major astronomical discoveries? Compare and contrast his career of such great contributions with those of charlatans like Mickey Mann:
Happer’s academic career started at Columbia University where he became a full professor and director of the Columbia Radiation Laboratory. In 1980, he left to go to Princeton, where he was later the Class of 1990 Professor of Physics. In 1991, he joined the United States Department of Energy, where he was the director of its research budget of $3 billion. In 1993, he returned to his position at Princeton, where he became the chair of the University Research Board in 1995. Happer describes his laboratory’s research interests in atomic physics: “we’re interested in the mechanisms that limit the performance of optical pumping systems, such as atomic clocks, magnetometers, and laser guide-star adaptive optics systems.”
Happer joined the JASON advisory group in 1976, and continues to be active there. Happer is credited with a key insight in 1982 that made adaptive optics possible: there is a layer of sodium in the mesosphere, at around 90 to 100 km. elevation, that could be lit by a laser beam to make an artificial guide star. His idea was tested successfully by DARPA, but classified for possible military applications. The military-designed technology was partially unclassified in 1991, after the same idea was independently proposed by two French astronomers. In 1994, Happer and coauthors published a declassified version of the JASON reports on adaptive optics. Happer was chairman of the steering committee for JASON, 1987–1990.
In addition to these positions, he has had numerous other assignments: trustee of the MITRE Corporation, the Richard Lounsbery Foundation and the Marshall Institute, of which he is also Chairman, since 2006. He co-founded Magnetic Imaging Technologies Inc. in 1994.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 16, 2017 5:40 am

You missed out that he is actually Chairman of the Board at the right-wing fossil fuel-funded think tank George C. Marshall Institute.
Just a little biased one might suspect. And look at the eyes Gloateus, it’s barking mad.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 16, 2017 6:08 am

Well, tony, your perception of Professor William Happer is as inaccurate as all the other Fake News being generated regarding “climate science”.
Tell me, when are you going to request a full tuition refund from the institution of “higher education” that brainwashed you into believing the “global warming” meme and many other Marxist/Socialist fantasies?
But getting to the point, how much fossil-fuel energy do you use in transportation, consumption of durable goods, eating and occupying your home in a safe and comfortable manner?
It’s rather hypocritical to call someone “right-winged” because they advocate for your elevated standard of living!
Or worse: your comments indicate you are the one who’s “barking mad”.
***************************
(Mod–could you delete this post above as it was inadvertently mis-replied. Thanks! And remove this sentence if you can.)

john another
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 16, 2017 6:35 am

Tony, if you are going to snipe, at least read all of the comment you are sniping about.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 16, 2017 6:41 am

Tony,
So you now argue that this distinguished scientist upon whose excellence research, government and industry have relied for decades is not only mad but corrupt. Are you so divorced from reality that you can’t grok how crazy that makes you sound?
The Marshall Institute got Exxon funding until 2008. Mickey Mann and his unindicted co-conspirators still get Big Oil funding, along with pay for play government grants and Big Green baksheesh.

MarkW
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 16, 2017 7:24 am

If a think tank receives on penny in support from a company even remotely connected with the fossil fuel industry. Even if for just one year.
From now till the end of time, it shall be referred to as fossil fuel funded.
When you can’t attack the science, attack the messenger.
When you can’t attack the messenger, make up lies about the messengers funding.

Chris
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 16, 2017 8:01 am

MarkW said: “If a think tank receives on penny in support from a company even remotely connected with the fossil fuel industry. Even if for just one year.
From now till the end of time, it shall be referred to as fossil fuel funded.
When you can’t attack the science, attack the messenger.
When you can’t attack the messenger, make up lies about the messengers funding.”
So let me see. Atmospheric scientists who are funded by the government can’t be trusted because they are following the money. But scientists who work for fossil fuel companies are to be trusted. Thanks for clearing up that double standard, Mark.

Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 16, 2017 8:30 am

Perhaps you should use quotation marks and indicate that you lifted Will’s bio from Wikipedia?

hunter
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 16, 2017 8:45 am

“Fossil fuel funded” Tony it is only humorous that you are alien to reality. It us annoying that you so freely rejected morals, ethics and critical thinking. It leaves rather pathetic.

Sheri
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 16, 2017 9:11 am

Tony—I will expect you to list all sources of funding and the place of employment for anyone you discuss from here on out. If you leave that information out, I will assume you are hiding something and ignore whatever you type.

MarkW
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 16, 2017 9:35 am

Chris, did I ever declare that any scientist that works for the government can be trusted?
Are you actually this desperate to prove how big a hypocrite you are?
As always, the only thing you demonstrate is that you can’t actually defend climate science, so you attack those who disagree with you personally.

MarkW
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 16, 2017 10:34 am

cannot, not can

MarkW
Reply to  tony mcleod
February 16, 2017 7:22 am

Ah yes, standard troll line.
Anyone who disagrees with my cult is barking mad.

Sheri
Reply to  MarkW
February 16, 2017 9:12 am

You gotta love their consistency! 🙂

tony mcleod
February 16, 2017 5:49 am

The irony of all those blue collar, rust-belt battlers voting in a bunch of mega-rich elites.

RockyRoad
Reply to  tony mcleod
February 16, 2017 6:09 am

…yes… Those “mega-rich elites” want to elevate the plight of those “rust-belt battlers”, tony.
Boy, you have been brainwashed by Marxist/Socialist ideology.

Alan McIntire
Reply to  tony mcleod
February 16, 2017 6:11 am

Those mega-rich elites GOT rich by providing cheap computers, cellphones, autos, HDTVs , etc. to us hoi polloi, making US richer also.

john another
Reply to  tony mcleod
February 16, 2017 7:03 am

Tony, I won’t regard Psychology as a true science until the Neurosciences have the tools to detect and quantify the shrinks proposals. But one aspect that is etched in stone is the incredible ability of useful idiots to project.
The irony of all those ninety nine per centers trashing Wall Street, North Dakota, and anywhere else the Leftista media can get a camera. All that after being bused in and paid by billionaire anarchist like Soros et al.
The irony of all those Hollywood elite and limousine leftist ‘womens’ groups that defend histories’ greatest misogynist/rapist cult currently based out of the Middle East.
The irony of publicly funded ‘scientist’ ignoring freedom of information.

MarkW
Reply to  tony mcleod
February 16, 2017 7:25 am

Now that’s funny, considering how most rich people lean heavily to the left.
Koch evil.
Soros good.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
February 16, 2017 7:25 am

Mods, what was the magic word that got that post tossed into moderation?

Reply to  tony mcleod
February 16, 2017 8:27 am

There isn’t really any irony here. Democrat or Republican, they would have gotten their mega-rich elites either way. “Representative” democracy can be subverted by money, particularly when too much money is concentrated in the hands of too few. The first time this happened was the Roman Republic, which was similarly dysfunctional in its final decades, before Julius Caesar put it out of its misery.

MarkW
Reply to  Michael Palmer
February 16, 2017 9:37 am

How exactly does “too much money” subvert democracy?

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Michael Palmer
February 16, 2017 9:41 am

George Washington was probably the richest man in the young US.

Reply to  Michael Palmer
February 16, 2017 10:07 am

MarkW — as long as the legislative power is in the hands of a small number of elected representatives, these will become the targets of corruption. Even in order to get elected, they will need donations; the system selects for corruptible people right from the get-go.
The best way to counter this IMO is Swiss style direct democracy. Any major bill that passes parliament can be overthrown by the people themselves. Happened for example with the F-35 purchase – approved by parliament, nixed by the people. You can bribe a bunch of delegates, but you can’t bribe a whole people to vote against their own interests.

Reply to  Michael Palmer
February 16, 2017 10:11 am

George Washington was probably the richest man in the young US.

Yes, Gloateus. Washington was rich and did not subvert democracy. That doesn’t mean that other rich people won’t.

MarkW
Reply to  Michael Palmer
February 16, 2017 10:36 am

If your concern is congressmen being corrupted, you don’t need to worry only about the super rich. Anyone with money can corrupt a congressmen.
Heck, even a group of people with average incomes can pool their resources to buy a congressman.
So it’s not money that you need to worry about, it’s human nature.

MarkW
Reply to  Michael Palmer
February 16, 2017 10:37 am

“but you can’t bribe a whole people to vote against their own interests.”
That has to be the funniest thing I have ever read.
What else would you call welfare?
It’s trivial to bribe the people to vote against their own interests. All you have to do is promise them enough free stuff.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Michael Palmer
February 16, 2017 1:07 pm

Michael,
Poor people are far more likely to subvert democracy than rich people. Unless you imagine that Madison, Andrew Jackson, TR, Hoover, FDR, JFK and LBJ subverted it. I didn’t include Jefferson because his debts were even greater than his assets, nor Clinton, who got rich corruptly after leaving office.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/11/20/the-10-richest-us-presidents.aspx

Reply to  Michael Palmer
February 16, 2017 1:23 pm

Gloateus — it is not rich or poor presidents who subvert democracy, it is rich people (or rich corporations) from outside of government.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Michael Palmer
February 16, 2017 1:30 pm

Michael,
Unions are a greater threat than corporations.

Reply to  Michael Palmer
February 16, 2017 1:46 pm

Gloateus — yes, unions can be detrimental, too. In Ontario, where I live, the public servants’ unions are certainly doing a lot of damage. I say that as a well-paid public servant myself.

hunter
Reply to  tony mcleod
February 16, 2017 8:48 am

The irony of fools like you supporting the party that enriched Wall St., flooded the country with illegal immigrants and supports faux science pretending to be progressive.

tony mcleod
Reply to  hunter
February 16, 2017 2:40 pm

I am not an american but as Michael Palmer above says it doesn’t matter which party is in control big money pulls the strings. In the case of global warming it’s Big Carbon doing the pulling – they’d be crazy not to.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  hunter
February 17, 2017 2:32 am

“tony mcleod February 16, 2017 at 2:40 pm
I am not an american but as Michael Palmer above says it doesn’t matter which party is in control big money pulls the strings. In the case of global warming it’s Big Carbon doing the pulling – they’d be crazy not to.”
BP funded the UEA CRU, along with other “big carbon” (Idiotic term) companies. So your point is moot.

Reply to  tony mcleod
February 16, 2017 11:47 am

MarkW — should you be finished laughing one of these days, would you mind answering me this: do you mean to say that the majority of the people receives welfare, and that the only reason for anyone to support welfare is to receive it oneself? If so, you may want to consider Bismarck’s example — he created the German welfare state not because he wanted to claim welfare checks for himself but for coolly calculated reasons of power politics. It certainly paid off in terms of social stability and general development of the society; Germany reached its apex in the decades following the institution of these policies.

MarkW
Reply to  Michael Palmer
February 16, 2017 1:00 pm

Yes, the majority of people receive welfare, which is why we are running a trillion dollar defecit.
Look at Medicare and Social Security.
Both programs welfare to the hilt.
PS: Initially welfare can be good. Since you are stealing from the future. However when the bills come due, society collapses.