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.”
…
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.
Of course, should he be nominated/approved, he’ll be a big target to be “taken out”, as they just did with General Flynn.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don’t think the position is subject to confirmation/approval. It is appointed.
“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.
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.
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”.
Good reply. Wrong place.
Wow! Great rant. Who was it aimed at?
“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.
Think I’d rather glassy-eyed over barking mad.
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.
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.
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.)
Tony, if you are going to snipe, at least read all of the comment you are sniping about.
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.
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.
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.
Perhaps you should use quotation marks and indicate that you lifted Will’s bio from Wikipedia?
“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.
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.
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.
cannot, not can
Ah yes, standard troll line.
Anyone who disagrees with my cult is barking mad.
You gotta love their consistency! 🙂
http://www.thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/william-happer-interview/
The irony of all those blue collar, rust-belt battlers voting in a bunch of mega-rich elites.
…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.
Those mega-rich elites GOT rich by providing cheap computers, cellphones, autos, HDTVs , etc. to us hoi polloi, making US richer also.
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.
Now that’s funny, considering how most rich people lean heavily to the left.
Koch evil.
Soros good.
Mods, what was the magic word that got that post tossed into moderation?
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.
How exactly does “too much money” subvert democracy?
George Washington was probably the richest man in the young US.
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.
Yes, Gloateus. Washington was rich and did not subvert democracy. That doesn’t mean that other rich people won’t.
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.
“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.
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
Gloateus — it is not rich or poor presidents who subvert democracy, it is rich people (or rich corporations) from outside of government.
Michael,
Unions are a greater threat than corporations.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
For whatever reason the U.S. feel compelled to run a big, fat deficit, there are welfare states that get by without running such. Switzerland has direct democracy, low taxes, absolutely no involvement in silly and costly foreign wars, decent welfare and healthcare, a highly educated workforce that does lots of R&D and manufacturing (and only 5% of GDP from banking), large trade surpluses, and paved roads without potholes. The first item on this list has a lot to do with all the others.
The fact that the U.S. with their corrupted, dysfunctional system of governance, parasitic legal system, outrageous military spending etc. cant find their way out of a paper bag doesn’t mean nobody else can.
Michael,
Only two Swiss cantons have direct democracy. Its federal government is representative, with a powerful national apparatus.
Many American states have more direct democracy than most Swiss cantons, having adopted the Oregon System of initiative, referendum and recall. And of course in New England there is town meeting democracy on the local level.
Gloateus, Switzerland has both representative and direct democracy. The problem is not representation as such, but not being able to override it when the representatives get it wrong. Anyone in all of Switzerland can start a referendum to revert anything decided by parliament. This right is often used, and its effect have been very beneficial.
Michael,
The Swiss have the right of so-called referenda on acts passed by the legislature, which would not be considered a referendum in Oregon or other states which have adopted our system or versions of it. The Swiss have no right to initiatives, however, as are common in American states. There is a complicated federal initiative system, comparable to the US constitutional amendment system.
In general, there is more direct democracy in the US than Switzerland. The states every two years produce numbers of referenda, initiatives and recall measures. At eight million people, Switzerland is like a medium-sized American state. It would rank number 13, between VA and WA in population.
While the system is strongest in the West, 26 states and DC have initiative, referendum and recall or some combo thereof.
Gloateus, that is not an adequate summary of Swiss direct democracy; popular initiatives can change the Swiss constitution itself, etc.. But whatever the procedural details, the crucial point is that the Swiss public can overturn bad decisions by the federal government; after all, the higher up the government, the bigger the mistakes (the E.U. is a shining example). Please correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as I know there is no such thing at the federal level in the U.S.
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.
This should have been posted further upthread.
Tony
You mean mega-rich like Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, John Edwards, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton…?
“tony mcleod February 16, 2017 at 5:49 am
The irony of all those blue collar, rust-belt battlers voting in a bunch of mega-rich elites.”
People get tired of political, and mega-rich, elites, refresh your memory of the French Revolution, and why the “poor” stormed the Bastille.
Brexit. A democratic vote was held, the people voted and Brexit won. Get used to it.
Trump. USA a representative republic with democracy at it’s core. The people voted and Trump won. Get used to it.
I know that is hard for you, Queenslander, but suck it up possum!
Well Mr. Worrall, this may be the state of the Hare Krishna cult now:
“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.”
But perhaps Happer remembers them as I do when they infested air ports, collages and street corners trying to convert everyone. That was years ago, granted. But they did.
FJ Shepherd February 16, 2017 at 5:50 am
But perhaps Happer remembers them as I do when they infested air ports, collages and street corners trying to convert everyone. That was years ago, granted. But they did.
Or maybe from when he lived in India?
Evangelistic sects of Hinduism were certainly unique in the West in the 60s and 70s. I am sure though that in India they stood out as well. In the West they were called a cult. In India, I am not sure how they would have been regarded.
“Well Mr. Worrall, this may be the state of the Hare Krishna cult now:
“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.”
I went to a Hare Krishna meeting one night on Oahu, back in the 1970’s. They were really nice people, really laid back (no drugs), and I went to their meeting and we ate vegetarian fare and did some group mantras and listened to some speakers.
I liked the Hare Krishnas, but they had too many rules for me personally, so that was the only time I ever attended. 🙂
It has been my argument for several years that the climate clown car will finally end when the physicists turn their laser focus on the earth energy budget parody of Trenberth and the IPCC.
The numbers just don’t add up. It is physically impossible to warm an ocean by changing the composition is the air above it by .01%. Especially when the parameter is limited to the reality that the air above gets its heat from the very ocean it is supposed to warm.
Studies show a 2mph wind has a greater evaporative cooling effect than the contrived warming from a 100ppm increase in CO2. Thus, a puff of wind is stronger at cooling the world than all the “forcing” from AGW.
+10
The sun warms the ocean. Always has, always will.
From that point, the heat in the ocean moves to the air, and from there to space.
If anything makes it more difficult for heat to move into the air, then the oceans will warm until the energy balance is restored.
So while you are correct that the air won’t directly warm the oceans, you are incorrect in your assumption that anything that happens to the air cannot impact the oceans.
I’ve never figured out how something can absorb IR and then emit that IR directionally, perhaps one day I’ll become smart enough to understand or get rich enough to find the answer behind some paywall.
Nobody said that it was directional.
Yes Feyman was by no means right wing , but he was more than enough of scientists to take BS artistes like Mann and Trenberth apart for poor professional and personal practice. And a good enough person to do so even if he had some sympathy for the climate ‘doom ‘ side .Its just a great shame there are none now like him working in physics.
Except giants such as Dyson, Giaever, Happer and Lindzen, not to mention Feynman’s sister.
Or Freeman Dyson.
Makes me think about getting back into research. I hated the political machinations of grant committees and publishing gamesmanship. Let alone the wrangling of who gets in on the author line, why, and in what order. Climate isn’t the only research topic swimming in a cesspool. And it’s always been that way. Ask Candace Purt and Rose Franklin.
Pamela,
Do you have X-ray crystallographer Rosalind Franklin in mind?
She died in 1958, and Nobels can’t be awarded posthumously. So we’ll never know if she would have shared the 1962 Prize with Watson and Crick instead of her boss Wilkins. Three is the maximum number of co-awardees allowed.
Wilkins was not her boss, he was a colleague. Likely she would have shared with Crick and Watson had she survived, also a good chance that she might have shared the Nobel with Klug on virus structure, her last paper on which he was a coauthor was published posthumously.
Phil,
As assistant director under “Radar” Randall, Wilkins was most certainly her boss. They were also co-workers, of course, but he was permanent staff and second-in-command, while she was at King’s on a fellowship.
https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/KR/p-nid/187
Why I wonder wouldn’t you check to make sure of your mistaken belief before commenting falsely? Are you always this certain of your erroneous assumptions?
Randall appointed her to work with her PhD student, Gosling, using the new X-ray equipment and to have sole responsibility for the DNA work, he neglected to tell Wilkins this so when Wilkins first met Rosalind he got off on the wrong foot. This colored their relationship, something that Wilkins later regretted and attributed to Randall. While Wilkins had administrative responsibilities he was in no way Rosalind’s boss, he had no authority over her research. When Rosalind left King’s for Birkbeck she took the fellowship with her. You seem to have some strange ideas how academic research works, department chairmen might run the department but they aren’t ‘the boss’. If you read the link you posted I don’t know how you can characterize the relationship between Rosalind and Wilkins the way you do. Also you should avoid getting your information via the likes of Jim Watson who really didn’t like being put straight by a woman scientist, hence the ‘Dark Lady’, Francis Crick was really upset when he saw the first draft of ‘the Double Helix’ and insisted that some of the sections on Rosalind be changed. Barbara Maddox’s biography of Rosalind is very good, you should read it.
Voice of Reason says, “Wait and see,”.
What is true about climate models is also true about politicians.
Wait, watch and wallop them if need be.
But don’t greet then as angels or devils before their true nature’s are known.
97% seems to be the chant.
Will this change in viewpoint from the Presidential administration force the “climate scientists” to actually debate with real scientists that possess knowledge of the climate?
I believe it may. One doesn’t have to present their case to those in agreement but will have to present their “facts” now to a more disagreeable group.
Let Happer make a little news. A strength of the AGW ream has been it’s ability to hold the ramparts of power and prestige. If the science advisor to the president an immenent scientist, says things like this it destroys the false consensus narritive. Happer isn’t crazy the other folks are BSing you.
Regular folks may not know the minutiae if climate science but they understand swindled very well.
I believe this was the guy who was paid to write a report dissing climate change and then tried to hide the pay off. He would be perfect for the Trump administration.
and of course you can offer proof of this, however, oddly you failed to do so ,strange that?
google is your friend.
So it should be easy for you to provide proof.
I love it when trolls make outrageous claims, and then declare that it is up to other people to prove them wrong.
Sort of the way climate science works these days.
Hint: last month on this very site.
Hint: Linky
No , he was the guy who said if have as paid to do research showing AGW is bogus, he would donate the money. In fake news world that is bad. While taking Soros money to write reports and to keep the money good.
RS
What would you think of a guy who wrote a paper supporting windmills and solar then donated his fee to Greenpeace?
The way you said it, it is legal. But it is illegal to pay the $$ straight to Greenpeace for your services. Especially if there is a quid pro quo that Greenpeace might do something for you.
You have some really ideas regarding what is and isn’t legal.
But then, leftists usually do want to make illegal everything they don’t like.
ReallySkeptical
You say “But it is illegal to pay the $$ straight to Greenpeace for your services. Especially if there is a quid pro quo that Greenpeace might do something for you.”.
Exactly how is that illegal?
I would be more than happy to take money to write a report dissing “climate change” (as it is commonly mis-reported by the MSM), because my opinions on the matter are already formed.
I believe Happer is more than competent enough to have also already formed his own thoughts on the matter without financial inducements.
I’m just sad that his pedigree is so much better than mine, else I might be able to get paid the same.
Like most leftists, AGW activists are convinced that the only reason why anyone would disagree with them is because they are paid to.
These guys still think that Captain Planet was a documentary.
And there would be nothing wrong in that, if you were open about it and didn’t alter or direct your research findings just because you got the money. But a lot of those ‘persecuted’ skeptics didn’t mention before they were caught out they’d taken the money.
As always, Griffie thinks that a bold lie is the best lie.
There is not one shred of evidence to support your lie that research was altered.
The link that Griffie finds so damning was the fact that an oil company gave some money to a group.
That group then gave a small donation to another group.
Soon worked for the group that years earlier had gotten that tiny donation.
The money didn’t go to Soon.
The money didn’t go to any project that Soon worked on.
The money wasn’t even received while Soon was at the organization.
Yet the professional whiners still claim that it was enough to discredit anything Soon did.
Grifter has been told the truth about Soon – and since then, Crockford – on innumerable ccasions.
But once he gets his teeth into a scientist that he’s been told to attack, he won’t let go, no matter how many times the truth is revealed to him.
Griff has teeth? When he attacked Susan, he got laughed out of the arctic.
Hopefully in Trump’s series of fireside chats (that I hope he has, like presidents of decades past, and Ross Perot) he lets Happ have a few sessions, discussing climate data only for the first few sessions. What do the raw measurements of global average temperature look like, what does the adjusted data look like, why are the adjustments done, what does the long term (10,000 and 500,000 years) mined data look like, what is the frequency of extreme weather over time, what is the history of CO2 on the planet, why do believe or not believe we should try and lock in the CO2 levels we have now, things like that. Show the people measurements, let them see what the history of climate is compared to what has happened recently. Then he can start discussing the prominent “papers” on global warming, starting with the cook 97% agree paper, dissect it, discuss the review of the paper by Jose Duarte, and let the public have a more informed opinion on what is happening with the climate. Then tell the country what the policy regarding climate will be. Right now the media coverage of climate alarmism has made it a hostile environment to those who don’t think there is a climate crisis, so Trump’s team needs to start presenting the scientific data side of the discussion since they aren’t going to get any help from the media on the subject. Fireside chats, Tuesday nights, 9 eastern, 15 to 30 minutes long.
“Hopefully in Trump’s series of fireside chats (that I hope he has, like presidents of decades past, and Ross Perot) ”
Well, if Trump gives more fireside chats like the one he gave today, those who are Trump fans are going to love it. I have a feeling we are going to be seeing a lot of Trump news conferences. He says he likes the “back and forth” and that appears to be true. He was certainly having fun with the MSM today. Loved it! More, Donald! I was laughing the whole time.
“I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind”
==============
More people are well educated, well fed, and living longer than at any time in human history. All of this at a time when CO2 is the highest in human history. Quite simply there is no observational evidence that CO2 is bad for humans. In theory CO2 might be bad, but in practice it is not.
It isn’t bad for them if things stay that way. Bar the odd drought, flood etc climate change already has a hand in. But it sure ain’t going to keep that way if it warms… yes, sometimes the sky is falling.
Griffie really does believe the lies he tells others.
I’m sure we’ll find that when whoever sets his agenda changes their story – say, to Global Cooling, Grifter will seamlessly segue into that paradigm, and will strenuously deny he ever believed otherwise.
The Left are like that.
Griff
Good to know there were no “drought[s], flood[s] etc climate change[s]” before 1950 (or when ever you claim industrial CO2 took off).
Ahhh…the good ‘ole days…when people lived to be 40.
Griff you have got to be a masochist for repeated adding your drivel on this site.
mike b…
perhaps.
I don’t see why people feel the need to heap abuse on me, when surely all they have to do is quote some science from a reputable source which contradicts me?
“all they have to do is quote some science from a reputable source which contradicts me”
Very many posters have done exactly that. time and time again, and yet you post the same lies over and over again, no matter how often it is demonstrated to you that you are wrong, mostly because your level of scientific literacy is so low that you are incapable of comprehending links to scientific papers.
Most of your science comes from the crackpot Lefty fake news organ ‘The Guardian’, and you have the gall to demand others post science, you just love making a fool of yourself, don’t you?
Well you see Catw, I’m not of the left. so it won’t happen.
Another lie…
We don’t really know if CO2 is the highest in human history, do we. We’ve only been measuring it since the mid 20th century – about 60-70 years. And even then, I’m not sure that measurements taken at one location, and on the side of a volcano at that, really describe CO2 in the atmosphere.
We do know that a few million years ago, CO2 levels topped 5000ppm. Over 10 times greater than today, and life on the planet thrived.
Yet the professional whiners want us to believe that going from 280ppm to 500ppm will end life on this planet.
Mark,
It has been about 500 million years since CO2 level was 5000 ppm.
What’s a few million years between friends?
Nothing. Ignore a pedantic quibble.
Woody Allen contemplates conversion:
… without asking for a “donation” … obviously fake
First off, of course Happer is customarily direct and forceful. Not to mention accurate.
Secondly, the foremost and most direct threat this country faces is not Islamist terror, it is not Russia, it is not China, it is the metastatic administrative state. Trump’s actions (in contrast to many of his cringeworthy statements), including his Cabinet picks, have (mostly) been remarkably solid, and (unlike Bush 43, who seemed to cling to failed subordinates far too long out of some kind of loyalty, and Obama, whose administration resembled a Mafia family) he has through his campaign and now in his administration been quite willing to boot people that got in his way.
I’ve long argued that we can claim victory when Beltway real estate prices drop – well, I used to say 40% but I’ll settle for 30%, and I think that’s still a good if distant benchmark.
An interesting indicator, JEM.
FTOP-T and Pamela Gray:
In order to evaluate heat transfer to/from the ocean you need to start with a complete surface energy balance in which the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is applied to a control volume surrounding the interface. This balance allows the unknown interface temperature to be determined.Also, it will show that an increase in back radiation( caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2) reduces the heat loss from the ocean to the interface — and reduces the ocean bulk temperature. Calling this a “warming” of the ocean is a matter semantics.Note that the associated change in evaporation heat loss is very much smaller– because the water-side heat transfer coefficient is an order of magnitude larger than the equivalent coefficient for the evaporative heat transfer.
Please note that use of a surface energy balance is standard practice for the analysis and design of engineering equipment involving evaporation and condensation processes involving water vapor-air mixtures.
A comments from Happer in a recent video interview —
Happer: If you go to Bejing or New Deli, I’m sure you’ve been to both places, on certain days you can practically not go outside, the air is so bad — its not CO2, its people burning the fields, it’s fly ash from unregulated coal burning, it’s every possible thing, all of which have solutions [you know] you don’t have to live with this stuff, and yet instead of cleaning up the air and making [you know] people’s lives better they jet around the world talking about saving the planet from CO2 which it’s not endanger of. So, I think enormous damage has been done to the environment by diverting money from real problems into completely made-up problems.
commentator: So you really see it as a none problem, not as something worth invest…[cut-off by Happer]
Happer: Absolutely! I, I… Not only as a none problem I see CO2 is good. Let me be clear, I don’t think it’s a problem at all, I think it’s a good thing.
https://youtu.be/6pkbaqaAX_o
He doesn’t seem at all aware of the tremendous investment being made in both Beijing and New Delhi to reduce air pollution and introduce renewable energy.
And I think when the US was still a developing country, the air was quite as bad and no one was doing much about it.
Griff, read this and you may be a little better informed.
http://www.thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/william-happer-interview/
You’re wasting your time.
Griff is paid to attempt to disrupt debate and release squrrels, not to mention trashing the professional qualifications of anyone his handlers consider threatens the ‘narrative’.
You can point out to him with as much evidence as you like that he is telling porkies, he will repeat them again and again.
More drivel from the resident glassy-eyed cultist.
Have you apologised to Dr. Crockford yet, you slanderous little liar?
You’re missing a lot.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/02/16/indias-air-pollution-is-now-as-deadly-as-chinas.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fscitech+%28Internal+-+SciTech+-+Mixed%29
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/02/16/brazil-lost-almost-one-third-its-amazon-rain-forest-in-12-months-agency-says.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fscitech+%28Internal+-+SciTech+-+Mixed%29
catweazle666
February 16, 2017 at 12:07 pm
Libelous when written calumny. Slanderous when spoken.
Griff
You’re exactly right – I’m unaware of the tremendous investment being made in both Beijing and New Delhi to reduce air pollution and introduce renewable energy – got a credible link? Or just an accusation?
Javert, just google ‘India solar’ in google news section and scroll down the headings. That’ll give you a good start.
Then google ‘beijing coal plant close’
you get e.g.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/world/asia/china-coal-power-plants-pollution.html?_r=0
and much else.
And you’ll find same information from multiple sources, before you start in on NY Times. Its just top of list as I google.
Gavin, what an interesting article.
Fascinating family and personal history and he tells an engaging tale.
but he just trots out the standard discredited skeptic line.
I don’t see any originality or insight or persuasive argument from him…
Resourceguy
In the UK neither Fox or the Daily Mail are considered sources of information.
“Griff February 17, 2017 at 1:43 am”
The Gaurdian is?
Yes, climate “science”, as it seems to happen now, diverts money from REAL problems.
Heck, it diverts money from real science.
He DOES, however, seem to be aware that a lot more money could be directed towards solving this REAL problem, if it were not being sucked down the drain by CO2 fear-mongering research.
squrrels? Have you any idea how much a squrrel costs in the UK? Even a major UK bank couldn’t afford to buy me squrrels.
So what of it. The US had enough surplus wealth to worry and do something about the environment. Good for us. India and China are approaching the point in their nationalist life that they can begin to afford the costs of improving the environment – even better for them. But it doesn’t change Hoppers point that CO2 is good for life and that the pollution that causes problems has NOTHING to do with CO2.
If forced to follow the green path, China and India will not have the wealth necessary to clean up these problems.
The green path clears up the pollution from power plants as it is rolled up.
I have my doubts whether China is going to address its general industrial pollution e.g of its waterways just yet.
… but you overlook the underlying problem … The US had enough surplus wealth … it really doesn’t any more.
China, in particular, is a beneficiary of the CAGW hysterics. It makes many of the batteries, solar collectors and materials for wind energy, and it has been given well over a decade (in the Paris agreement)to move away from the one conventional (coal, mostly) power station a week. Based on past experience, the time when China (and India) actually implement their long-term obligations is open to question. In the meantime, their developing economies are starved for energy of all types.
China is the biggest generator of CO2, it has among the laxest controls on contaminants coming from the power plants (much of the soot on the northern sea ice and glaciers not to mention CO2 over the Pacific), and horrible practices for disposing of the waste from the reclamation of valuable metals from electronic product recycling. It makes pious statements to impress greenies, but it won’t slow development to implement appropriate environmental controls. On the other hand, Europe, Canada and the US try to buy green absolution for moving to extremely expensive, inefficient and environmentally suspect solutions (ethanol from corn and biomass, windmills, solar power). That makes China and India more economically competitive.
The net effect of our CO2 obsession is to divert resources from feeding and economically advancing the poor. Bjorn Lomborg has conferences devoted to a more rational allocation of resources that would benefit mankind with minimal environmental impact. Yet poor people starve, suffer from diseases (blindness, malaria, parasites, etc.) that have available and relatively cheap solutions while we chase the chimera of lessening the temperature in 2100 by a few hundredths of a degree.
Griff, Will Happer is a brilliant, accomplished man who is one of our nation’s leading scientists. He is not beholden to “dirty” money. He is a man at the end of his careen, and he has nothing to gain but trying to turn climate science into a field using the scientific method–making raw data, algorithms for adjustment, and experimental/model details transparent–and exposing the hypotheses to falsification or validation. He is admittedly blunt, but he doesn’t have patience for the pseudoscience that he sees and for the costs to society.
He is correct about the value of CO2 for cheap energy, fertilization of plants, and other life processes. The proof is abundant in greenhouse research and in the global greening record, including recovery of parts of the sahara and increased crop yields. The downsides are far outweighed by the benefits. Mankind’s ability to mitigate any harm will be enhanced by the increased wealth brought from cheaper energy along with wiser allocation of our resources.
Would that you could say the same for other feted skeptic scientists…
And I see renewable solutions doing more for the poorest, for the millions of Africans with out any electricity at all, than almost anything else (except the anti AIDS efforts, the health initiatives like Bill Gates, the clean water and toilet providers…)
Coal power plants and the grid have never reached or benefited the poorest of the developing world and never will.
I think also you should look again at India’s renewable (solar) roll out.
Just google India solar in the News heading and watch the long list of actually delivered solar mega projects, investment, plans, funding roll on and on. India has now capacity to produce 5GW of solar panels a year itself, for example.
Again you know nothing about Africa, nothing at all. Many Africans struggle to earn enough to pay for rent and food. It is often a choice between rent or food. So, 10,000 solar powered TV’s in Kenya means nothing. The “poor” will take whatever is delivered, and I am confident that most will sell these appliances and devices for money so that they can buy FOOD. Can’t eat a solar panel or TV.
Very many Africans have only kerosene lanterns for light: kerosene takes up a large part of their disposable income.
a one of purchase of a solar LED light (with phone charger) measurably improves their finances.
I don’t think you know much about Africa if you don’t realise that reliable light at night is too much for millions of them.
And precisely which band of ecofascists isresponsible for that, Grifter?
You know the World Bank refuse to fund energy plant that would greatly improve the living conditions of many Africans, not just by allowing them light but also permitting them to cook without poisoning themselves with open fires, all in aid of your murderous AGW scam?
But hey, you don’t care for them, any more than you care for the British pensioners who die because thy can’t afford to eat and heat – whose existence you persistently denied on innumerable occasions.
As for your advocacy of ‘Unreliable’ generation, you’ve many times denied that there is an appalling cost to birds, bats and other wildlife.
In fact, you couldn’t care less, you’re just another nasty, mendacious little ‘Virtue Signaller’ at the end of the day, aren’t you?
“Griff February 17, 2017 at 10:20 am
I don’t think you know much about Africa…”
Well, I have been to Africa many times and I am married to an African. I do believe I am more qualified than you to comment on Africa.
But Patrick, that doesn’t qualify you as an expert, you have to read the Guardian like Grifter to really know anything about Africa.
Maybe Will was subconsciously recalling a scene from the movie airplane? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qse_wf57tZM
Bob Hope with Hedy Lamar, co-inventor of the wake-homing torpedo:
Nice direct call, I like that.
I asked one of my Indian coworkers what they thought of the Krishnas in the US.
He was very polite, but he pretty much said that Indians look at Krishnas about the way Christians look at the Westboro Baptist Church. They are a tiny sect.
Sensational! Green heads are going to explode! Love it.