Climate Science, Red in Tooth and Claw: Yapping Hyenas Attack a Lion

From American Thinker

By Norman Rogers

William Happer is one of the most important scientists in the United States.  He is an emeritus professor of physics at Princeton and a long-serving adviser to the federal government.  His scientific discoveries and inventions are extensive.  Currently, he serves in the White House as a senior adviser to the National Security Council.

The Trump administration is thinking of forming a “Presidential Committee on Climate Security.”  The press has been told to direct questions to Dr. Happer.  That is enough to bring out the climate hyenas. They can’t stand the thought that Trump might have some solid scientific advice concerning climate change.  The hyenas are running an all-out attack against Dr. Happer.

Following Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, the camp followers of the global warming industry try to create polarization.  In a Time magazine article, a former admiral says Happer is a fringe figure.  A climate scientist at Georgia Tech says Happer has “false, unscientific notions.”  We are reassured that the global warming scare is absolutely solid science, as everyone except climate deniers knows.

What everyone may not know is that climate science is an industry, and the product is the global warming scare.  If the global warming scare is discredited, the huge industry will collapse.  Climate scientists used to be unimportant academics in an unimportant academic field.  The global warming scare made them into celebrities jetting around the world.  They won’t give up the glory without a fight.

Climate computer models, the basis of the doomsday predictions, disagree with each other and disagree with the climate of the Earth.  But according to the climate science mafia, anyone who brings up such embarrassing information is a tool of the fossil fuel industry.  As far as the climate mafia is concerned, the business plan of the fossil fuel industry is to wreck the Earth and wreck the global warming industry.  The reality is that the fossil fuel industry is wimpy and not inclined to take on the global warmers.

Climate science has gone off the rails.  President Eisenhower nailed the problem in his 1961 farewell address.  He expressed the fear that because science had become heavily dependent on federal financial support, scientists would color the science in order to increase the flow of federal money.  Nothing works better for increasing the flow of federal scientific money than predicting a future disaster.  If scientists predict a disaster, we have to give them more money to research methods of preventing the disaster.

Since Eisenhower’s address, we have been treated to a parade of scientific doomsday predictions, none of which measured up to the hype.  There was global cooling that preceded global warming.  There were acid rain, DDT, the ozone layer, overpopulation, and many others.  It is not only scientists who use a parade of disaster predictions.  Environmental organizations need doomsday predictions, too, in order to keep their members interested.  The press has a bias for sensationalism, so it too promotes the latest doomsday predictions.

Many professions are supposed to adhere to high ethical standards. For example, lawyers are supposed to put the interests of their clients above their own interests.  Doctors are supposed to put their patients’ welfare above their own pecuniary interests.  Journalists are supposed to be objective and not color their work with their own political preferences.  We know that not every professional adheres strictly to his ethical code.  Scientists are not different.  They are supposed to search for scientific truth and to exercise objectivity in their work.  They are not supposed to hype weak theories in order to improve their professional standing.  But these things happen.

Most scientists are not in a position to contradict global warming hype.  Science is a profession characterized by ideological schools and groupthink.  Groupthink is worst in sciences where the rules are not clear and the data are confusing — for example, climate science.  Young scientists depend on older, more senior scientists for recognition and promotion.  They are in no position to contradict groupthink.  They have families to feed.  The senior scientists may be running large scientific enterprises financed by federal money.  To express doubts about the mission or the truth of the groupthink would be to threaten their money and the jobs of people in their organization.

The consequence of the groupthink atmosphere is that dissenters come from the ranks of scientists removed from the pressure to conform — for example, retired scientists, amateur scientists, and scientists so accomplished as to be immune to threats and group pressure.  There are thousands of such scientists who are skeptical of the global warming hype.  When they speak out, they are attacked, and the attacks are usually vicious.  The members of the global warming establishment will almost never debate skeptics.  When this was done years ago, the skeptics were too credible.

Science is great, and our modern world is a product of science.  But scientists are humans, not gods.  They play the same games that other beneficiaries of federal money play.  We have been fooled over and over again by fake predictions of disasters or one sort or another.  The fake predictions are never completely fake.  There is usually some real science buried in all the hype.  For example, it is reasonable to expect that some global warming might be caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.  What is probably a modest effect has been twisted and exaggerated into a doomsday scenario that demands that we save the planet.  The good effects of CO2 that are well known and that are solid science are ignored.  Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere makes plants grow better with less water.  Greenhouse-operators use CO2-generators in their greenhouses.  CO2 is greening deserts.  How often to you hear about these benefits of CO2?

DDT was banned because it supposedly thinned birds’ eggs and perhaps because some people screamed cancer.  But DDT is highly effective against mosquitos that cause malaria.  The World Health Organization finally lifted the ban on DDT because thousands of children were dying in Africa.  DDT will never be rehabilitated in the U.S. because the propaganda has been permanently imprinted in the minds of the populace.

Science has created institutions that serve to enhance the image of science.  For example, peer review often degenerates into pal review.  Scientific journals are often filled with papers of dubious value generated by a system that values quantity over quality.  The National Academy of Science pretends to give objective advice to the government, but often the advice is to appropriate more money for science.

Typically, when science invents a new doomsday theory, the environmental organizations embellish it with unscientific flourishes.  The scientist inventors of the theory don’t correct the environmental organizations because that would slow the momentum toward a new surge of federal money.  That should be an ethical violation.  Scientists should have a duty to set the record straight in such circumstances.

There is no simple solution to the parade of doomsday theories.  It would help if the government understood better that throwing more money at an alleged problem may exaggerate rather than alleviate the problem.  Massive spending may not solve difficult scientific problems, but massive spending always creates bureaucracies that exist to sustain the spending.

Norman Rogers is the author of the book Dumb Energy: A Critique of Wind and Solar Energy.

Read the full article here.

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

HT/Willie Soon

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stephen Cheesman
February 25, 2019 10:04 am

Posted twice!

R Shearer
Reply to  Stephen Cheesman
February 25, 2019 10:12 am

So nice, it’s posted twice.

Reply to  R Shearer
February 25, 2019 2:02 pm

Climate science has gone off the rails.

No, climate science was never “on the rails”. It is a pseudo scientific cult. No rails required.

E J Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Stephen Cheesman
February 25, 2019 12:04 pm

Wow. You can count 😉.

Don Perry
Reply to  Stephen Cheesman
February 25, 2019 12:44 pm

I read it and then, as I kept reading, I had this overwhelming sense of deja vu.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Don Perry
February 25, 2019 1:35 pm


Reply to  Don Perry
February 25, 2019 1:39 pm

“It’s like déjà vu all over again.”
– Yogi Berra

John Tillman
February 25, 2019 10:05 am


Please undo the doubling of the excellent post.


Tom Halla
February 25, 2019 10:13 am

Yeah, there is a duplication in this post.
That aside, excellent commentary on how to trash any dissenter from The Cause.

Ron Long
February 25, 2019 10:24 am

On one side an Emeritus Professor of Physics, Dr. Happer, and on the other side an ex-bartender, now socialist darling, AOC (duly elected by her bar patrons? after free drinks?). Who to believe? That is a tough one, let’s see, I think I will go with the bar tender and free drinks. Or maybe not?

Reply to  Ron Long
February 25, 2019 12:05 pm

AOC has solid industrial, economical, and psychological scientific knowledge. She knows the facts and knows the political solution (socialism). There is no doubt young people like AOC have better grasp on things that will realize to her generation. Besides, Happer is probably a white cis male, while AOC is a red-green woman of color. So let’s face it: Greta Thunberg and AOC win Happer, a Princeton guy 6-0 by sheer minority potential.

Today is the think like a bozo day.

Reply to  Hugs
February 25, 2019 12:26 pm


Reality is even more scary than fiction these days.

Dr Kristian Niemietz, Head of Political Economy at the Institute of Economic Affairs (a ‘Capitalist’ think tank) has just published a book on socialism, freely available to download here: (ignore the request for £15 for the hard copy if you wish).

I have only had time to read the first few pages, and they are scary!!!

Reply to  HotScot
February 25, 2019 1:06 pm

Scary, as in promoting bad ideas, or scary as in giving an accurate depiction of the tragedy that follows socialism around like the horsemen of the apocalypse?

steve case
February 25, 2019 10:29 am

… some global warming might be caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. … The good effects of CO2 that are well known and that are solid science are ignored.

A key point that needs to be made more often.

John Tillman
Reply to  steve case
February 25, 2019 10:41 am

Any global warming, no matter how small, is also a benefit, although it pales in comparison with greening the Earth thanks to adding a fourth molecule of plant food per 10,000 dry air molecules over the past century.

The late 19th and early 20th century originators of the hypothesis of AGW, like Arrhenius and Callendar, comsidered it beneficial, and they were right, even if overstimating the effect of extra CO2 released by human activity.

Reply to  John Tillman
February 25, 2019 12:31 pm

John Tillman

Doubtless you are familiar with this:

Two continents the size of mainland USA worth of extra vegetation in 35 years of satellite observations, according to one of the authors.

And this:

Not one single direct negative effect of increased atmospheric CO2 has ever been observed.

John Tillman
Reply to  HotScot
February 25, 2019 12:40 pm

Yet know-nothing commentators spweing the CACA party line dare to besmirch Happer for stating the blatant truth that so far more CO2 has been a good thing.

Farmer Ch E retired
February 25, 2019 10:36 am

Quote from post:

“Many professions are supposed to adhere to high ethical standards. For example, lawyers . . . Doctors . . . Journalists . . . We know that not every professional adheres strictly to his ethical code. Scientists are not different. They are supposed to search for scientific truth and to exercise objectivity in their work. They are not supposed to hype weak theories in order to improve their professional standing. But these things happen.”

Have worked both the Federal side (DOE & DOD contractor) for 13 years and then the private side (Environmental Engineering/Consulting) for nearly 25 years. When changing from the Federal side to the private side, my new employer asked me to get a PE license (Professional Engineer). So after ~15 years out of school, I studied and passed the PE exam for Chemical Engineers. At the time, I thought it odd that I wasn’t required to have a PE as a Government Contractor even though I worked on and managed larger-budget projects. As a PE, I was required to take continuing education classes and, at least for the state of Texas, was required to take ethics training every year. All this said, it’s my opinion that the issue here is lack of public accountability of the scientists. On the private side, very time I signed and sealed a design or environmental report, my career was on the line. That is typically not the case for climate scientists / university professors.

Joel O'Bryan(@joelobryan)
Reply to  Farmer Ch E retired
February 25, 2019 10:54 am

It has been noted here on WUWT comments by several others on multiple occasions that the Stanford CE professor who publishes the junk electrical power engineering studies in various journals, studies that purports to show the US getting 100% renewable energy, does not have a PE license. He is basically lying for the political and renewable energy interests without consequence. (I won’t name him, he is unworthy of note)

Meanwhile the licensed power engineers working from the federal-level down to local municipal engineering departments have to then answer questions back to their political bosses. They have to tell them why that professor’s work is fatally flawed. Those are answers that many politicians do not want to hear. And yet, we are having more and more cities announcing 100% renewable energy goals, goals that will destroy their residents affordable energy for some virtue signalling political agenda BS.

And that all stems from a lack of engineering ethics by those certain academic engineering professors who are working from/for an agenda. The same thing happens of course in science, yet scientists do not have such licensing standards that engineers have.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Farmer Ch E retired
February 25, 2019 11:29 am

Farmer Ch E

Yours is the story of competence and accountability. Clearly, the temperature record data managers ate UEA would not pass such a requirement, on two grounds: incompetence (see the notes from their IT program trouble shooter) and professional misconduct (presenting results that they knew were false representations of the actual records).

People with behaviours like these literally could not get work in the private sector because they would be struck off within a short time – not because they are venal but because they are not, based on observations, professional enough to be tolerated in the engineering community.

The statement quote says “are supposed to adhere to high ethical…” which gives the impression they should, but in reality they must. It is not advice, it is a requirement.

Climate science is not adorned with this flower. It is no better than the world of patent medicines and dietary supplements. You can say anything you want, and whatever happens, it will pass their ethical standard.

When Happer demands professionalism and accountability, it could get very painful very quickly for certain “famous” climate scientists who have had their backs covered by friends for a long time.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
February 25, 2019 12:42 pm

Crispin, you said it but I think it needs more emphasis because it isn’t well understood. Lawyers doctors, chartered accountants and engineers are required by law to be honest and competent. They can be disciplined all the way to being kicked out of their practices. The article suggests they should be honest and competent when in fact they are obliged to be. I’m an 81yr old engineer and I have to take continuing education (min. 80hrs a year) if I want to be on the “list” that gets perused by potential clients.

I have said here on several occasions that scientists, who have no legally enforced obligations to be rigorously honest (ethical and honest in practice) and competent must have this changed to a formal legal obligation. Professors of engineering too must be PEs – I didn’t know there were those who aren’t!

Regarding the incompetence of of so many scientists these days, particularly in climate science, but also in medical research, etc., we have a flood of PhDs whose theses are often school science fair stuff. UEA’s Dr. Phil Jones admitted he couldn’t do simple Excel calculations and the entire profession seems incompetent with statistics which is the backbone of their science. A recent Australian PhD got his scroll for a critical study of the official temperature series shortcomings. I panned this guy, even though his work pleased sceptics, because awarding a PhD for such an arithmetic thesis is outrageous. The University faculty displayed their incompetence. And this cadre wants to cost society Trillions a year in perpetuity for the results of such quality of work.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 25, 2019 1:42 pm

You make an interesting point about engineering professors being PE’s. This can only happen if they are pushed out into the real world and have to do real work, under the tutelage of other PE’s. It would be a minimum 5-year stint, depending on the state. You just can’t get the “practice” necessary if you spend your entire professional career in academia.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Farmer Ch E retired
February 25, 2019 11:55 am

Indeed, lack of accountability in academia is most of the problem.

Reply to  Robert W Turner
February 26, 2019 1:12 am

There are ‘accountability mechanisms’ but they’re used to crucify people who can’t ‘see’ the Emperor’s new clothes. Accountability will return when climate liars have been broomed-out of academia and the public money ‘sugar’ taken off the table. Until then the corruption will continue to grow.

February 25, 2019 10:37 am

“It would help if the government understood better that throwing more money at an alleged problem may exaggerate rather than alleviate the problem.”

Things that come to mind:
The war on drugs
The war on poverty
Urban Renewal

Throwing money at a problem does seem to make it worse.
I think it is a feature, not a bug.

Reply to  TonyL
February 25, 2019 11:09 am

TonyL, Please add Public Education to that list. They keep throwing more $ at it but the results keep getting worse.

Reply to  Boltboy65
February 25, 2019 11:19 am

Exhibit A:
*Public Education*

R Shearer
Reply to  TonyL
February 25, 2019 1:38 pm

Add affordable healthcare and subsets of the war on drugs and poverty are opioid abuse and homelessness.

Joel O'Bryan(@joelobryan)
February 25, 2019 10:41 am

The GCM computer models are the pseudoscientist Alarmists’ Achilles heel, the fatal flaw in their quest for more grant money. These things are the very embodiment of Richard Feynman’s Cargo Cult science analogy.

As we approach 40 years of the GCMs use to inform public policy on the effects of increasing CO2, fellow scientists (and engineers) can and should harshly judge the modellers and their models for all of the dubious methods incorporated into their models. The dubious methods include:

– the subjective, hand-tuned multi-parameterization of becasue of an inability to incorporate water vapor physics from the macro to the micro,

– the general inability of most models to balance energy flows without running far too hot on output requiring more hand tuning,

– the tuning/calibration to the past and then claiming validation by replicating the past,

– comparison of once future projections as the time has passed to observation is institutionally avoided, rather only an intercomparison to other models and outputs is done (the CMIP),

– and the worst (IMO) is that every group that plays along by the Group-defined rules gets to incorporate their model into the CMIP ensemble to produce an average, and an average of garbage is simply garbage, even if one or several of the models may be correct. An average of models outputs of course gives to the layperson a sense that science and math is at work, which is merely a ruse to mask the huge uncertainty range of the projections.

From a funding stand-point, the last point of course is the most egregious as it allows everyone to keep their money flowing. The field has never had to make painful decisions on who is got it correct and who is dead wrong (by observation) and lose funding. This selection and thinning process is vital in every endeavor, from economics to scientific ideas. And climate modelers have firmly resisted this, becasue no one from within their GroupThink can admit who is correct because of the fundamental problems of the GCMs. This is the rabbit hole to WonderLand that climate science has fallen and dragged policy with it, everyone is lying to each other and themselves, and no one can fess up.

It is far past time to expose the GCMs as the junk science they are. And this must come from other scientists (who see the future reputational damage the climate science shenanigans are creating for all of science) demanding climate science and modellers return to foundational science principles and realize that no matter how many model tweaks, re-inits and re-runs, physics process improvements, and intercomparison projects undertaken, those climate cargo planes will never land.

Malcolm Carter
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 25, 2019 11:44 am

It would seem obvious that if the science is settled as advertised, there should be need for only one model and that should be predictive.

Trevor in Ontari-owe
Reply to  Malcolm Carter
February 25, 2019 12:03 pm

Good point – thanks!

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 25, 2019 4:03 pm

The common response to your (correct) criticisms of the models (and others, like no proper V&V), is that they are process models and so are are excused. To which my reply is: then they are not fit for the purpose of predicting or making future projections beyond a few weeks (which is sufficient for studying climate processes). They never seem to have a good answer to that, so they ignore it or hand-wave it off while muttering about averages.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 25, 2019 4:48 pm

Climate models make large errors. They have no predictive value whatever. They can’t predict the climate one year out, much less 100 years out.

I have yet to meet a climate modeler who understands the first thing about physical error and its analysis. They don’t distinguish precision and accuracy, they don’t understand physical uncertainty, and error propagation is a foreign language to them.

Climate modelers are not scientists. They are not competent to evaluate their own models.

The entire consensus position suffers from fatal incompetence, from models, through the air temperature record, to proxy air-temperature reconstructions; all of it.

None of those people are scientists. They’re either incompetent by professional failure or by ethical desertion.

February 25, 2019 10:42 am

The STE’s (Scientific-Technological Elite) can be neutered by cutting off their funding after a Red team / Blue team debate on tv. For instance, the recent fires in California have been cited as proof of CC …they should be forced to PROVE such a claim. I f@cking live in SoCal and the “Climate” hasn’t changed in the 64 years I’ve lived here

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Wharfplank
February 25, 2019 12:09 pm

If it was caused by climate change and not the power company, they will be relieved – of a large payout.

Tom Abbott
February 25, 2019 10:46 am

Great article! It should be read twice! 🙂

February 25, 2019 10:51 am

As for DDT and the ozone layer: DDT caused an actual problem that was actually solved. The problematic nature of ozone depletion was overstated, but it was a bit of an actual problem and that was somewhat solved, would be mostly solved if not for rogue emissions of chemicals that damage the ozone layer.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
February 25, 2019 11:54 am

You said, “… it was a bit of an actual problem and that was somewhat solved, …” The ‘problem,’ as stated in the press, was that an unexpected decline in ozone over Antarctica, COULD result in cataracts and melanomas, IF the ‘Ozone Hole’ were to spread outside the circumpolar vortex. The culprit would have been UV, not ozone. But, the ozone was presented as a proxy for UV, despite little evidence that the UV was increasing when protection was needed, i. e. when the sun was high in the sky. All kinds of silly studies came out ‘demonstrating’ such things as the worldwide decline in amphibians being a result of (unmeasured) increases in UV. There was little produced in the way of empirical evidence that UV was or could become an actual problem.

Yes, the official claim is that the ‘hole’ is resisting healing because of “rogue emissions.” However, there are good reasons to believe that the ‘problem’ isn’t that simple.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 26, 2019 9:27 am

UV has increased in Australia, and has gotten extreme in southern parts of Australia when the southern polar vortex wobbled their way during ozone hole season in the 1990s. Since then, UV from ozone depletion from halogenated organic compounds has not worsened (that *usually* stays south of southern Australia). However, UV is still increasing, due to another cause of ozone depletion that affects non-polar latitudes more, from an increase of nitrous oxide. Excessive use of nitrogen fertilizers, especially in india, is blamed in this article that shows UV has actually increased since the 1970s:

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
February 26, 2019 10:16 am

A quick reading of your link doesn’t provide any actual measurements of surface UV. Instead, they apparently rely on a UV Index, which is the output from a computer model. Note that your daily weather report will forecast the UV Index before it actually happens. Therefore, it can’t be an actual measurement. One of the issues with the behavior of UV during what you called the “ozone hole season,” is that the sun is never directly overhead under these conditions. Furthermore, because the sun isn’t directly overhead, it has a longer slant range to absorb more UV. As long as alarmists depend on ozone measurements alone, without taking into account the relative positions of sun and Earth, honest journalists will make statements such as “…MAY add up to more days of extreme ultraviolet radiation across Australia.”

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
February 25, 2019 2:27 pm

What is the alleged problem that DDT caused?
It wasn’t thinning of egg shells. The one study that showed that was so bad that it wasn’t until climate science came to prominence that worse ones became normal.
The Bald Eagle population started recover after hunting them became illegal, some 10 years prior to the banning of DDT.

Reply to  MarkW
February 26, 2019 9:13 am

The bald eagle population started having some recovery after one of the causes of the decline was outlawed. Meanwhile, I have yet to hear of anyone here saying what other than DDT caused the problem of thinning eggshells, or an explanation other than the in-US outlawing of DDT for eggs breaking from thin sheels no longer being in the news.

Also, DDT is only needed in countries that have a malaria problem.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
February 27, 2019 1:41 pm

And only in those countries where the mosquitoes don’t have a resistance to DDT.

Jeff L
February 25, 2019 10:55 am

The big question is what if any coverage will the media give this.

Will legitimate questions about climate science actually make it to the general pubic for consumption?

In our local paper in Denver, CO, an article this morning discussing this committee threw in the obligatory … Happer was funded by fossil fuel interests, which they listed 2 donations to an organization he was associated with … totaling … wait for it … less than $200k . I hope the funding of Climate Inc. is exposed as well.

February 25, 2019 10:57 am

Too many accomplished scientists, professors, meteorologists, and journalists have been thrown under the CC bus by scaremongers supported by the media. This isn’t a viral trend it’s an entrenched, well funded, and organized by the same cabal that would like to turn the US into a Socialist hell. If we lose this one we lose America’s identity. People are saying CC is an existential threat to humanity and they are right but for the wrong reason. It has nothing to do with temperature, and the puppeteers know it. The UN is the source and needs to be censured.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  markl
February 25, 2019 12:52 pm

Lose America’s identity and the world is toast.

mike the morlock
February 25, 2019 10:57 am

Seem we are having a spot of trouble with the wind and ice on Lake Erie.
If someone has AOC’s phone number, would they be so good as call her, so she can charge forth swirling her cape twirling her mustache chanting “Denier ice” forcing it to retreat forthwith back to Canada.

Okay to wordy, anyway the link is worth looking at

Reply to  mike the morlock
February 25, 2019 11:33 am

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  icisil
February 25, 2019 6:10 pm

OMG! i’m amazed that the videographer survived that! He certainly didn’t appreciate the raw power of what was unfolding before him.

February 25, 2019 11:04 am

DDT was banned because it supposedly thinned birds’ eggs and perhaps because some people screamed cancer. But DDT is highly effective against mosquitos that cause malaria. The World Health Organization finally lifted the ban on DDT because thousands of children were dying in Africa. DDT will never be rehabilitated in the U.S. because the propaganda has been permanently imprinted in the minds of the populace.

DDT was not banned for public health uses and has always been approved for use against malaria. It was banned for agricultural use, firstly because of its accumulation in the environment and adverse effects on wildlife. Also the widespread use in agriculture made it useless against malaria because of the rapid build up of resistance among vector insects. It’s currently used for indoor vector control.

Reply to  Phil.
February 25, 2019 2:29 pm

None of these alleged bad affects of DDT have ever been documented in the real world.
And yes, it could be used to control malaria, but only if you didn’t mind losing all US aid.

Reply to  MarkW
February 27, 2019 7:53 am

Actually they have been, and the Stockholm convention always allowed DDT to be used. It was manufactured in the US even though its use was banned in the US but it’s export was allowed. Strange to allow it to be exported if the US government was going to penalize those companies that imported it! Sri Lanka almost eliminated malaria using DDT and Chloroquine in the 1960s but malaria returned via DDT resistant mosquitoes and the civil war prevented a nationwide intervention. Malathion replaced DDT as DDT lost its effectiveness. Recently Sri Lanka has been declared malaria free by the WHO due to their nationwide campaign to eradicate the parasite (not the mosquito), it did not use DDT.

Reply to  Phil.
February 25, 2019 4:08 pm

Phalsehood Phil.

The false science of socialists/greens has caused many millions of deaths to date.

I seriously question the motives of the entire cabal of socialists, Greens, global warming alarmists (aka warmists) etc. Their history is horrific and reprehensible.

It is clearly NOT about the environment or the well-being of humanity – almost everything they have done is anti-human AND anti-environmental.

In the 20th Century, socialists Stalin, Hitler and Mao caused the deaths of over 200 million people, mostly their own citizens. Lesser killers like Pol Pot and the many tin-pot dictators of South America and Africa killed and destroyed the lives of many more. Not all these people were murdered by psychopathic tyrants – many deaths in the FSU and China were caused by starvation and deprivation, due to the false agricultural science called Lysenkoism.

Modern Green Death probably started with the 1972-2002 effective ban of DDT, which caused global deaths from malaria to increase from about 1 million to almost two million per year. Most of these deaths were children under five in sub-Saharan Africa – just babies for Christ’s sake!

Warmists can take credit for the food-for-fuels fiasco, the clear-cutting of the rainforest to grow sugar cane for ethanol and palm oil for biodiesel, the rapid draining of the vital Ogallala aquifer for corn ethanol and biodiesel, bird-and-bat-chopping wind turbines, runaway energy costs and reduced grid reliability, increased winter mortality and similar social and environmental disasters.

The number of Excess Winter Deaths and shattered lives caused by runaway energy costs in the developed world and lack of access to modern energy in the developing world probably exceeds the tens of millions of malaria deaths caused by the DDT ban.

The best objective measure of scientific competence is the ability to predict. Note that every very-scary prediction by the warmists over past decades has FAILED to materialize. Nobody should believe anyone who has a PERFECTLY NEGATIVE PREDICTIVE TRACK RECORD.

Read Dr. Patrick Moore’s essay, “Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement”, written in 1994, especially “The Rise of Eco-Extremism”

Patrick observed that Eco-extremism is the new “false-front” for political Marxists, who were discredited after the fall of the Soviet Union circa 1990 and took over the Green movement to further their political objectives. I have corresponded with Patrick on this essay and we both agree that he “nailed it”.

Regards, Allan

Steve O
February 25, 2019 11:22 am

It will take 20 year to debunk climate alarmism. Along the way, it’s possible that massive expenditures will continue long after the scientific case has been utterly destroyed, and that it will become permanently entrenched.

For an example of how things can turn out, look at Archer Daniels Midland. There is no longer a shred remaining for the scientific case for ethanol mandates, yet they continue. How long did it take Nutrition science to give up the idea that fat content in diets led to obesity? 40 years? The anti-GMO crowd still hangs on to some level of success, despite their never having a scientific case at all, ever.

Joel O'Bryan(@joelobryan)
Reply to  Steve O
February 25, 2019 12:55 pm

Sadly, I suspect the end of climate scam will always be 20 years out, sort of like fusion power. The lure of the gravy train for rent-seekers is too great.

John Tillman
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 25, 2019 1:20 pm

It will die only when it ceases to reap rewards for its spewers.

Reply to  Steve O
February 25, 2019 2:29 pm

Look how many idjits still claim that DDT and CFCs were problems that government action solved.

February 25, 2019 11:32 am

It’s happening with Happer. He can handle it. I hope that John Bolton comes through with the panel and that scientists like Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, and Lindzen, and so many others are asked to sit on it. Lets give some prestige to real scientists instead of tools like the Admiral. He can play General Mireau shelling his own troops in the remake of Paths of Glory.

We want the debate they want to stop. This is a legitimate way to get it going. The bigger the stink the more the message will get out that the science isn’t settled.

John Tillman
Reply to  troe
February 25, 2019 11:58 am

The great 1957 movie “Paths of Glory” wasn’t a remake, but the original screen version.

IMO the best performances are by the villains, while Kirk Douglas chews the scenery, however effectively. The obsessive Kubrick made Adolphe Menjou, as the venal corps commander, do the same scene 17 times.

The captured German singer at the affecting end was the future Mrs. Kubrick.

Reply to  John Tillman
February 25, 2019 12:18 pm

one of my favorites. Admiral Titley can play the careerist coward General Mireau IF there is a remake. I sat in on a meeting with several retired flag officers discussing oil. They kept bringing up wind and solar in long-winded screeds about electricity generation. After awhile I asked the group what % of electricity was generated from oil in the USA. They had no clue. The oil expert leading the discussion said “none” They seemed confused. Fat, dumb, and self-satisfied. The Climate Change Chiefs of Staff.

John Tillman
Reply to  troe
February 25, 2019 12:37 pm

I see why you said remake. My dumb.

The admirals nor any other flag officers revolt any more. They just salute and regurgitate as ordered. Resigning on principle just doesn’t happemn. The retirement benefits are too lucrative.

I’ve talked with officers who should know better, and probably do, that trying to run whole fleets on biodiesel is absurd.

Although air, surface and marine turbine engines are multi-fuel power sources.

February 25, 2019 11:52 am

I keep saying that a feasible way to shut down the climate cartel in the US is to take the research monies given to them (if the science is settled why continue to give them $2.5 billion per year?) and put those funds into research for what they themselves say is necessary, i.e., low/no carbon energy sources. Directing that money into building a prototype LFTR for commercial scale-out would provide a real, tangible benefit. From what I’ve heard, China is going to build them soon anyways (based on our technology), so why not us too instead of having to buy from them? Most existing US nuke plants are going to shut down within a few decades, so IMO the nuclear industry in the US is doomed unless they get on board with gen 4 nuclear.

Reply to  icisil
February 26, 2019 1:25 am

And … take them off the mains AC supply and make them fund wind, solar and storage for their entire University out of the pockets of their students, with zero subsidies and zero public money going to academics.

And that will be the end of them.

Caligula Jones
February 25, 2019 11:54 am

Waiting for the drive-by griffing….

Reply to  Caligula Jones
February 25, 2019 2:31 pm

It’s tag team trollling. Today is Phil.’s turn.

Reply to  Caligula Jones
February 26, 2019 1:15 am

Kristi will be along shortly to pretend she’s living in the 1950s and has never even heard of such things.

February 25, 2019 12:00 pm

Here’s an example of someone who calls herself a climate scientist (IMO she has scientific knowledge about certain things, but has no clue what science actually is) badmouthing Happer. She seems to live in a strange world where identity politics and science are indistinguishable.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  icisil
February 25, 2019 12:35 pm

Please don’t give any oxygen to these mis-educated narcisists. Dime-a-dozen self-promoters waste all our time.

Reply to  Caligula Jones
February 25, 2019 1:09 pm

You only speak for yourself, Caligula. Please don’t tell me what to do.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  icisil
February 25, 2019 7:08 pm

Hey, I even said please. You do what you want to do, I was just questioning why you would give her any publicity. Regular WUWT readers already know the rogue’s gallery of character assassins who post science-free smears regularly. This twit isn’t even in minor A ball.

Feel free to give her clicks, I’m sure she appreciates it and she’ll be encouraged that people are actually listening to her.

Personally, I’ll add her to the long, very long list of people who don’t know what they are talking about concerning climate but who want to leverage the attention.

Enable away.

Reply to  icisil
February 25, 2019 5:57 pm

WUWT has taken notice of Sarah Myhre. The sad case here and here.

Dr. Myhre’s produced an, “address at the [2018] meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in which she proclaimed that climate change cannot fully be addressed without also grappling with the misogyny and social injustice that have perpetuated the problem for decades.

Apparently, although Dr. Myhre doesn’t know how to do science, she does know for sure that everything is about her, about men, and is about every man having an inner misogynist trying to get out.

Joe Crawford
February 25, 2019 12:12 pm

While I thoroughly agree with all the points brought up in the article, the money quote has to be:

“It would help if the government understood better that throwing more money at an alleged problem may exaggerate rather than alleviate the problem. Massive spending may not solve difficult scientific problems, but massive spending always creates bureaucracies that exist to sustain the spending.

It’s a pity we can’t find some way other than water-boarding to convince those idiots in D.C. of that.

February 25, 2019 12:42 pm

If William Happer, could change his name a little to “Wil Hap” and become a rapper (“Happer the rapper”), then he might gain wide appeal with younger people. He could even stay white and fully male.

He could do rhymes about climate, but he would need to bastardize spellings (i..e., “klImit” instead of “climate”, “fizix” instead of “physics”, “Hahluhseen” instead of “Holocene”, etc.). Get some good beats behind his words, … lot’s of Youtube music videos, … scantily-clad fems gyrating provocatively as back-up dancers. And there you have it — an overnight, massive skeptic following.

Oh, I forgot, he would need to work in some curse words too, to spice things up to the level that is the going thing in modern … “music”.

Off now to work on my first rap song for him to debut.

John Tillman
February 25, 2019 1:16 pm

I have a lot more respect for hyenas than for CACA-spewing charlatans like Mann.

John Tillman
February 25, 2019 1:18 pm

Quality control needs to return to corrupted science by reviving the scientific method, so disparaged by Orestes, Mosher and their fellow travelers.

February 25, 2019 1:49 pm

Wikipedia, referring to the Washington Post, argues that Prof. Happer has no special training in climate science. The question is what “climate science” is. Climate is influenced by variations in solar activity, which study astrophysics, changes in ocean currents, which are studied by oceanographers, and other factors that require special study. Is there a scientific basis for taking into account all these factors? A rhetorical question.
If we consider the theory of the greenhouse effect as such a base, then for a physicist and a specialist in the field of spectroscopy, such as Prof. Happer, it is obvious that the ability of the “greenhouse gas” to absorb infrared radiation does not prove its ability to absorb additional heat. In other words, Prof. Happer rejects the theory of the greenhouse effect as physically incorrect, and that is what annoys his opponents.

Reply to  aleks
February 25, 2019 2:32 pm

Mann has no special training in statistics.

Reply to  MarkW
February 25, 2019 5:42 pm

Mann appears to have no correct understanding of proper physics either, despite his PhD in the field.

John Tillman
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
February 27, 2019 7:46 am

His PhD is in geology and geophysics.

George Daddis
Reply to  aleks
February 25, 2019 4:50 pm

“Climate Science” is another one of those “after the fact” occupations and now, after it has become a high profile “issue”, an academic degree (with apologies to U of Wisconsin – Madison which actually pioneered such a degree based on science.)

Those that MSM labels “climate scientists” use the Doran and Zimmerman test of “have you recently published in a Climate Science Journal”. I could be an animal vet and publish a paper on “How Climate Change may Cause Female Pomeranians to go Sterile”, get it published in Climate Nature and meet the test.

Academically, colleges now pumping out BS and BA degreed “Climate Scientists” that are actually from programs like Environmental Science.

My pet peeve concerns the otherwise good Universities (e.g. George Mason or Harvard) who give advanced degrees in CLIMATE COMMUNICATIONS, which instead of teaching how to communicate that the NE US was was under two miles of ice, is based on the false yet universal academic assumption that “Climate Change” not only will have a catastrophic impact, but has already been responsible for wildfires, droughts, hurricanes, floods etc.

Chris Hanley
February 25, 2019 1:56 pm

96.9555% of climate change™ practitioners know that all the warming since the LIA (1750) was anthropogenic:
comment image
That is a pretty extraordinary claim given human CO2 emissions before 1945 were relatively insignificant and paleo-climate reconstructions show that the climate can change all by itself at any timescale:
comment image
They will never discover any natural forcing components until someone pays them to.

February 25, 2019 2:40 pm

A very good article, even if its doubled. Regarding the so called Ozone Hole” a impossibility as nature will always fill a vacuome, my understanding is that it is now considered to be normal, it comes and goes.

But it just like the earlier effort by Du Pont regarding Mauritania i.e. Indian Hemp , in the 1930 tees , and now the Ozone Hole, it made them a lot of money.


February 25, 2019 3:00 pm

“In a Time magazine article, a former admiral says Happer is a fringe figure.”

…and on and on it goes from scientific illiterates in the media. Here’s a simple news item about a whale calf washed up in a bit of an unusual place so it’s naturally of interest to the Green science industry-
For starters it’s a bit ‘baffling’ that the calf is anywhere near there in the first place at that time although with the whales saved being no longer hunted for whale oil and corset bone their numbers and range are much more prolific you would think is the no-brainer answer.

That doesn’t really fit the doomsday narrative so what do we get?
“The Maritime Herald suggested the animal may have been killed by swallowing marine plastics and the body was then washed inland.”
when the simple scientific truth is-
“Researchers said as there are no clear reasons why it died, only an autopsy will determine the cause of death.”

Once upon a time marine aquatic life washed up on shore and passersby thought that’s a deadun alright and phew don’t it stink so let’s get away from it.

Peter Morris
February 25, 2019 3:51 pm

Dr. Happer helped me figure out what questions to ask when I first started looking into this whole mess back in ‘06 or ‘07. He’s a very congenial guy and he speaks with an astounding clarity.

I pity the fool journalist that thinks they’re going to play gotcha with him.

David S
February 25, 2019 4:11 pm

“Yapping Hyenas Attack a Lion” At first I thought you were talking about the Democrats and the media attacking President Trump.

February 25, 2019 8:35 pm

That might explain stories such as this propaganda with no substance:
A gold standard? Not for climate change but for bs!

February 26, 2019 4:21 am

I am not buying Happer’s theories on climate because he is so eminent, that would be appeal to authority, wouldn’t it?
Scientific reputation is as good as your last publication, Linus Pauling and vitamin C is a classic example.

John Tillman
Reply to  Hans Erren
February 27, 2019 7:48 am

Do you then buy his opinions on climate because they are supported by all available evidence?

Or do you suppose that rising CO2 isn’t good for plants, his position, which seems uncontroversial?

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
February 27, 2019 8:12 am

I meant that his position is that more CO2 is demonstrably good for plants and other living things.

February 26, 2019 7:28 am

Unfortunately, you’ll need a microscope to find anything that comes out of Happer’s agency in the MSM.

We have WUWT, thank goodness…so I will be able to follow Hapoer’s work here.

Also, Trump’s inelegant Tweets might direct supporters to media sources where Happer’s work will be reported.

I will be astounded if I hear anything ever about Happer in the MSM. I expect total censorship…unless perhaps some female associate from 30 years ago accuses Happer of sexual assault.

February 26, 2019 9:35 am

Regarding “DDT will never be rehabilitated in the U.S. because the propaganda has been permanently imprinted in the minds of the populace.”: How about the lack of need for DDT in the US?

R. Wright
February 28, 2019 6:01 pm

Dr. Happer would be wise to organize and publicize some simple meetings of scientists to discuss some of the basic issues related to the climate.

A panel of 5 to discuss the historical trend for northern hemisphere snow cover. Or the freezing of the Great Lakes in winter, or the historical Polar Bear data regarding population trends. A discussion of the historical tide station data from San Francisco would be interesting. There are dozens of topics that the public would be interested in.

These meetings would tend to dispel the alarmist nonsense which is commonly found in the media, and provide material to make for more open debates regarding climate trends.

%d bloggers like this: