Essay by Eric Worrall
First published JoNova; I was lucky enough to see Dr. Will Happer speak at a Heartland event. Happer is of the climate skeptic movement’s most entertaining and articulate speakers.
You can book Will Happer through EventBrite. I look forward to meeting some of you at the Brisbane event next week, on the 20th September. Will Happer’s speaking tour was organised by the Institute of Public Affairs.
Dr. Will Happer served a year as one of President Trump’s science advisors, though sadly Trump’s own staff convinced the President that the American public was not ready for Dr. Happer’s articulate and unflinching brand of climate skepticism.
Here’s a sample of Dr. Will Happer in action:
Don’t delay, the tickets are selling fast. I shall be attending the Brisbane event, look forward to meeting some of you in Brisbane!
For more great Will Happer speeches, click here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dr. Will is also a real scientist of world-class caliber.
He’s the world’s leading atmospheric optical physicist, a subdiscipline which would be of the highest relevance to “climate science,” so called, had it not sadly degenerated from climatology to GIGO computer gaming.
Astronomers rely on his expertise to make the necessary adjustments to celestial observations to allow for effects on light of Earth’s atmosphere. The US DoD has also awarded him for his contributions to classified atmospheric solutions.
Happer is a titan, yet the media tout scientific midget Mikey Mann.
Happer has been claimed by some groups as not being competent in “climate”….yet his knowledge of sodium reflectance in the atmosphere would make him an obvious atmospheric physics wunderkind….those groups simply don’t like his non-extremist viewpoint but can’t show his numbers to be wrong….Someone will say his van Wijngaarden and Happer paper has never been published in a journal….that’s because journals don’t want to publish calculations “done by the book” that shows 2.97 watts per CO2 doubling, really within the range of IPCC numbers, and then Happer states it’s MINOR, when many proclaimed “climate” scientists say it’s MAJOR. One degree difference in surface temp is 5.35 watts more IR radiated upwards, so it doesn’t appear that Happer’s assessment is incorrect. Journals just don’t like controversy…it could result in a “bud light style” bad month for them….
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.16465.pdf
“Journals just don’t like controversy…it could result in a “bud light style” bad month for them….”
Yeah, they need to watch out, or they might get Michael Mann on their case.
Here is Ferenc Miskolczi’s latest paper in which he disputes the existence of the greenhouse effect:
Greenhouse Gas Theories and Observed Radiative Properties of the Earth’s Atmosphere
August 6, 2023 Ferenc Miskolczi
“a politically motivated dangerous artifact”
I think I would have left that phrase out, if I were the author. Not that I disagree with it, but it injects politics into the science issue unecessarily, imo.
It is political, and the world has split – BRICS 11, G20 … have other priorities, will not be derailed by the Unipolar obsession with Malthusian “climate” de-industrialization which is not scientific and only political of a decadent infantile “rules-based-order” which FondOfFlying et. al. mumble about.
I still don’t get his CO2 spectrum saturation claim when the forcing per CO2 doubling is the same as IPCC.
Doubling CO2 from today will make no measurable difference. Going back to a third would kill all life.That is a pretty forceful argument.
What happened to the edit button?
Doubling CO2 would of course make more plant food available!
From the above link:
“And though Trump was keenly interested in Happer’s ideas, they ignited opposition among White House advisers who viewed the plan to openly attack climate research as a risk to Trump’s prospects for reelection.”
That might have been a big mistake. The plan might have helped Trump’s reelection. I’m sure most Americans don’t swallow the climate emergency fantasy.
If that is a mistake, then that is a mistake that just about every Republican Washington DC politician is making.
Very few of them want to attack climate research.
So Trump’s advisors were toeing the party line when they advised him against attacking the research.
It IS a YUGE mistake. Trump needs to stand on the rock-solid high ground on the AGW/”climate change” issue.
@ur momisugly TRUMP: Any advisor who pushes you into lukewarmism does NOT want to Make America Great Again.
Lukewarmism isn’t nearly as bad as full fledged climate emergency-ism. I presume many here consider Stephen Koonin to be a lukewarmist since he believes there is some warming but that it’s nothing to panic over.
Lukewarmism is a slimy position. Adopting it puts one on the slippery slope to the Precautionary Fallacy.
*************************
Q: What is lukewarm?
A: A swamp.
Your position seems to be that we need to ignore reality in order to be more effective.
The truth is that CO2 is a green house gas and it does cause the planet to warm.
The truth is also that the warming caused by CO2 is not enough to matter.
Admitting that does not put one on a slippery slope towards anything.
The only reason why the alarmists try to invoke the precautionary prinicple is because they know that they can’t prove that CO2 is a problem directly.
We rightly condemn the words of that climate scientist who told his colleagues that they had to find for themselves the right balance between honesty and effectiveness.
We shouldn’t be forcing each other to make the same decision.
I never advocated either lying or deception to get the truth out about human CO2 emissions.
Your saying that I did is slander (libel, actually, since it is in writing). You are very bright — it could not have been out of stupidity.
Wow.
I never thought someone as, usually, principled as you would ever do that.
You seem to ignore the data which shows absolutely NO causal link between increasing HUMAN CO2 emissions and “global warming.”
HUMAN CO2 is what the AGWists and lukewarmists are conjecturing is causing the slight increase in surface temperatures since around 1850.
Furthermore, re: CO2 generally, the ice core data says that CO2 lags temperature by a quarter cycle.
You mischaracterized my position (I will assume unintentionally).
I did NOT assert that CO2 does nothing to keep the earth warmer than it otherwise would be without it.
And, yes, asserting that HUMAN CO2 causes any warming puts one on the slippery slope of a brainwashing tactic of the AGWists: the Precautionary Fallacy.
“It IS a YUGE mistake. Trump needs to stand on the rock-solid high ground on the AGW/”climate change” issue.
@ur momisugly TRUMP: Any advisor who pushes you into lukewarmism does NOT want to Make America Great Again.”
****************
Janice,
Totally agree with you.
If Trump’s failure to go on offence against climate alarmism in his first term was based on a belief among his advisors and most other Republicans that current climate “research” should not be challenged, that belief represents a surrender to what many undoubtedly see as the manipulation of science in the alarmist camp.
As I have said in the past, you don’t win football games if do not go on offence. A failure to go on offence here against alarmism and the anti-fossil fuels narrative represents, in my view, a lack of intestinal fortitude and scientific literacy. Republicans have nothing to be proud of if they lack at least the intestinal fortitude.
Surrendering to climate alarmism and the “research” that claims to justify it makes the Republicans look bad when they try to oppose Net Zero and the Democrats’ anti-fossil fuel programs. It thus becomes harder for them to justify their opposition to Net Zero and the war on our fossil fuel infrastructure. As a result, the anti-fossil fuel Left has the law on their side more often than they should whenever they file lawsuits against a fossil fuels project.
A belief that the American people are not ready to hear the skeptic side of the climate story and a more supportive narrative for fossil fuels represents, in my view, a failure to understand the people adequately. Who the hell wants the climate alarmist narrative to be true? Why would they not be ready to hear the other side?
If Trump does not do an about face and go on offence against climate alarmism, the scientific illiteracy and mass hysteria that enables climate alarmism to survive and go on will continue to cost all of us. Trump and both political parties will all be to blame.
(((applause!)))
Trump had a lot on his table. Just because he doesn’t prioritize the way you think he should doesn’t mean he made a mistake.
As Dr. Happer refers to Anthony Watts’ daughter in the video, I heard it was Trump’s daughter that had a fit about Dr. Happer’s Red-Team, Blue-Team scientific proposal, and he ran !
Most might think of a blonde Valkyrie, but Trump’s real crime was to bring actual science into the White House, an oligarchical lukewarm swamp that he could not drain. Oligarchy always hates science.
Eric Worrall/mod/editor: correction to second sentence in above article:
“Happer is one of the climate skeptic movement’s . . .”
I thought about it once I noticed but is still correct English, like “he is of the tribe”.