Noted energy expert and Princeton physicist Dr. Will Happer has sharply criticized global warming alarmism. Happer, author of over 200 scientific papers and a past director of energy research at the Department of Energy, called fears over global warming “mistaken”.
“I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect”, said Happer. “Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.”
Dr. Happer views climate change as a predominately natural process. “The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
[…]
“Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility,” Happer concluded.
I call shenanigans. The factual content of this blurb is ZERO. It is a FAIL. IT IS ALL CONCLUSION WITH NO ANALYSIS. Like all too many posts herein, like all too much punditry and flame baiting, it only states a CONCLUSION.
“Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” oK. THAT may or may not be true. Please provide your analysis of how/why the models predicting global warming are faulty and how if the only predictive device is faulty ANYONE can say ANYTHING about future climate?
Indeed, there will be blood.
#2–Pedro==rant? No, just a full range “lepsical dynamic.”
Follow the money!
Who has encouraged him to make these statements?
Adam Curry is very keen to see conspiracies in making up “human induced climate change”. I am just as sure that there are conspiracies behind the big deniers(sp?) of the concept.
Who makes the most money from us denying that humans have had a noticeable effect on the world?
I am not saying that everyone who is skepitcal is a friend of Big Oil. That is just where the ideas are pushed hardest…
Too bad science has become all about the money on both sides. I guess the belief I used to have in the scientific debate was based on a myth. It appears that science is just a tool and where it isn’t, you can’t distinguish it from the balderdash.
Al Gore, a leader of the scientific method? How low have we stooped?
I believe that humans have/had very little impact on the climate there’s just far too little historic data to be conclusive.
Don’t get me wrong, we’ve made a complete mess of the global environment and I fully support all (air, water, ground) pollution reduction/elimination efforts.
Fact: we pollute too much and we need stop doing so.
Fiction: our pollution has caused/contributed to global climate change.
Fact: climate will continue to change for all kinds of reasons.
Fiction: if we stop polluting, the climate will stop changing.
And because it’s important to repeat ..
Fact: we pollute too much and we need stop doing so.
Thanks,
/T.
If you want to get a true picture of mans contribution to global warning, go to the un environmental web site. Take all the reported man made co2 numbers and double them. Go to the noaa web site obtain the natural source numbers. Figure the percentage if you like. Now do the same for methane. Note that methane is a much worse green house gas which eventually breaks down to co2 and water.form your own conclusion.
Well said, /T.
bobbo, if it DOES turn out that the Global Warming issue is a hoax, are you capable of admitting you’re wrong?
Time will tell, I guess (on both counts).
Interesting. I think his views would be more credible if his field of expertise is climate science.
In the accompanying article, it appears he has the backing of Inhofe (Sen.- OK). That adds some sheen to his opinion.
The earth has been here for millions of years. The thought that how humans could somehow change the climate in less then a century is ludicrous. We know very little about the climate cycles of the earth, to state otherwise would be foolish. When blowhards like Gore think they all of a sudden know it all, it really disturbs me. Its also disturbing on how many people believe this quack.
I was never a big global warming supporter, but the fact is we need to pollute less. I would much rather the emphasis be placed on real pollutants like mercury, lead, PCBs, and such, as they have a significant impact on the environment far ranging, pervasive, and persistent. We were warned about mercury in coal emissions 20 years ago, and you now can’t eat predator fish in quantity anymore or risk neural damage.
I wonder if a scientist who’s essentially “interested in the physics of spin-polarized atoms and nuclei” has even read the report of 1500 climate scientists who produced the IPCC Report.
Al Gore read it. I read it.
Anyone here read it? Care to refute any portion? Or is letting Rush lead you around by the string tied to the pointing portion of your anatomy sufficient for political decisions?
#6–T==reread your post. Can you avoid seeing how you contradict yourself on every point? I won’t belabor, but post back if you disagree?
#7–storm==don’t be an ass. If you have something to say, say it. Don’t make up a fools errand.
#8–Bert==good to see you posting again. I’m sure I will disappoint again, but: There can be NO PROOF of the future of our climate. The “best evidence” we have is simply a very inaccurate model that has a spotty history that admits it doesn’t include all the relevant variables and doesn’t track how the variables it does use interact with one another. Still, as stated, it is the best evidence we have and no one has any better.
Rather “special” to use one’s ignorance to bash the science of someone else. For myself, I am not conversant in thermal dynamics, so you can’t prove to my satisfaction that unicorns don’t live in volcanoes.
#11–quagmire==you say: “The thought that how humans could somehow change the climate in less then a century is ludicrous.” /// Look up the definition of ludicrous. You might be surprised, or maybe just too stupid to understand how fundamentally wrong you are. You are right to be critical of Gore and political action motivated by “Global Warming” but it is silly to go to the opposite end of stupid which also happens to be stupid. Just in case you don’t get it, let the hint be more direct: you don’t think clear cutting the Amazon has any affect? You don’t think destroying plant diversity with monoculture has any effect? You don’t think building cities has any effect? You don’t think digging up and burning millions of tons of coal and oil has any effect? Really?
How much do you weigh? How many billion tons of coal, gas, crude oil gets “dissolved” into the ATMOSPHERE every day? Lets pick up something that has the mass of lake superior and turn it to gas i.e. Carbon dioxide. Six billion people can cause such pollution the Consequences can not be good!
#13: OK, we need a citation on the IPCC report.
Are the postulates in the report testable? Can the test(s) be repeated by others and confirmed or disproven? That’s the scientific method. If you can’t test and prove or disprove, the methods used aren’t scientific.
The above is true whether you’re trying prove that global warming exists, or doesn’t exist.
bobbo, haven’t read the article, but it looks like he isn’t saying the results are wrong, just that the science is bad. For example going off of unreliable models as if they are fact is bad science.
In general scientists should be searching for evidence they are wrong, not badmouthing other scientists.
Bobbo, all the oil produced in world history would not fill Lake Tahoe.
@ #14 – Bobbo
To clarify, my only points are that …
We pollute too much and, yes, while we have had a negative impact on the “environment” (air, water and ground) our pollution has has nothing to do with “global climate change”.
Quote
” … let the hint be more direct: you don’t think clear cutting the Amazon has any affect? You don’t think destroying plant diversity with monoculture has any effect? You don’t think building cities has any effect? You don’t think digging up and burning millions of tons of coal and oil has any effect? …”
Does pollution create shitty living conditions and do we need to do something (everything) about it? Yes.
Does pollution contribute to global climate change? No.
While I think the Global Warming advocates have been misled into thinking that pollution reduction will save us from rising seas and other climate related disasters, the GREAT news is that pollution reduction activities and awareness are way up!! Awesome !!!
Hope this helps,
/T.
“I think global warming is just god hugging us closer” (fake Sarah Palin: SNL)
#19 – Lyin’ Mike
>>Bobbo, all the oil produced in world history
>>would not fill Lake Tahoe.
Now you’re lyin’, Mike!!!
#17–Mike==the article adds nothing to what is above. You are perceiving the clear meaning of the article: “Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted” is a quote. He states that as a conclusions without analysis. That is wrong on so many levels regardless of the validity or lack there of of global climate predicitions. In fact, one could say such ignorance is worrisome in itself.
#10–Mike==and you can drown in a teaspoon of water–so what? I suppose there is only enough Black Mambo poison to fill a mayonnaise jar. Would you inject it as a result of a meaningless reference?
#20–T==you say: 1. “our pollution has has nothing to do with “global climate change”. /// How do you “know” that? What you are saying is take two earths. One is natural. The other has 300 years of human industrial pollution. There should be no difference between the two earths. Really? Believe whatever you want but when citing a fact there should be evidence or logic in support of it. Simple repetition doesn’t get you there.
But I appreciate your honest attempt at bolstering your position, you just missed it though. Try again? As in==what evidence do you point to that co2 pollution is NOT leading to global warming? Anything????
Here in SF, the bureaucrats just made it illegal to use a woodstove on “spare the air” days. Naturally, I check to see if it is a “spare the air” day every time before I use my woodstove to keep warm. If it is, I smile and ignore the new law. That makes me a criminal. Fine. That and the “stockpiling” I am doing. I like a nice steak barbecue on the porch while enjoying a wood fire in the living room. When the fools declared CO2, (you know, the stuff we exhale), a pollutant, I knew things were off the rails. Seriously. I have studied cyclic climate changes, and the “Little Ice Age” was only a short time ago. Things change. Gore is a tool. The more laws they make, the more I will break.
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) caused by human activity is a scam: Rebutted by more and more scientists.
http://bit.ly/s792
Another bullshit headline. Happer never worked for Gore even though Gore had him fired for shoddy work while the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy.
>b>Bobbo is having a good game day. He is very correct. This is just another bullshit piece from a bullshit blog (Daily Tech) commenting on a mediocre physicist that hasn’t made anything of himself. And all these idiots fell for it.
Mr. /T, posting blatant statements without any proof is silly. A typical method used by manipulators, right wing nuts, and those too stupid or lazy to do any work finding out the truth. That might work with a group of pre-schoolers, but here we ask you to back up your claims.
‘dro STFU. You still have nothing to add to the discussion.
What’s even more exciting is that while they have heretofore failed to show that humans have caused the change, can’t say with certainty how much we contribute to it, yet claim that if we “act now” we can reverse it all.
As Smartalix suggests, we should concern ourselves more with reducing the amount of poisons we dump into the air and water instead of stroking our egos in thinking we can take control of something that is out of our control.
#22 That’s a deep lake
#25, benson,
Another piece of bullshit. Who is William Katz? Was this opinion piece by “Professer Tipler” peer reviewed? I didn’t think so. The guy is way out of his field but I’m sure his credentials mean something to someone.
“Anthropogenic Global Warming” is indeed a fraud. It is the term attached to Climate Change by deniers who want to sound important. As in the Tipler article, he makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims that he insists we trust him YET at the same time tells us we can’t trust the scientists that actually are studying the issue.
The gullibility of some people never cease to amaze me.
opponents of the idea that global warming is man-made basically are saying to me that Americans aren’t smart enough to make money while generating less pollution and being less reliant on foreign sources of energy, so there’s no point in doing anything differently from the way we do things now.
i happen to think they are wrong.
Those who think global warming is a scam don’t live on the shores or on islands where you actually do witness what happens sea level rises just a bit.
#27–SL==good review. A quibble: I’ve not heard anyone say AGW can be reversed==only slow it down so that maybe we get more time to figure out how to reverse the effects before the worst of worsts happens. But that is a quibble to your main point.
It does make sense to me that if we simply “don’t know” what the effects of co2 pollution might be, that we should avoid it until such effects are known? All these things have cost and cost/benefits “but” as co2 reduction has other benefits, some effort really should be made that way AS IN==less emphasis on using COAL as an energy source and more emphasis on carbon neutral sources??
Interesting that AGW may or may not be but there are multiple reasons to treat it as true and only one (cost) to treat it as untrue.
#23 – Bobbo …
” … what evidence do you point to that co2 pollution is NOT leading to global warming? …”
Here’s one …
http://tinyurl.com/3ena8u
… but let’s face it, there are tons of resources with conflicting information. This just happens to make sense to me.
Frankly, in the big picture, if it takes a “Global Warming” scare/hoax ,to get humanity to reduce pollution, so be it.
Cheers,
/T.