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.
The amazing lack of understanding of the scientific method scares me. A lot of you talk of man made global climate change as if the jury is still out. If you bother to delve deep into actual scientific journals, and not oil company financed spin and hype, you will find that the jury came back with the verdict “guilty” a couple of decades ago.
Scientists themselves are the harshest critics of AGW theory (anthropogenic global warming) because it is their job to do so. They cant make conclusions based on political expedience or personal beliefs, because they will eventually get contradicted and proven wrong. Scientists have to think differently based on real evidence and sound conclusions.
The overwhelming conclusion: Temperatures will vary every year within a probability range, but the general trend is up. Global warming is happening!
actual scientific data (in case anyone cares)
#34–Arianne==is there PROOF of future global warming trend, or only “BEST EVIDENCE” for it?
Nice link btw.
#35 Is there a proof for gravity, or only best evidence for it? In math, proofs are an argument. Thomas Aquinas’ proofs for the existence of God hardly settled the debate.
Within science, as in all walks of life, proof is illusory.
#36–QB== everything being definitional, I know neither of use can prove as in math that either one of us exists. Kinda puerile to raise that Intro to Philosophy chestnut isn’t it?
Your analogy is immediately flawed. Gravity can be demonstrated, measured, used to good effect. AGW has no such utility.
Give yourself a fail on this one, but keep the good stuff coming.
More proof that this entire subject is garbage…. Just another fraud to separate the stupid from their money…
Just for the record, Dr Will Happer’s resume:
Yet another supposed climate change expert. Anyone want to claim that atomic physicists are climatologists?
Here’s something that I just pondered and then looked up, that haven’t seen discussed before.
A gallon of gasoline weighs 6.3 pounds. 5.5 lbs of that are carbon atoms. (atomic weight C = 12)
When gasoline is burned in our cars, that carbon combines with 14.67 pounds of oxygen from the air we breathe to create a total of almost 21 pounds of CO2 for every gallon of gas burned.
An average fill-up of 16 gallons not only produces 336 pounds of CO2 and CO, but it also removes 235 pounds of oxygen from the air we breathe.
1 cubic ft. of air weighs .075 pounds (sea level, 70 degrees F). Oxygen is about 23% by weight of air by weight, so burning 1 average tank of gas strips 13,623 cu ft of air of it’s oxygen… practically forever. That’s just 1 tank of gasoline. A 10 ft thick ground level swath of air has a volume of 270,878,400 cubic feet per square mile. Just 20,464 cars burning 1 tank of gas completely removes the oxygen from 1 square mile of air, 10 feet high.
The USA currently burns 400 million gallons of gas a day. That volume alone removes the oxygen in 1,222 sq miles 10 feet high of air every single day in the USA and replaces it with 20 times the volume of CO2… thats a swath 200 feet high over 1220 sq miles, or 24,440 sq miles of CO2 10 feet high of oxygen depletion….. every single day.
So after that rambling post, I wonder if the questions should be not whether we should be putting CO2 into the air… but whether we should be taking so much oxygen out of the air, while simultaneously removing at an alarming rate the only sources of oxygen on this earth.
Last time I checked, we need oxygen to live.
(I haven’t double-checked these figures so I hope they are accurate. Spent far to much time on this post as it is.)
#40 – JimR,
I think I heard 19.6 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gasoline burned. Otherwise, excellent post. I hadn’t thought of it in those terms.
BTW, I hear that Joe the Plumber also doesn’t believe in global warming. And, since he and Dr. Happer are equally qualified climatologists … not to mention equally qualified plumbers … I feel they should be given equal time here.
#40–Jim==that is interesting. I think one flaw in your musing is the notion that co2 once formed is static. It is not. There is a co2 cycle and an oxygen cycle. There is interplay between the two. The more co2 there is, the more plant growth there is turning co2 into o2. Isn’t mother nature amazing? Yay!!
Nice review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen
#45
Better to make a group hug from Al Gore than to tap dance with Larry Craig at a public restroom I say =3
“I think one flaw in your musing is the notion that co2 once formed is static.”
I think I covered that point bobbo, via 2nd last paragraph. I’m not up to the task right now, but it would be interesting to see the statistics of human caused depletion of nature’s oxygen producing mechanisms, the resultant reduction of oxygen generation and the comparison of those figures with the total oxygen usage from burning fossil fuels. I didn’t include the oxygen consumption of burning coal or natural gas for instance. Just from casual observation, it seems evident that there has to be a deficit in oxygen levels from human interference. The questions are how much of a deficit and is it significant?
#45 – pedro,
I don’t recall where I stated that I was a climatologist. So, no.
However, the opinions of the members of the IPCC who are all climate scientists certainly count more heavily than an atomic physicist who has only ever published anything regarding climatology on the heavily biased and Exxon funded George Marshal Institute.
Re:41, Misanthropic Scott, thanks. I think my figure of approx. 21 lb is accurate for CO2 and CO creation combined based on their respective atomic weights. I noticed my error of just mentioning CO2 (re your figure of 19.6 lb) and fixed it in para 3, but missed it elsewhere. I also don’t know if CO is a problem gas. Is it?
#38 bobbo old nut
Silly me. Global warming has been proven then. Gravity, unfortunately, is only a theory.
Well, too bad if we do nothing and he’s wrong we all suffer a massive fail. On the other hand, if we do something, and he’s right, it will actually be a good thing any way.
Let’s see: do something = good regardless vs. do nothing = potential disaster. Hmmmm, not hard to figure out that you should do something.
The only thing he’s right about in implication is that we shouldn’t be alarmist in our reaction. Don’t panic (thanks Douglas Adams) but actually take intelligent, considered action! Pretty simple when you actually use your brain and think about it. And as is usual these days, the only reason not to do something about it is if you can make greed-based money by not doing something, like all the Shrub Admin has done.
#44 – Bobbo,
The more co2 there is, the more plant growth there is turning co2 into o2. Isn’t mother nature amazing? Yay!!
Unfortunately, that is only true for a given climate. As the climate warms, the result will be uncertain at best.
Evaluating ecosystem responses to rising atmospheric CO2 and global warming in a multi-factor world
Keep in mind too that rain patterns will likely change. Some areas will receive so much rain that topsoil will erode while others may receive too little for crop growth. And, aquifers are being depleted as well. So, I doubt we can rely on crop growth to stem the global warming tide. We’ll be lucky if we can count on it for continued food supply at present levels.
Hmm. I point people to information that will allow people to find out for themselves and I get called names by Bobbo. Is there anyone here who has not been called names by Bobbo? Maybe Bobbo is just lazy. Maybe Bobbo should try something constructive for a change.
#53–Scott==where ya been? Miss the link filled authoratative commentary.
My reference to more plants was really just in reference to the depletion of O2 by burning fossil fuels. I googled but could not find any meaningful chart on O2 levels over the past 100 years.
Yes–disruption of weather patterns will have many consequences, most of them bad as they disturb the status quo.
#54–stormy==hurts don’t it. You can be offended by the inconsequential, or learn from the content.
This article is a bit misleading.. starting with the title. It implies that he used to be an aid to Al Gore, and thus used to believe that global warming was real, and had his mind changed by some evidence. In reality, he has always held the view that humans have no effect on the natural world. This dates back to the ozone hole debates.
It is also notable that he is on the board of directors for The Marshall Institute. When the institute was founded, it was focused on advocating Regan’s SDI (“Star Wars” ). Since then it has become one of the leading conservative think thanks trying to debunk the theory of global warming. It freely admits that it receives funding from the “Exxon Education Program.”
Saying that only climatologists are qualified to say *anything* about global warming is like saying that only astrologists are qualified to make claims about the accuracy of horoscopes.
AFAIK, the problem is that the models these climatologists come up with explain the past, but generate poor predictions. Non-climate scientists are more than qualified to point this out.
#58 – brm,
Saying that only climatologists are qualified to say *anything* about global warming is like saying that only astrologists are qualified to make claims about the accuracy of horoscopes.
Hmm… Good point. However, the title and text of this article make it sound as if this scientist, and yes he’s a legitimate scientist, is actually a climatologist disagreeing with the vast majority of available data. Instead, he’s a hack bought by Exxon with no more credentials than I have.
AFAIK, the problem is that the models these climatologists come up with explain the past, but generate poor predictions. Non-climate scientists are more than qualified to point this out.
Unfortunately, you are correct. The models have indeed been repeatedly shown to be inaccurate. Actual observations continually show that the models were wrong in predicting relatively slow warming and gradual change and effects. In fact, the effects are consistently at or beyond the worst case predictions.
Climate scientists are the best people to point this out.
#58–brm–yes, only imagination limits saying any “A” is LIKE any “B.” To be worthwhile, you also have to evaluate HOW DIFFERENT any two things are then weigh and contrast the similarities and differences and make a conclusion. Just doing one or the other is only half a thought. To make conclusions based on half a thought is defective.
So what is “astrology” but a rather simple minded and completely erroneous bunco game? How much study does it take to play this bunco game? Can you make up your own rules and actually not require any expertise at all?
Now, compare that with advanced four year degrees in the hard sciences and post graduate work with peer reviewed progress.
Somehow, the differences are so marked as to make “They are the same” a bit of nonsense.
You got Scott to bite on it though. Good Job!!!!
Global warming has produced more space cadets than in any time in the history of climate.
On the take from E-M, BP, and API. Also getting senile. Just the hero the deniers need.
Pretty sad really….
#63, ‘dro,
Just STFU. You don’t know what you are talking about and are annoying.
This argument, for me, comes downs to 2 issues – what will happen if the climate change believers are wrong and what will happen if climate change sceptics are wrong. If the climate change believers are wrong, then at a minimum, our world doesn’t change to much and we keep going as we are. If the climate change sceptics are wrong, then we totally stuff up this planet we live in a life becomes a lot more harder (esp in the western world).
This is (potentially) a global issue, affecting everyone on the planet. We should be conservative with this issue, assume climate change is going to happen and reduce our CO2 output and dependence on fossil fuels. Hey, if I’m wrong and climate change doesn’t occur, then we end up with a cleaner planet….. (and I will be happy to say I was wrong).
my 2 cents…..
Yes,global warming is a lie. This lie being perpetrated by Al “the GORACLE” Gore is the work of his NEW WORLD ORDER puppet masters. This lie is being stuffed down our throats like it’s the truth.The reason for this is to put a carbon tax on every breath you exhale, remember we exhale co2.This carbon tax, at least in America,Canada and Mexico will be to fund the creation of the NORTH AMERICAN UNION. This means no more Bill of Rights,Declaration of Independence or Constitution. The U.N. will also put these taxes on all humans to fund their one world government.Do the research, the truth will prevail over these tyrants.
The truth is we just don’t know what effect our actions and emissions will have on the planet in the long run. Perhaps what we do has minimal effect.. there is a natural, global cycle of heating and cooling … ice ages have happened in the past and will happen in the future. We as a planet have had major and rapid climatic change before man existed and it will happen again. We have no control of that; by means of volcanic eruption, or extra-terrestrial event it will happen. But we don’t have to try to make it happen faster. Fossil fuels are the trapped carbon that has been taken out of our atmosphere over millions of years, think of it as an aquarium filter… would you want to live in a fish tank that had its filter rung out back into the water? That is precisely what we are doing! in addition to that the trees and plants which act at the filters for that carbon are being clear cut (just check out google earth and see satellite images for yourself).
It is naive of people to think we can pass anywhere and not have an effect. out time here is but a flash, the earth doesn’t care what happens to us it will survive and thrive….. but we shouldn’t pee in our own bath water.