Beholden to hi$ Ru$$ian puppet ma$ter and wealthy billionaire and corporate donor$ from Big Oil and Big Coal, Trump ha$ appointed a real $cienti$t — a phy$icist, NOT A CLIMATE $CIENTI$T — who, without ba$i$, que$tion$ the virtually 100% con$en$u$ on the current climate cri$i$ from all real CLIMATE $cienti$t$ who are not funded by Big Carbon, Big Oil or Big Coal.
Follow the money. $$$$$$$
Even Trump know$ climate change is real but find$ it more profitable to lie and deny.
We know he know$ it is real becau$e he petitioned the government of Ireland for permi$$ion to build a $EA WALL to protect again$t ri$ing $ea level$ at hi$ golf cour$e property in Doughmore Bay, Doonbeg, County Clare, Ireland.
$o he know$ it is real, want$ to protect him$elf, but will $ell everyone el$e (and future generation$) down the river for thirty piece$ of oil-$tained, blood-$tained $$$$$ilver.
Jeeze, he LIES about the climate, he LIES about “The Wall” being built, he LIES about darn near everything, and yet some morons STILL support him?? How far HAVE we fallen as a nation???
Climate changes.. it has in the past and will in the future. “You” are not willing to give up enough creature comforts (read civilization) to make a wit of difference whether the next general phase is warmer.. or colder.
Happer said “the demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler.” in 2014 and then expanded the BS in 2017 – “demonization of CO2….really differs little from the Nazi persecution of the Jews, the Soviet extermination of class enemies or ISIL slaughter of infidels.”.
Science is NOT politics! The only two sides here are the right one and the wrong one, and deniers are on the wrong one.
I am so done with this ridiculous notion that somehow there are two sides on an issue that is perhaps the best-researched scientific construct ever, and one that is supported by multiple sciences! Especially since it is patently obvious to anyone paying attention that it merely serves the purposes of the oil, gas, and coal industries. We KNOW this: Exxon had scientists pointing out global warming and its causes in the 1970s and 1980s, so they deliberately funded opposing views to avoid having to deal with the realities they were helping to create! The Koch brothers, whose companies are notorious polluters and are oil barons to boot, are funding denialists!
You want to talk conspiracy? There it is! There’s the truth, which is that human activity has put us on a path to global warming through increased CO2 in the atmosphere (both through direct addition and through reduction of plant cover), and there are those desperately trying to avoid that truth. That’s it.
Happer is a 79 year old physics prof (emeritus) from Princeton whose work was mainly in optics and spectroscopy. I doubt that he has the slightest idea of the biochemical effects of increased CO2 in atmosphere and oceans because he seems to think that it will be good for life forms to have higher CO2. Well, for some acidophiles maybe, but not for the bulk of living organisms.
I challenge ANYONE who thinks that a “Physicist” is a good fit to serve on a “Climate Change” investigatory board to visit an “arborist” the next time they need a possibly cancerous mole removed from their skin – after all, the “arborist” has tools that CAN remove skin blemishes just like a Dermatologist can, if not QUITE so neatly.
This whole, “He’s a ‘Scientist’ so he must know what he’s talking about!”, is so beside the point it’s ridiculous!
William Happer is specifically trained in a very specific field of knowledge, and, while his expertise MAY overlap other fields, somewhat, he is NOT qualified to opine on Meteorology, in any way other than the most general sense!
Here in New Mexico, we have several very successful ranchers, but not ONE of them would attempt for a second to treat one of their prize bulls or heifers if it fell ill – they’d be on the ’phone in a second to their veterinarian, because they are well aware of their limitations in knowledge.
William Happer, evidently, has no such self-awareness of his limitations, and neither did Linus Pauling, a Chemist of great note.
Of course, the ONLY qualification ANY scientist must have to meet Trump’s ‘strict’ standards is that the scientist MUST agree with Trump completely and unequivocally! And, believe it or not, those “scientists” are not that hard to find! Just because a person is “well educated” does not grant that person any kind of grounding either ethically OR morally!
All of Agent Donald’s appointees are picked specifically for their ignorance and their animosity toward each field. The object is to destroy the govt, destroy science, and believe that herr Trump is the only one who can save them from us.
1) Rising Carbon levels in atmosphere and ocean. But the ratio of C14 to C12 is falling, which means that the Carbon is mainly from burning of fossil fuels, whose carbon was deposited so long ago that C14 in them has depleted due short isotope life span.
5 Arctic temperatures are rising even faster than global. Amount of sunlight reaching polar regions is not changed, but CO2 works 365/7/24 to retain heat.
8 Globally averaged loss of ice mass and in the polar regions loss of ice-covered water. Which translates to a lower albedo, hence less sunlight reflected back to space and more surface heating. (Hint for the challenged, the amount of ice surface area lost in the Arctic greatly exceeds the gain in the Antarctic.)
9 Satellite observations of infrared emitted by upper atmosphere show a decline, which is due to Greenhouse gases trapping more of the infrared radiation.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=35
10 No increase in solar output (beyond the normal variations due to solar cycle, which amount to about +/- 1 part in 1,000. Might even be a small (smaller than the above) decrease.
Although the emissions from soil are “natural” to a large extent, they have increased by 0.1% per year from 1989 to 2008. Generally, we expect that soil emissions should be balanced by intake by plants, water, etc. Certainly there seems to have been a balance before the industrial age.
https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data
Could soil be the culprit? No.
In absolute numbers, 98Gt CO2 from soil per year, and 9Gt roughly from human activity. The 0.1% year increase from soil is then 0.1Gt/year, so represents only a small effect compared to human activity.
If soil were the culprit, the isotope ratio mentioned in Point 1 would not be changing.
Dtroutma about 5 years ago
Bonespurs has been selling a world on green screen for a long time.
DD Wiz Premium Member about 5 years ago
Beholden to hi$ Ru$$ian puppet ma$ter and wealthy billionaire and corporate donor$ from Big Oil and Big Coal, Trump ha$ appointed a real $cienti$t — a phy$icist, NOT A CLIMATE $CIENTI$T — who, without ba$i$, que$tion$ the virtually 100% con$en$u$ on the current climate cri$i$ from all real CLIMATE $cienti$t$ who are not funded by Big Carbon, Big Oil or Big Coal.
Follow the money. $$$$$$$
Even Trump know$ climate change is real but find$ it more profitable to lie and deny.
We know he know$ it is real becau$e he petitioned the government of Ireland for permi$$ion to build a $EA WALL to protect again$t ri$ing $ea level$ at hi$ golf cour$e property in Doughmore Bay, Doonbeg, County Clare, Ireland.
$o he know$ it is real, want$ to protect him$elf, but will $ell everyone el$e (and future generation$) down the river for thirty piece$ of oil-$tained, blood-$tained $$$$$ilver.
Daeder about 5 years ago
Now we can get down to asking serious climate questions like “Who’s boat is that boat?”
Zev about 5 years ago
This entire administration is a Potemkin village.
superposition about 5 years ago
The resident’s method of fixing the climate change threat … easier than we thought.
https://www.vox.com/2019/2/20/18233378/william-happer-trump-climate-change-panel
Masterskrain Premium Member about 5 years ago
Jeeze, he LIES about the climate, he LIES about “The Wall” being built, he LIES about darn near everything, and yet some morons STILL support him?? How far HAVE we fallen as a nation???
erik.vanthienen about 5 years ago
With excuses to Oscar Wilde : “The Trump Republicans – the unspeakable in full pursuit of the unreasonable.”
Alberta Oil Premium Member about 5 years ago
Climate changes.. it has in the past and will in the future. “You” are not willing to give up enough creature comforts (read civilization) to make a wit of difference whether the next general phase is warmer.. or colder.
Nantucket Premium Member about 5 years ago
Happer said “the demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler.” in 2014 and then expanded the BS in 2017 – “demonization of CO2….really differs little from the Nazi persecution of the Jews, the Soviet extermination of class enemies or ISIL slaughter of infidels.”.
From link provided by superposition.
Radish the wordsmith about 5 years ago
Right wingers do nothing except lie cheat and steal as they destroy the earth and divide the country.
Motivemagus about 5 years ago
Science is NOT politics! The only two sides here are the right one and the wrong one, and deniers are on the wrong one.
I am so done with this ridiculous notion that somehow there are two sides on an issue that is perhaps the best-researched scientific construct ever, and one that is supported by multiple sciences! Especially since it is patently obvious to anyone paying attention that it merely serves the purposes of the oil, gas, and coal industries. We KNOW this: Exxon had scientists pointing out global warming and its causes in the 1970s and 1980s, so they deliberately funded opposing views to avoid having to deal with the realities they were helping to create! The Koch brothers, whose companies are notorious polluters and are oil barons to boot, are funding denialists!
You want to talk conspiracy? There it is! There’s the truth, which is that human activity has put us on a path to global warming through increased CO2 in the atmosphere (both through direct addition and through reduction of plant cover), and there are those desperately trying to avoid that truth. That’s it.
comixbomix about 5 years ago
“Soylent Green” did that better…
martens about 5 years ago
Happer is a 79 year old physics prof (emeritus) from Princeton whose work was mainly in optics and spectroscopy. I doubt that he has the slightest idea of the biochemical effects of increased CO2 in atmosphere and oceans because he seems to think that it will be good for life forms to have higher CO2. Well, for some acidophiles maybe, but not for the bulk of living organisms.
wellis1947 Premium Member about 5 years ago
I challenge ANYONE who thinks that a “Physicist” is a good fit to serve on a “Climate Change” investigatory board to visit an “arborist” the next time they need a possibly cancerous mole removed from their skin – after all, the “arborist” has tools that CAN remove skin blemishes just like a Dermatologist can, if not QUITE so neatly.
This whole, “He’s a ‘Scientist’ so he must know what he’s talking about!”, is so beside the point it’s ridiculous!
William Happer is specifically trained in a very specific field of knowledge, and, while his expertise MAY overlap other fields, somewhat, he is NOT qualified to opine on Meteorology, in any way other than the most general sense!
Here in New Mexico, we have several very successful ranchers, but not ONE of them would attempt for a second to treat one of their prize bulls or heifers if it fell ill – they’d be on the ’phone in a second to their veterinarian, because they are well aware of their limitations in knowledge.
William Happer, evidently, has no such self-awareness of his limitations, and neither did Linus Pauling, a Chemist of great note.
Of course, the ONLY qualification ANY scientist must have to meet Trump’s ‘strict’ standards is that the scientist MUST agree with Trump completely and unequivocally! And, believe it or not, those “scientists” are not that hard to find! Just because a person is “well educated” does not grant that person any kind of grounding either ethically OR morally!
Radish the wordsmith about 5 years ago
All of Agent Donald’s appointees are picked specifically for their ignorance and their animosity toward each field. The object is to destroy the govt, destroy science, and believe that herr Trump is the only one who can save them from us.
wiatr about 5 years ago
I have only seen one clip of Mr. Happer, but he does not seem to be knowledgeable on the subject of climate.
jvscanlan Premium Member about 5 years ago
Standard Trump tactic . . . sow chaos and disagreement over something that is already settled
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member about 5 years ago
Evidence for man-caused global warming
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26912
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases
1) Rising Carbon levels in atmosphere and ocean. But the ratio of C14 to C12 is falling, which means that the Carbon is mainly from burning of fossil fuels, whose carbon was deposited so long ago that C14 in them has depleted due short isotope life span.
http://www.dummies.com/education/science/environmental-science/isotopes-how-do-scientists-know-that-humans-cause-global-warming/
2 CO2 causes tropopause to rise higher, but stratopause to go lower. Predicted in 1957. Solar heating effects would cause both levels to rise.
http://www.theclimateconsensus.com/content/satellite-data-show-a-cooling-trend-in-the-upper-atmosphere-so-much-for-global-warming-right
3 Ocean acidification has increased because of increased ocean intake of CO2.
http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification
4 Global average surface air temperature has increased. (So has globally averaged near surface ocean temperature.)
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
5 Arctic temperatures are rising even faster than global. Amount of sunlight reaching polar regions is not changed, but CO2 works 365/7/24 to retain heat.
Point Barrow for example:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/barrow-alaska-climate-change-action
6 Night-time temperatures rising faster than day-time (Can’t blame the sun for that!)
https://phys.org/news/2016-03-nights-warmer-faster-days.html
7 Rise in Global averaged sea level (some (~20%) is due to pumping ground water out, but most is due to warming of the oceans and melting of ice.)
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member about 5 years ago
8 Globally averaged loss of ice mass and in the polar regions loss of ice-covered water. Which translates to a lower albedo, hence less sunlight reflected back to space and more surface heating. (Hint for the challenged, the amount of ice surface area lost in the Arctic greatly exceeds the gain in the Antarctic.)
https://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/global-ice-viewer/
9 Satellite observations of infrared emitted by upper atmosphere show a decline, which is due to Greenhouse gases trapping more of the infrared radiation.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=35
10 No increase in solar output (beyond the normal variations due to solar cycle, which amount to about +/- 1 part in 1,000. Might even be a small (smaller than the above) decrease.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-incoming-sunlight
11 Volcanic released CO2 is about 1/130 of human activity released CO2. So no, it is not volcanoes.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities
12 CO2 from Soil is increasing:
https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100324/full/news.2010.147.html
Although the emissions from soil are “natural” to a large extent, they have increased by 0.1% per year from 1989 to 2008. Generally, we expect that soil emissions should be balanced by intake by plants, water, etc. Certainly there seems to have been a balance before the industrial age.
https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data
Could soil be the culprit? No.
In absolute numbers, 98Gt CO2 from soil per year, and 9Gt roughly from human activity. The 0.1% year increase from soil is then 0.1Gt/year, so represents only a small effect compared to human activity.
If soil were the culprit, the isotope ratio mentioned in Point 1 would not be changing.
Baslim the Beggar Premium Member about 5 years ago
A good article about climate myths
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2017/03/24/20-common-myths-that-climate-scientists-often-hear/#5dfe3a935acb
Written by a past President of the American Meteorological Society
Charlie Tuba about 5 years ago
Happer looks a bad as Climate Change! (Maybe worse!)