Princeton Professor Comes to Alarming Conclusion on How Climate Change Activists Are Doing It Wrong
Dr. William Happer, a Professor Emeritus at Princeton University, gives his views why he believes carbon dioxide is not the pernicious substance it is being made out to be in discussions about “climate change.”
Happer, who has published
significant research on
atomic physics, discusses not only the scientific community’s
inability to explain
18 years without a
statistically significant rise in global temperature averages, but the benevolence of higher carbon dioxide levels and increased warming in a
historical context.
(Here's a
graph of the data.)
The professor notes that there is widespread intentional conflation of the natural organic molecule carbon dioxide and actual man-made pollution. The Supreme Court of the United States has even
ruled carbon dioxide a “pollutant” so that the Environmental Protection Agency can regulate its emissions.
Happer also condemns pollution in the big picture, while acknowledging that manmade carbon dioxide emissions contribute ‘
a little’ to increased global temperatures. The
main greenhouse gas in the climate is, as NASA explains,
water vapor.
Just to clarify further, all Americans want cleaner air and water, but the way to get those public goods is through valid and well-understood science and rational policy; not hyperbolic claims that turn out decades later to still be untrue.
13 Comments
billpayerLike most republican propaganda he states his own position when stating the so called 'problem'. A behaviour known as projection.
"This is propaganda, this is really a religious cult. It is a complete falsehood to say it is science."
Best description of Republicans I've ever heard.
This is the dumbest shit I have ever seen.
speechlesssays...Saying "republicunt" puts you in the same boat as those who say "libtard" etc. Hopefully all these phrases will drown to the bottom of ocean. If the bubbles are coming out of their mouths on the way down, that's on them.
newtboyHe cherry picked data using an 'outlier' data point as his 'start' point, ignoring actual surface and ocean temperatures in favor of ONE data set that, in his mind, contradicts expectations from climate change. The actual data, of surface AND ocean temperatures, shows a rise in temperature, even in this time period. Because 1998 was SUCH a crazy hot year, it is not a reasonable start point of temperature change, but even if you start there, his contention is incorrect, there still has been an overall rise.
•The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for September 2014 was the highest on record for September, at 0.72°C (1.30°F) above the 20th century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F).
•The global land surface temperature was 0.89°C (1.60°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F), the sixth highest for September on record. For the ocean, the September global sea surface temperature was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average of 16.2°C (61.1°F), the highest on record for September and also the highest on record for any month.
•The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–September period (year-to-date) was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.5°F), tying with 1998 as the warmest such period on record.
ChaosEngineYeah, this guy was debunked 3 years ago.
Put very simply, his expertise is not in climate science and he's wrong.
Most importantly, you'll note that his preferred method of communication about climate science is through an op-ed, not through a peer-reviewed paper.
But hey, any excuse to continue fucking up the planet, right?
enochyeah........
ill upvote for discussion purposes and to bring to light that climate is not a one dimensional argument.
so when i see these very targeted and one dimensional arguments using people with credentials (usually NOT in the field they are commenting on) sounding very reasonable...my alarms start going off.something is not quite right.
i call it the apathy argument,which is not really an argument at all but rather a political strategy.they dont actually have to WIN the argument,they just have to sound reasonable enough to make you think "well..maybe" and now you are a neutralized participant.
the gruber incident is now getting some serious airplay lately and everybody is sooo offended.
i am offended as well,but for different reasons.
calling the american voter "stupid" or any other human society stupid is an inaccurate term.
they are ignorant in most cases,and that is by design.
to deny that there are immensely powerful monied institutional forces attempting to muddy the argument for their own,specific interests and goals,while the fate of humanity can go fuck itself...now THAT...is stupid.
political arguments dressed up as as science really piss me off.
enoch*promote
siftbotPromoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, November 16th, 2014 1:27pm PST - promote requested by enoch.
eric3579A Physicist who does op-ed pieces in the Wall Street Journal regarding climate change with no peer reviewed work on the subject and whos foundation (Marshall Institute where he is the Chairman of the Board of Directors) has received a shit ton of money from Exxon.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute
Call me skeptical.
newtboyPropaganda videos designed to confuse the issue, like this one, make me wish we had a *notquality invocation.
dannym3141In about 3 million videos, i'll make an Unscientific channel, no worries.
ChaosEnginewell, we do have a *lies and a *terrible channel.
oops, did I accidentally assign this video to those channels?
what a careless oversight on my part.....
Propaganda videos designed to confuse the issue, like this one, make me wish we had a *notquality invocation.
siftbotAdding video to channels (Lies, Terrible) - requested by ChaosEngine.
siftbotThis video has been discarded due to negative votes by members.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.