William Happer, PhD.: The Real Story on Climate Change

[miketx]

This guy explains why all these computer models don't work and how man made climate change is fake.


Climate models don't work.

Climate will change with or without C02 change.

 

[miketx]

Interesting to watch an educated man with a proven track record tackle all the liars.

 

[skookerasbil]

The IPCC admitted in the early 90's that computer models could not be used to predict the future climate >>>

http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/the-models-are-wrong/




Next topic!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

This guy explains why all these computer models don't work and how man made climate change is fake.


Climate models don't work.

Climate will change with or without C02 change.

I'm skeptical about ANYTHING on GW that comes out of Heartland. Just saying. But I'll watch a bit..

 

[SSDD]

I'm skeptical about ANYTHING on GW that comes out of Heartland. Just saying. But I'll watch a bit..

But you aren't skeptical in the least when someone tells you that you are actually counting theoretical particles? Interesting.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

IPCC is on record that AGW is a wealth redistribution scheme and has nothing to do with science.

Trump DOES need to fund some research; he needs to show us the temperature difference while controlling for a change in CO2 from 400 to 410PPM

Money well spend in my book

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This guy explains why all these computer models don't work and how man made climate change is fake.


Climate models don't work.

Climate will change with or without C02 change.

Paid, discredited liar who has no experience in any climate field and has published no science on any related topic in any related field.

in other words, hero to all Trumpkins.

 

[miketx]

This guy explains why all these computer models don't work and how man made climate change is fake.


Climate models don't work.

Climate will change with or without C02 change.

Paid, discredited liar who has no experience in any climate field and has published no science on any related topic in any related field.

in other words, hero to all Trumpkins.

Yet you can't proof a word of your lies AS USUAL.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This guy explains why all these computer models don't work and how man made climate change is fake.


Climate models don't work.

Climate will change with or without C02 change.

Paid, discredited liar who has no experience in any climate field and has published no science on any related topic in any related field.

in other words, hero to all Trumpkins.

Yet you can't proof a word of your lies AS USUAL.

Of course I can. He has no experience and has published no peer-reviewed science on any related topic in any related field.

Fact.

He has been discredited as being a "denier for hire", even suggesting to the people offering to hire him that his work would pretty much become worthless, if subjected to actual peer review. Thus, he offered a hand-picked list of deniers to review it. Which of course isd not actual peer review, but a complete scam.

fact.

When offered money, he suggested that the fee go to the "CO2 Coalition", so as not to overtly demonstrate that he gets paid directly for bullshit. Guess who gets paychecks from the CO2 Coalition, a foundation set up to get anonymous money from fossil fuel industry sources to do "independent research" (yet has never gotten a single article through a peer-reviewed journal)? You guessed it! Happer.

Fact.

yes, trump's next little lying bitch is a joke. Please don't tell me this is surprising to you.

 

[miketx]

This guy explains why all these computer models don't work and how man made climate change is fake.


Climate models don't work.

Climate will change with or without C02 change.

Paid, discredited liar who has no experience in any climate field and has published no science on any related topic in any related field.

in other words, hero to all Trumpkins.

Yet you can't proof a word of your lies AS USUAL.

Of course I can. He has no experience and has published no peer-reviewed science on any related topic in any related field.

Fact.

He has been discredited as being a "denier for hire", even suggesting to the people offering to hire him that his work would pretty much become worthless, if subjected to actual peer review. Thus, he offered a hand-picked list of deniers to review it. Which of course isd not actual peer review, but a complete scam.

fact.

When offered money, he suggested that the fee go to the "CO2 Coalition", so as not to overtly demonstrate that he gets paid directly for bullshit. Guess who gets paychecks from the CO2 Coalition, a foundation set up to get anonymous money from fossil fuel industry sources to do "independent research" (yet has never gotten a single article through a peer-reviewed journal)? You guessed it! Happer.

Fact.

yes, trump's next little lying bitch is a joke. Please don't tell me this is surprising to you.

Your opinion is not proof no matter how many times you say it. You are a liar.

 

[Old Rocks]

Same old bullshit. All flap yap, nothing at all to back up his false assertions. And this still says he is a liar.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2018_v6.jpg

 

[skookerasbil]

...............looking at old data on temperatures is nothing more than a science hobby. For moving forward, computer models are of no use in prediction of future temperatures. Which makes this whole forum nothing more than a place to banter about conjecture related to the climate, which of course is pretty cool and certainly a hoot in terms of entertainment.

 

[SSDD]

This guy explains why all these computer models don't work and how man made climate change is fake.


Climate models don't work.

Climate will change with or without C02 change.

Paid, discredited liar who has no experience in any climate field and has published no science on any related topic in any related field.

in other words, hero to all Trumpkins.

So what specifically did he say that you disagree with, and do you have any observed, measured, quantified evidence that empirically that he is wrong? Or is this just another of your logical fallacies which you are completely unable to support?

 

[miketx]

This guy explains why all these computer models don't work and how man made climate change is fake.


Climate models don't work.

Climate will change with or without C02 change.

Paid, discredited liar who has no experience in any climate field and has published no science on any related topic in any related field.

in other words, hero to all Trumpkins.

So what specifically did he say that you disagree with, and do you have any observed, measured, quantified evidence that empirically that he is wrong? Or is this just another of your logical fallacies which you are completely unable to support?

Pretending again huh?

 

[Old Rocks]

Talking about computer models hardly explains the melting cryosphere. Or the increase in temperature we have seen. It does not explain the rise in sea level. Or why we should continue to put GHGs into the air when it is cheaper to generate electricity by renewables.

 

[MaryL]

Well I AM over sixty, and I notice that the climate is changing. Climate does that. Warm, cold, rain, dry, seasonal this or that kind of changes. It does that. But I not talking about flukes . No, not that but overall. It has been getting dryer with more forest fires. Weird changes overall, more powerful storms than I remember, warmer winters, dryer longer summers. Shorter than usual but colder cold snaps. 7 billion people on this planet, and more pollution as well. Plastic trash islands the size of Texas floating in the pacific, stuff like that. We are doomed if we don't realize what the hell we are doing here...
.

 

[Old Rocks]

I am 74 years old. And my interest is geology. Therefore, I have been in the mountains a lot since I was 20 years old. And I have seen, decade by decade, the snows come later and melt earlier in the Cascades, Sierras, Rockies, and Blues. I have seen the glaciers recede in all those ranges. This is not computer models, this is actual observations.

As far as the computer models go, they have been wrong. What we have seen, that, as a whole, they have been far too conservative. The melt in the Arctic and Antarctic has been far greater than any predicted. The intensity of the hurricanes has exceeded predictions. The extreme weather events have exceeded predictions. The temperature rise in the atmosphere has not been as great, but the amount of energy absorbed by the ocean has been far greater. So we learn as we go, and add factors to the models. As I learned in statistics, models are not correct, but they are useful.

 

[miketx]

I am 74 years old. And my interest is geology. Therefore, I have been in the mountains a lot since I was 20 years old. And I have seen, decade by decade, the snows come later and melt earlier in the Cascades, Sierras, Rockies, and Blues. I have seen the glaciers recede in all those ranges. This is not computer models, this is actual observations.

As far as the computer models go, they have been wrong. What we have seen, that, as a whole, they have been far too conservative. The melt in the Arctic and Antarctic has been far greater than any predicted. The intensity of the hurricanes has exceeded predictions. The extreme weather events have exceeded predictions. The temperature rise in the atmosphere has not been as great, but the amount of energy absorbed by the ocean has been far greater. So we learn as we go, and add factors to the models. As I learned in statistics, models are not correct, but they are useful.

Maybe if you could live 3 or 4 thousand years you and the rest of the liars would realize it's normal.

 

[IanC]

Happer is a distinguished physicist. His views are supported by most but not all data. He has made discretionary decisions as to how much weight to give to different mechanisms and findings.

Hansen is a distinguished physicist. His views are supported by most but not all data. He has made discretionary decisions as to how much weight to give to different mechanisms and findings.

You have two distinguished and competent scientists that agree on most things but differ on a few other things. That is common in science.

Funding is heavily skewed to the consensus side of climate science. It is bad for your career to be linked to the skeptical side so few people openly align with that view.

Some here have openly denigrated Happer for taking money to write opinion pieces describing his views. Where is the denunciation of Hansen for doing the same thing? Hansen collected millions of dollars in outside money for his support of CAGW (arguably a criminal offence for a publically paid official) while Happer occasionally received less than 10,000 a pop for his writings.

Why is one man tainted but the other is not? I believe both to be honestly expressing their views. I think it is hypocrisy to question one man's motives while giving a free pass to the other even though the financial gain was tremendously tilted in one direction.

 

[Old Rocks]

Happer bases his critique on models. Hansen has shown, with his predictions from 1981 and later, to be quite correct in his science, even if the events he predicted occurred decades earlier than predicted. When you have people predicting events and being called alarmists, then the events occurring much earlier than predicted, I would say that their predictions may have been wrong in that manner, but they were hardly alarmists. In fact, they were too conservative.

My fears come from personal observations in the Western Mountians, and the observations of scientists in the world's mountain ranges and the Arctic and Antarctic. These are in real time, and showing a rapid warming with effects clearly visible and undesirable to our agriculture.