Interview with Prof. William Happer – Climate Scare Is Based on Lies

[Samofvt]

In the 1990's, the theory of carbon dioxide induced global climate change was totally debunked. Some of the theories floating around then predicted"greenhouse gasses" would cool the earth's temperature. Some predicted they would warm the earth. A true scientific analysis of any of them show there is no factual, observable basis for suspecting that this phenomenon has a significant impact on Earths climate.

Prof. William Happer does a fantastic job describing the current situation:

EXCLUSIVE: Interview with Prof. William Happer – Climate Scare Is Based on Lies

“There is really no threat from increasing CO2 or any of the other minor greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It’s all a made-up scare story.”

www.freedom-research.org

 

[itfitzme]

In the 1990's, the theory of carbon dioxide induced global climate change was totally debunked. Some of the theories floating around then predicted"greenhouse gasses" would cool the earth's temperature. Some predicted they would warm the earth. A true scientific analysis of any of them show there is no factual, observable basis for suspecting that this phenomenon has a significant impact on Earths climate.

Prof. William Happer does a fantastic job describing the current situation:

EXCLUSIVE: Interview with Prof. William Happer – Climate Scare Is Based on Lies

“There is really no threat from increasing CO2 or any of the other minor greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It’s all a made-up scare story.”

www.freedom-research.org

False. The science supporting CO2's effect on rising atmospheric temperature is solid. I don't know who Happer is and I don't care because I understand the science well enough that it doesn't matter what he believes. Scientific evidence stands on it's own. The effect of anthropogenic air and sea surface temperature increase from the burning of fossil fuels is uncontestable.

 

[Billiejeens]

No intelligent person takes man made climate change as a serious thing.

 

[toobfreak]

No intelligent person takes man made climate change as a serious thing.

"Normal" CO2 was about 1/3000th of the atmosphere. CO2 is currently about 1/2500th.
If CO2 were so powerful and volatile an element that so small a change in a trace gas could make the difference between a happy, normal planet and "hell on earth doomsday," then, life never would have survived to make to the Holocene.

 

[sparky]

The effect of anthropogenic air and sea surface temperature increase from the burning of fossil fuels is uncontestable.

~S~

 

[Samofvt]

False. The science supporting CO2's effect on rising atmospheric temperature is solid. I don't know who Happer is and I don't care because I understand the science well enough that it doesn't matter what he believes. Scientific evidence stands on it's own. The effect of anthropogenic air and sea surface temperature increase from the burning of fossil fuels is uncontestable.

Could you please provide some links or sources for your "solid" support?

 

[Samofvt]

False. The science supporting CO2's effect on rising atmospheric temperature is solid. I don't know who Happer is and I don't care because I understand the science well enough that it doesn't matter what he believes. Scientific evidence stands on it's own. The effect of anthropogenic air and sea surface temperature increase from the burning of fossil fuels is uncontestable.

itfitzme : I am curious to see the sources of the "Scientific evidence" you claim to have found. If there is a "crisis," it stands to reason that the observations must withstand scrutiny and be easily repeatable.

You see, I've been researching this topic for a long time, both as an undergraduate student of Environmental Engineering and Science and recently as an adult. I have found no evidence supporting the hypothesis.

Perhaps you have found something credible that the rest of us have not?

For example, where did you get the chart you are using for your profile picture here? I can not read any source information. Also, I can not determine what units are on the abscissa axis. Your chart seems to imply a correlation between CO2 and temperature. Even if the chart were accurate, correlation does not equal causation. That chart is not evidence, although it is interesting. There are better explanations for the correlation between CO2 and temperature, such as the well-known chemical equilibria between CO2 and H2O. This reaction is very temperature-sensitive:

 

[ReinyDays]

In the 1990's, the theory of carbon dioxide induced global climate change was totally debunked. Some of the theories floating around then predicted"greenhouse gasses" would cool the earth's temperature. Some predicted they would warm the earth. A true scientific analysis of any of them show there is no factual, observable basis for suspecting that this phenomenon has a significant impact on Earths climate.

Prof. William Happer does a fantastic job describing the current situation:

EXCLUSIVE: Interview with Prof. William Happer – Climate Scare Is Based on Lies

“There is really no threat from increasing CO2 or any of the other minor greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It’s all a made-up scare story.”

www.freedom-research.org

The article doesn't actually disprove anything ... all it does is point out the Dr. Happer's qualification to speak about sub-atomic physics ... but not meteorology ... classic case of the fallacy "appealing to authority" ...you kids today fall for that gimmick every time ...

You said there's no basis for suspecting this phenomenon ... in that you are completely wrong ... shine a light on a clear bottle of air and one of carbon dioxide ... see the temperature difference ... there, very good reason to suspect CO2 effects temperature ...

Proof is a completely different kittle of fish ... It seems you've never taken a science class? ... just curious is all ...

 

[Samofvt]

The article doesn't actually disprove anything ... all it does is point out the Dr. Happer's qualification to speak about sub-atomic physics ... but not meteorology ... classic case of the fallacy "appealing to authority" ...you kids today fall for that gimmick every time ...

You said there's no basis for suspecting this phenomenon ... in that you are completely wrong ... shine a light on a clear bottle of air and one of carbon dioxide ... see the temperature difference ... there, very good reason to suspect CO2 effects temperature ...

Proof is a completely different kittle of fish ... It seems you've never taken a science class? ... just curious is all ...

What is your native language, ReinyDays ? It is certainly not plain English.

I am not a "kid," for starters.

Little of what you say bears any truth: "Proof is a completely different kittel of fish" [sic]

What is proof? We can ascertain the basis of our truth through mathematics. At the foundation, the very starting point, of our foundation of understanding of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Reality, and TRUTH, lies this fact:

1 + 1 = 2

From this fact, we can derive all things knowable.

1 + 1 does NOT equal 3. It does not equal 1. The fact of this matter can be observed by anyone who cares to investigate it. It has become so incredibly accepted and irrefutable that it is accepted as a FACT. Can we agree that 1 + 1 = 2? It is a simple matter of counting:

A + A = 2A

If you can count the number of 'A's on the left if the '=' sign and agree that there are 2 (two) of them, then we can do business.

If you disagree, then we can no longer do business together. I am very sorry about that. You will lose in the end.

It is not rocket science, buddy. It's more like Grade School common sense.

 

[westwall]

False. The science supporting CO2's effect on rising atmospheric temperature is solid. I don't know who Happer is and I don't care because I understand the science well enough that it doesn't matter what he believes. Scientific evidence stands on it's own. The effect of anthropogenic air and sea surface temperature increase from the burning of fossil fuels is uncontestable.

No, it isn't. Longwave IR is incapable of penetrating the skin of water, thus it is incapable of heating the oceans, which are what regulate the global temperature.

 

[ReinyDays]

What is your native language, ReinyDays ? It is certainly not plain English.

I am not a "kid," for starters.

Little of what you say bears any truth: "Proof is a completely different kittel of fish" [sic]

What is proof? We can ascertain the basis of our truth through mathematics. At the foundation, the very starting point, of our foundation of understanding of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Reality, and TRUTH, lies this fact:

1 + 1 = 2

From this fact, we can derive all things knowable.

1 + 1 does NOT equal 3. It does not equal 1. The fact of this matter can be observed by anyone who cares to investigate it. It has become so incredibly accepted and irrefutable that it is accepted as a FACT. Can we agree that 1 + 1 = 2? It is a simple matter of counting:

A + A = 2A

If you can count the number of 'A's on the left if the '=' sign and agree that there are 2 (two) of them, then we can do business.

If you disagree, then we can no longer do business together. I am very sorry about that. You will lose in the end.

It is not rocket science, buddy. It's more like Grade School common sense.

Keep following that mathematical train of logic and you'll find Stefen-Boltzmann's Law ... Irradiation is proportional to Temperature to the fourth power ...

Have you taken a science class? ... are you familiar with how fourth power functions behave? ...

 

[Captain Caveman]

False. The science supporting CO2's effect on rising atmospheric temperature is solid. I don't know who Happer is and I don't care because I understand the science well enough that it doesn't matter what he believes. Scientific evidence stands on it's own. The effect of anthropogenic air and sea surface temperature increase from the burning of fossil fuels is uncontestable.

Your statement doesn't match science -

Ignore the circle part, the graph was used in an article relevant to the contents of the circle.

So if you follow the co2 and temperature levels, why don't they follow your statement? It's because your statement is wrong.