Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Exxon-Funded Physicist William Happer Fulfills Godwin's Law

  1. #1
    Senior Member DiabloViejo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    13,375

    Exxon-Funded Physicist William Happer Fulfills Godwin's Law

    CNBC's Climate "Expert": "Demonization Of Carbon Dioxide Is Just Like" Demonization Of "Jews Under Hitler"

    Exxon-Funded Physicist William Happer Fulfills Godwin's Law

    Shauna Theel
    Media Matters for America
    07/15/2014
    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07...bon-dio/200107





    The cable business channel CNBC continued to push climate change denial on its network, hosting a professor who compared the "demonization" of carbon dioxide to the Holocaust.

    Physics Professor William Happer has published no peer-reviewed research on climate change, yet co-host Joe Kernen introduced him as an "industry expert" on the July 14 edition of Squawk Box. After a softball interview with Kernen, co-host Andrew Ross Sorkin challenged Happer for "not believ[ing] in climate change" -- to which Happer responded by telling Sorkin to "shut up." Sorkin then asked Happer about comments he made to The Daily Princetonian in 2009 comparing climate science to Nazi propaganda. Happer doubled down on his comments, stating that "the demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler. Carbon dioxide is actually a benefit to the world, and so were the Jews."

    Video: http://mediamatters.org/embed/static...14-happernazis

    Sorkin also noted that Happer, who has suggested that people should be "clamoring for more atmospheric carbon dioxide," is the chairman of the Marshall Institute, which received $865,000 from ExxonMobil from 1998 to 2011.

    While Sorkin's pushback was admirable, it's difficult to determine what benefit CNBC is giving its business viewers by once again hosting Happer to push climate denial, especially as it's becoming clear that unchecked climate change is inherently an economic issue that provides serious risks to businesses. A 2013 Media Matters report found that 51 percent of CNBC's climate change coverage cast doubt on the basic fact that the Earth is warming and that the majority of recent warming is manmade, contrary to a consensus of 97 percent of scientists. The channel recently came under fire for soliciting a story about "global warming being a hoax."

    CNBC might also be able to find a few scientists who question whether HIV causes AIDS, whether second hand smoke is dangerous, or whether vaccines cause autism -- as all three have a few contrarian "experts" supporting their cause -- but it wouldn't be responsible to give them a platform.
    If there is a dangerous forum ... that's the one. -- LWW (referring to BD NPR)

    First off ... nothing will stop ass killings entirely. -- LWW (AKA Vladimir Ulyanov, AKA WV Slim, AKA MrsLWW, .....)


  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Primary residence is suburban Detroit but have a flat in London and Moscow.
    Posts
    530
    Why would you want to exterminate plant life?

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,830
    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2...eenhouse-gases


    "............Let me summarize how the key issues appear to me, a working scientist with a better background than most in the physics of climate. CO2 really is a greenhouse gas and other things being equal, adding the gas to the atmosphere by burning coal, oil, and natural gas will modestly increase the surface temperature of the earth. Other things being equal, doubling the CO2 concentration, from our current 390 ppm to 780 ppm will directly cause about 1 degree Celsius in warming. At the current rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere”about 2 ppm per year”it would take about 195 years to achieve this doubling. The combination of a slightly warmer earth and more CO2 will greatly increase the production of food, wood, fiber, and other products by green plants, so the increase will be good for the planet, and will easily outweigh any negative effects. Supposed calamities like the accelerated rise of sea level, ocean acidification, more extreme climate, tropical diseases near the poles, and so on are greatly exaggerated.

    “Mitigation” and control efforts that have been proposed will enrich a favored few with good political ties”at the expense of the great majority of mankind, including especially the poor and the citizens of developing nations. These efforts will make almost no change in earth’s temperature. Spain’s recent experiment with green energy destroyed several pre-existing jobs for every green job it created, and it nearly brought the country to bankruptcy.

    The frightening warnings that alarmists offer about the effects of doubling CO2 are based on computer models that assume that the direct warming effect of CO2 is multiplied by a large “feedback factor” from CO2-induced changes in water vapor and clouds, which supposedly contribute much more to the greenhouse warming of the earth than CO2. But there is observational evidence that the feedback factor is small and may even be negative. The models are not in good agreement with observations”even if they appear to fit the temperature rise over the last 150 years very well.

    Indeed, the computer programs that produce climate change models have been “tuned” to get the desired answer. The values of various parameters like clouds and the concentrations of anthropogenic aerosols are adjusted to get the best fit to observations. And”perhaps partly because of that”they have been unsuccessful in predicting future climate, even over periods as short as fifteen years. In fact, the real values of most parameters, and the physics of how they affect the earth’s climate, are in most cases only roughly known, too roughly to supply accurate enough data for computer predictions. In my judgment, and in that of many other scientists familiar with the issues, the main problem with models has been their treatment of clouds, changes of which probably have a much bigger effect on the temperature of the earth than changing levels of CO2.

    What, besides the bias toward a particular result, is wrong with the science? Scientific progress proceeds by the interplay of theory and observation. Theory explains observations and makes predictions about what will be observed in the future. Observations anchor our understanding and weed out the theories that don’t work. This has been the scientific method for more than three hundred years. Recently, the advent of the computer has made possible another branch of inquiry: computer simulation models. Properly used, computer models can enhance and speed up scientific progress. But they are not meant to replace theory and observation and to serve as an authority of their own. We know they fail in economics. All of the proposed controls that would have such a significant impact on the world’s economic future are based on computer models that are so complex and chaotic that many runs are needed before we can get an “average” answer. Yet the models have failed the simple scientific test of prediction. We don’t even have a theory for how accurate the models should be.

    There are many honest, hardworking climate scientists who are trying to understand the effects of CO2 on climate, but their work has fallen under suspicion because of the hockey-stick scandal and many other exaggerations about the dangers of increasing CO2. What has transformed climate science from a normal intellectual discipline to a matter of so much controversy?

    A major problem has been the co-opting of climate science by politics, ambition, greed, and what seems to be a hereditary human need for a righteous cause. What better cause than saving the planet? Especially if one can get ample, secure funding at the same time? Huge amounts of money are available from governments and wealthy foundations for climate institutes and for climate-related research.

    Funding for climate studies is second only to funding for biological sciences. Large academic empires, prizes, elections to honorary societies, fellowships, and other perquisites go to those researchers whose results may help “save the planet.” Every day we read about some real or contrived environmental or ecological effect “proven” to arise from global warming. The total of such claimed effects now runs in the hundreds, all the alleged result of an unexceptional century-long warming of less than 1 degree Celsius. Government subsidies, loan guarantees, and captive customers go to green companies. Carbon-tax revenues flow to governments. As the great Russian poet Pushkin said in his novella Dubrovsky , “If there happens to be a trough, there will be pigs.” Any doubt about apocalyptic climate scenarios could remove many troughs.

    What about those who doubt the scientific basis of these claims, or who simply don’t like what is being done to the scientific method they were taught to apply and uphold? Publications of contrary research results in mainstream journals are rare. The occasional heretical article is the result of an inevitable, protracted battle with those who support the dogma and who have their hands on the scales of peer review. As mentioned above, we know from the Climategate emails that the team conspired to prevent contrary publications from seeing the light of day and even discussed getting rid of an editor who seemed to be inclined to admit such contentious material.

    Skeptics’ motives are publicly impugned; denigrating names are used routinely in media reports and the blogosphere; and we now see attempts to use the same tactics that Big Brother applied to the skeptical hero, Winston Smith, in Orwell’s 1984 . In 2009 a conference of “ecopsychologists” was held at the University of West England to discuss the obvious psychological problems resident in those who do not adhere to the global warming dogma. The premise of these psychologists was that scientists and members of the general population who express objective doubt about the propagated view of global warming are suffering from a kind of mental illness. We know from the Soviet experience that a society can find it easy to consider dissidents to be mentally deranged and act accordingly..................."

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,830
    Happer lies by telling the truth, the uzual ploy for skeptix. Yet hiz main theme iz re lies (ussr, hitler, orwell, etc).
    Az he says, peer review iz broken. Az he says most of science iz broken. I kan add that the nuclear atom iz rubbish -- Cosmic microwave background iz rubbish -- the bigbang -- Blackholes -- all of Frankeinstein's relativitys.

    I woz hoping that Happer wrote some interesting stuff about greenhouse modelling of CO2 etc, hiz most likely area of possible experteez. He wrote a little, not much. And unfortunately what he wrote iz spoiled by the uzual skeptik krapp that he wrote (az i sayd).
    Re the article, i giv Happer....
    1 star for science.
    2 stars for greenhouse modelling.
    0 stars for logik.
    0 stars for ekonomix.
    Total -- 3 stars from possible 20.
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 07-15-2014 at 05:48 PM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member DiabloViejo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    13,375
    If 97 out of 100 doctors said that you have a serious illness and need immediate treatment, and the other three doctors said you didn't, would you still go with the opinion of the three and disregard the rest?

    "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."


    Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
    Last edited by DiabloViejo; 07-16-2014 at 12:29 AM.
    If there is a dangerous forum ... that's the one. -- LWW (referring to BD NPR)

    First off ... nothing will stop ass killings entirely. -- LWW (AKA Vladimir Ulyanov, AKA WV Slim, AKA MrsLWW, .....)


  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,830
    Yes the worry iz that AGW might be true.
    But nonetheless i reckon that prezent modelling of greenhouse gases especially CO2 will in time be shown to be bad science.
    mac.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,830
    Not forgetting that 97% of so-called scientists beleev in frankeinstein's relativitys, higgs, CMB, Dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, big bang, black holes, expanding universe, nuclear atom, 11 dimensions, blackbody radiation, gaseous sun, etc etc. All 100% wrong.

    And i suspekt that quacks are uzing blackbody radiation for the CO2 greenhouse modelling. Robitaille iz shocked by this sort of stupidity.
    But with a bit of luck we might make good decisions despite sick science.
    mac.

    I sayd stupidity. Not really, lies, not stupidity.
    All this will kum out very soon. Aktually, it haz allready kum out. Just haznt hit the mainstream press.

    Nearly forgot -- gravitational waves -- HHHHAAAAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHA HAHHAHAHAHAHAHHHHAHAHHAHAHAHHHHHHAAAA
    99.9% of scientists beleev in gravitational waves --
    HHHHHAAAAAAHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHHHAAAAAA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 07-16-2014 at 07:45 AM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Primary residence is suburban Detroit but have a flat in London and Moscow.
    Posts
    530
    Thank you for a breath of sanity. In Russia we laugh at foolish westerners who live in fear of what is good for them.

    Quote Originally Posted by cushioncrawler View Post
    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2...eenhouse-gases


    "............Let me summarize how the key issues appear to me, a working scientist with a better background than most in the physics of climate. CO2 really is a greenhouse gas and other things being equal, adding the gas to the atmosphere by burning coal, oil, and natural gas will modestly increase the surface temperature of the earth. Other things being equal, doubling the CO2 concentration, from our current 390 ppm to 780 ppm will directly cause about 1 degree Celsius in warming. At the current rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere”about 2 ppm per year”it would take about 195 years to achieve this doubling. The combination of a slightly warmer earth and more CO2 will greatly increase the production of food, wood, fiber, and other products by green plants, so the increase will be good for the planet, and will easily outweigh any negative effects. Supposed calamities like the accelerated rise of sea level, ocean acidification, more extreme climate, tropical diseases near the poles, and so on are greatly exaggerated.

    “Mitigation” and control efforts that have been proposed will enrich a favored few with good political ties”at the expense of the great majority of mankind, including especially the poor and the citizens of developing nations. These efforts will make almost no change in earth’s temperature. Spain’s recent experiment with green energy destroyed several pre-existing jobs for every green job it created, and it nearly brought the country to bankruptcy.

    The frightening warnings that alarmists offer about the effects of doubling CO2 are based on computer models that assume that the direct warming effect of CO2 is multiplied by a large “feedback factor” from CO2-induced changes in water vapor and clouds, which supposedly contribute much more to the greenhouse warming of the earth than CO2. But there is observational evidence that the feedback factor is small and may even be negative. The models are not in good agreement with observations”even if they appear to fit the temperature rise over the last 150 years very well.

    Indeed, the computer programs that produce climate change models have been “tuned” to get the desired answer. The values of various parameters like clouds and the concentrations of anthropogenic aerosols are adjusted to get the best fit to observations. And”perhaps partly because of that”they have been unsuccessful in predicting future climate, even over periods as short as fifteen years. In fact, the real values of most parameters, and the physics of how they affect the earth’s climate, are in most cases only roughly known, too roughly to supply accurate enough data for computer predictions. In my judgment, and in that of many other scientists familiar with the issues, the main problem with models has been their treatment of clouds, changes of which probably have a much bigger effect on the temperature of the earth than changing levels of CO2.

    What, besides the bias toward a particular result, is wrong with the science? Scientific progress proceeds by the interplay of theory and observation. Theory explains observations and makes predictions about what will be observed in the future. Observations anchor our understanding and weed out the theories that don’t work. This has been the scientific method for more than three hundred years. Recently, the advent of the computer has made possible another branch of inquiry: computer simulation models. Properly used, computer models can enhance and speed up scientific progress. But they are not meant to replace theory and observation and to serve as an authority of their own. We know they fail in economics. All of the proposed controls that would have such a significant impact on the world’s economic future are based on computer models that are so complex and chaotic that many runs are needed before we can get an “average” answer. Yet the models have failed the simple scientific test of prediction. We don’t even have a theory for how accurate the models should be.

    There are many honest, hardworking climate scientists who are trying to understand the effects of CO2 on climate, but their work has fallen under suspicion because of the hockey-stick scandal and many other exaggerations about the dangers of increasing CO2. What has transformed climate science from a normal intellectual discipline to a matter of so much controversy?

    A major problem has been the co-opting of climate science by politics, ambition, greed, and what seems to be a hereditary human need for a righteous cause. What better cause than saving the planet? Especially if one can get ample, secure funding at the same time? Huge amounts of money are available from governments and wealthy foundations for climate institutes and for climate-related research.

    Funding for climate studies is second only to funding for biological sciences. Large academic empires, prizes, elections to honorary societies, fellowships, and other perquisites go to those researchers whose results may help “save the planet.” Every day we read about some real or contrived environmental or ecological effect “proven” to arise from global warming. The total of such claimed effects now runs in the hundreds, all the alleged result of an unexceptional century-long warming of less than 1 degree Celsius. Government subsidies, loan guarantees, and captive customers go to green companies. Carbon-tax revenues flow to governments. As the great Russian poet Pushkin said in his novella Dubrovsky , “If there happens to be a trough, there will be pigs.” Any doubt about apocalyptic climate scenarios could remove many troughs.

    What about those who doubt the scientific basis of these claims, or who simply don’t like what is being done to the scientific method they were taught to apply and uphold? Publications of contrary research results in mainstream journals are rare. The occasional heretical article is the result of an inevitable, protracted battle with those who support the dogma and who have their hands on the scales of peer review. As mentioned above, we know from the Climategate emails that the team conspired to prevent contrary publications from seeing the light of day and even discussed getting rid of an editor who seemed to be inclined to admit such contentious material.

    Skeptics’ motives are publicly impugned; denigrating names are used routinely in media reports and the blogosphere; and we now see attempts to use the same tactics that Big Brother applied to the skeptical hero, Winston Smith, in Orwell’s 1984 . In 2009 a conference of “ecopsychologists” was held at the University of West England to discuss the obvious psychological problems resident in those who do not adhere to the global warming dogma. The premise of these psychologists was that scientists and members of the general population who express objective doubt about the propagated view of global warming are suffering from a kind of mental illness. We know from the Soviet experience that a society can find it easy to consider dissidents to be mentally deranged and act accordingly..................."

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,830
    The year, 1962. The experiment, the radar tracking of venus, uzing 3 radar sites on earth (one in ussr). The first high tech proof of frankeinstein's special theory of relativity, that radar travels at c, allways. The rezults, what rezults, aint no rezults here, hav u seen the rezults, no i havnt seen the rezults, hav u got them, no, there are some rumors of rezults that show c + v, obviously a mistake, best forget it, ignore it, and just lie, and when we get to looking at global warming we kan swear that 97% of us know what we are talking about and aint liars.
    mac.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,830
    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Ulyanov View Post
    Thank you for a breath of sanity. In Russia we laugh at foolish westerners who live in fear of what is good for them.
    Russians would hav been better off if Hitler had won. And the whole world.
    What a mess we hav now. Yes, Adolf would hav fixed things.
    mac.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •