Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 22 Jul '09 02:10
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/835

    Fears of man-made global warming are “mistaken,” and far from suffering from too much carbon dioxide, as the daily headlines proclaim, our Earth is actually in the midst of a “CO2 famine.” So says Will Happer. Who is this heretic who dares to contradict Al Gore, Leonardo DiCapprio, the United Nations, and “scientific consensus”? He certainly can’t have any credibility on this issue if he’s not even a rock star or a Hollywood celebrity, right?

    No, Dr. Will Happer is not a celebrity. He is merely a physicist of considerable renown who happens to agree with many of the world’s other leading scientists that the current panic over climate change is a lot of “hysterics about carbon footprints.” Dr. Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton University, testified before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on February 25. He told them:

    Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) — 280 (parts per million - ppm) — that’s unheard of. Most of the time [CO2 levels] have been at least 1,000 (ppm) and it’s been quite higher than that,” Happer told the Senate Committee.

    “Earth was just fine in those times,” Prof. Happer noted. “The oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So it’s baffling to me that we’re so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started,” Happer explained. Happer also noted that “the number of [skeptical scientists] with the courage to speak out is growing” and he warned “children should not be force-fed propaganda, masquerading as science.”

    Global-warming alarmists are pushing for incredibly wasteful and expensive “carbon sequestration” and carbon “cap and trade” schemes that will have virtually no impact on global CO2 levels or global temperatures. But rising CO2 levels shouldn’t be worrying us anyway.

    “I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind,” Happer told the committee. He cited the well-known evidence from other researchers that increasing CO2 levels will greatly benefit crop yields, meaning more food for the world’s people and animals. Dr. Sherwood Idso and other scientists have published extensively on the numerous benefits to be derived from increasing CO2 levels: more robust forest and vegetation growth, greater plant resistance to stress, greater drought resistance, reclaiming of deserts and barren lands.

    “What about the frightening consequences of increasing levels of CO2 that we keep hearing about?” Dr. Happer asked rhetorically. “In a word, they are wildly exaggerated, just as the purported benefits of prohibition were wildly exaggerated,” he answered. “At least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player,” he explained. “But the climate is warming and CO2 is increasing. Doesn’t this prove that CO2 is causing global warming through the greenhouse effect? No, the current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO2. There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. These earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels. The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide. Over the past ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling. This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC models."

    Professor Happer is a former director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy. He has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences. Prof. Happer has joined the more than 650 distinguished scientists from around the globe who have provided statements challenging the alleged “scientific consensus” frequently sited in support of human-caused, or anthropogenic global warming. Those statements are available in a 231-page report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

    These scientists represent more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report for policymakers. But the AGW “scientific consensus” fraud becomes even more ludicrous when the results of the Global Warming Petition Project are factored in, since more than 31,000 American scientists have signed onto the document urging “the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”
  2. 22 Jul '09 02:53
    Originally posted by voltaire
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/835

    Fears of man-made global warming are “mistaken,” and far from suffering from too much carbon dioxide, as the daily headlines proclaim, our Earth is actually in the midst of a “CO2 famine.” So says Will Happer. Who is this heretic who dares to contradict Al Gore, Leonardo DiCapprio, the United ...[text shortened]... t, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”
    Heck, all that science and stuff. Just look at Al Gores face, he will lie to ya.
  3. 22 Jul '09 06:24
    So this Harper chap does not actually deny global warming, he doesn't deny that the CO2 is increasing, he merely claims that it has happened before.

    What I don't see is any mention of rising sea levels. I am sure that we can all live just fine with higher sea levels, we just cant live in any of the coastal cities
  4. 22 Jul '09 08:36 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by voltaire
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/835

    Fears of man-made global warming are “mistaken,” and far from suffering from too much carbon dioxide, as the daily headlines proclaim, our Earth is actually in the midst of a “CO2 famine.” So says Will Happer. Who is this heretic who dares to contradict Al Gore, Leonardo DiCapprio, the United t, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”
    The phrase “CO2 famine” seems to me to be used to imply here that, in some sense, we have “too little” CO2 at the current time -a totally absurd implied suggestion!
    We definitely would be better off with having LESS CO2 in the atmosphere in the next few decades!
  5. 22 Jul '09 10:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by voltaire
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/835

    Fears of man-made global warming are “mistaken,” and far from suffering from too much carbon dioxide, as the daily headlines proclaim, our Earth is actually in the midst of a “CO2 famine.” So says Will Happer. Who is this heretic who dares to contradict Al Gore, Leonardo DiCapprio, the United t, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”
    Its not about global warming, its about control over the populace via can and trade. If they really cared about our carbon foot print, we would have more nuclear power plants that are carbon free energy sources and those who make such legislation would not be heating and cooling 5-6 mansions at a time and leading a jet set lifestyle. In fact, Nancy Pelosi, who is the biggest proponent of cap and trade, flys back to Califormia every week end. Did you know that such a trip is about equivalent to someone driving their SUV for about a years time?

    Peaople like Happer have an inconvienent truth to tell Congress, inconvienent for them that is. That is the way I look at it and I'm sure they will dutifully ignore him altogether. No doubt, he will be labeled a right winger wack job and discarded.
  6. Standard member caissad4
    Child of the Novelty
    22 Jul '09 11:08
    And the ice core samples which show that our CO2 levels are at their highest levels in 175,000 years ? Did this scientist have some type of secret knowledge about earlier CO2 levels and their effect ? Where is the great dramatic increase in crop yields since we know that CO2 and temps started increasing over 50 years ago ? What is next ?? Will some scientist tell us that methane gas is actually good for us? Probably, and then foolish people will believe that too.
  7. 22 Jul '09 11:11
    Originally posted by whodey
    Its not about global warming, its about control over the populace via can and trade.
    You could well be right that the whole cap and trade system has little to do with global warming. However I don't get how the cap and trade system provides anyone with control over the populace.
    Nor do I think it is in any way relevant to the question of whether global warming is actually taking place or whether we should do something about it.
  8. Standard member caissad4
    Child of the Novelty
    22 Jul '09 11:14
    Originally posted by voltaire
    [b]http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/835
    The New American is the magazine of the John Birch Society.
    More wonderful propaganda from a Neo-Nazi organization.
  9. 22 Jul '09 11:18
    Originally posted by caissad4
    And the ice core samples which show that our CO2 levels are at their highest levels in 175,000 years ? Did this scientist have some type of secret knowledge about earlier CO2 levels and their effect ?
    I think the scientist is actually correct that CO2 levels have been much higher in the distant past. However, there were different plants and animals - and sea levels etc at that time. The conclusion that because they survived we will be just fine is totally unfounded. Generally we could survive in a very wide range of situations, but change in general is difficult and expensive to deal with. For example if sea levels rise, we could say "Well New York was fine on the coast, we just move it back 50km and it will still be on the coast and will be just fine". Who is going to move it?
  10. 03 Aug '09 19:30 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    So this Harper chap does not actually deny global warming, he doesn't deny that the CO2 is increasing, he merely claims that it has happened before.

    What I don't see is any mention of rising sea levels. I am sure that we can all live just fine with higher sea levels, we just cant live in any of the coastal cities
    If the seas suddenly rose in one year, and completely flooded out all the coastal cities, that would be a catastrophic problem. But it seems like this is what the assumption is.

    But let's suppose that all of this was to happen over 100 years? (still a very brief period of time geologically). The process would happen very gradually, giving people plenty of time to relocate further inland or to build gigantic walls, or whatever.

    Actually, even if it all happened steadily over a 5 year period, it would be disruptive, but we'd probably handle it a lot better than most people think. Europe was decimated by World War II and managed to effectively rebuild within a relatively short period of time.
  11. 03 Aug '09 23:05
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    If the seas suddenly rose in one year, and completely flooded out all the coastal cities, that would be a catastrophic problem. But it seems like this is what the assumption is.

    But let's suppose that all of this was to happen over 100 years? (still a very brief period of time geologically). The process would happen very gradually, giving people plenty ...[text shortened]... d by World War II and managed to effectively rebuild within a relatively short period of time.
    But Al Gore wants his money now!
  12. 04 Aug '09 15:16
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    But Al Gore wants his money now!
    I know I know -- the man invented the Internet and no one's paid him anything for using it.

    The whole debate on global warming would be best served if Gore was to focus on something else like coming up with a good sequel to Love Story.