• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

In Perspective, Planet: Loss of Billions of Birds in North America!

James Lemon

Well-known member
It seems that Wikipedia is of that opinion indeed. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer:

In 2018, Happer, who is not a climate scientist and who rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, joined the National Security Council of the Trump Administration to counter evidence linking carbon dioxide emissions to global warming.

Happer disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change, stating that "Some small fraction of the 1 °C warming during the past two centuries must have been due to increasing CO2, which is indeed a greenhouse gas", but argues that "most of the warming has probably been due to natural causes." Michael Oppenheimer said that Happer’s claims are "simply not true" and that the preponderance of evidence and majority of expert opinion points to a strong anthropogenic influence on rising global temperatures. Climate Science Watch published a point-by-point rebuttal to one of Happer’s articles. A petition that he coauthored to change the official position of the American Physical Society to a version that raised doubts about global warming was overwhelmingly rejected by the APS Council. Happer has no formal training as a climate scientist.


In May 2013, Happer and Harrison Schmitt published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, "In Defense of Carbon Dioxide," in which they termed elevated atmospheric CO2 "a boon to plant life." It was described by Ryan Chittum, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, in the Columbia Journalism Review as "shameful, even for the dismal standards" of the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

As to the article from "The best schools .org", it is disingenuous. Which brings us back to the discussion about "authoritative figures" started by Tom: Harper was chosen because he is perceived as an authoritative figure" by the public, because of is experience as a physicist, but his opinions on climate change make little scientific sense, as the article you cited illustrates. Chances are, however, that readers attach authority to the writer and forget to exercise their common sense when reading the article.
So you are saying that a reporter from the Wall Street Journal has more credibility than a world renowned scientist? Ryan Chittum is not a card carrying card member of the climate brigade either? Yet you reference his writing as if he were a scientific authoritative figure. Common sense should tell anyone that a warmer climate has more benefits than a colder climate especially at 200-ppm or 100-ppm C02. Would Michael Oppenheimer and Ryan Chittum have jobs if they did not tow the line with consensus and end up driving for Uber?

James
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Oh but of course Asher. You can dismiss William Happer as a shill for the oil industry or whatever but you would be foolish to dismiss his knowledge about C02.

Sea levels have been rising for 12,000 years. Government policy will not stop the ocean currents, clouds, sun, or the rotation of earth.

James
We have far better sources for our knowledge of CO2. We don’t depend on his pice, nor excludecit!

....and why make such an absurd statement:

“Government policy will not stop the ocean currents, clouds, sun, or the rotation of earth.”

It presumes a claim that no one is making, LOL!

It’s like the Catholic Church protecting us from a non existent devil: only works for those who believe in magic, wizards, spells and such.

You get no points for saying the government cannot command the waters to recede!

Asher
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
We have far better sources for our knowledge of CO2. We don’t depend on his pice, nor excludecit!

....and why make such an absurd statement:

“Government policy will not stop the ocean currents, clouds, sun, or the rotation of earth.”

It presumes a claim that no one is making, LOL!

It’s like the Catholic Church protecting us from a non existent devil: only works for those who believe in magic, wizards, spells and such.

You get no points for saying the government cannot command the waters to recede!

Asher
Asher

Why would any one makes absurd statements, about water levels, temperatures, sunshine, a 100 years from now or 50,30,20,10,5 or next year? They will be wrong! For all anyone knows they will be drilling more fossil fuels and mining the Antarctic 30 years from now. Using solar powered hovercraft for transportation and hot air balloons to drop of modules,equipment etc.

James
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Asher

Why would any one makes absurd statements, about water levels, temperatures, sunshine, a 100 years from now or 50,30,20,10,5 or next year? They will be wrong! For all anyone knows they will be drilling more fossil fuels and mining the Antarctic 30 years from now.

James
Again a smooth mistruth is assumed!

The range of possibilities projected are smart hypotheses, not statements of fact, LOL!

We are not dealing with an order for 20 miles of pipeline. That would be a fact.

Rather, from here, judging by the reference to people in the picture in the foreground, the separation between those two mountains could be 20 or so miles! That is an estimate based on an observation but fraught with need for more data!

Learn the difference!

We only have to deal with present facts and then with a range of future possibilities each with some probability of being either true or false!

Asher
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
Again a smooth mistruth is assumed!

The range of possibilities projected are smart hypotheses, not statements of fact, LOL!

We are not dealing with an order for 20 miles of pipeline. That would be a fact.

Rather, from here, judging by the reference to people in the picture in the foreground, the separation between those two mountains could be 20 or so miles! That is an estimate based on an observation but fraught with need for more data!

Learn the difference!

We only have to deal with present facts and then with a range of future possibilities each with some probability of being either true or false!

Asher
Asher

More than one thousand scientists disagree that human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change.
In 2010 Climate Depot released a report featuring more than 1,000 scientists, several of them former UN IPCC scientists, who disagreed that humans are primarily responsible for global climate change. [55] The Cook review [1] of 11,944 peer-reviewed studies found 66.4% of the studies had no stated position on anthropogenic global warming, and while 32.6% of the studies implied or stated that humans are contributing to climate change, only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly stated "that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming." [54] A 2012 Purdue University survey found that 47% of climatologists challenge the idea that humans are primarily responsible for climate change and instead believe that climate change is caused by an equal combination of humans and the environment (37%), mostly by the environment (5%), or that there’s not enough information to say (5%). [173] In 2014 a group of 15 scientists dismissed the US National Climate Assessment as a "masterpiece of marketing," that was "grossly flawed," and called the NCA’s assertion of human-caused climate change "NOT true." [56]
 
Last edited:
I've been following this technical and philosophic exchange with interest and delight. The carbon dioxide debate reminded me of a personal experience.

In the late 1960s an experiment was run in the glasshouses next to the Heartley Teakle building at the University of Queensland. The object was to discover the ultimate limits of plant growth. Sugar cane was supplied with all the water it could drink, all the fertilizer it could eat, all the sunshine it could absorb, at an optimum temperature and humidity. Then the carbon dioxide level was ramped up finally topping out at 2%. The glasshouses were too leaky to get the concentration any higher. Yes, plant growth continued to escalate as the carbon dioxide went up and the ultimate limit was not close to being found.

My role in this was as part of a team of (unfortunate) undergraduates that were sent into these glasshouses to collect air and plant samples. A more oppressive environment is hard to imagine: hot, wet, with enough carbon dioxide to up the heart rate and the respiration rate. We were allowed only a few minutes of exposure before exiting. Planet Earth's carbon dioxide levels will surely (I hope!) never get that high but I fear the future will be less comfortable than now; except for plants.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I've been following this technical and philosophic exchange with interest and delight. The carbon dioxide debate reminded me of a personal experience.

In the late 1960s an experiment was run in the glasshouses next to the Heartley Teakle building at the University of Queensland. The object was to discover the ultimate limits of plant growth. Sugar cane was supplied with all the water it could drink, all the fertilizer it could eat, all the sunshine it could absorb, at an optimum temperature and humidity. Then the carbon dioxide level was ramped up finally topping out at 2%. The glasshouses were too leaky to get the concentration any higher. Yes, plant growth continued to escalate as the carbon dioxide went up and the ultimate limit was not close to being found.

My role in this was as part of a team of (unfortunate) undergraduates that were sent into these glasshouses to collect air and plant samples. A more oppressive environment is hard to imagine: hot, wet, with enough carbon dioxide to up the heart rate and the respiration rate. We were allowed only a few minutes of exposure before exiting. Planet Earth's carbon dioxide levels will surely (I hope!) never get that high but I fear the future will be less comfortable than now; except for plants.
Perfect!

Good to know we can plant trees in the worthless cattle ranches that become available once we get vat-grown and woven lamb, chicken, beef and pork!
Asher
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
I've been following this technical and philosophic exchange with interest and delight. The carbon dioxide debate reminded me of a personal experience.

In the late 1960s an experiment was run in the glasshouses next to the Heartley Teakle building at the University of Queensland. The object was to discover the ultimate limits of plant growth. Sugar cane was supplied with all the water it could drink, all the fertilizer it could eat, all the sunshine it could absorb, at an optimum temperature and humidity. Then the carbon dioxide level was ramped up finally topping out at 2%. The glasshouses were too leaky to get the concentration any higher. Yes, plant growth continued to escalate as the carbon dioxide went up and the ultimate limit was not close to being found.

My role in this was as part of a team of (unfortunate) undergraduates that were sent into these glasshouses to collect air and plant samples. A more oppressive environment is hard to imagine: hot, wet, with enough carbon dioxide to up the heart rate and the respiration rate. We were allowed only a few minutes of exposure before exiting. Planet Earth's carbon dioxide levels will surely (I hope!) never get that high but I fear the future will be less comfortable than now; except for plants.
Good to know we can plant trees in the worthless cattle ranches that become available once we get vat-grown and woven lamb, chicken, beef and pork!
Asher
[/QUOTE]

I love bacon too, fossil fuels, C02 plus the planet is already much greener thanks to C02! But if you do the math you will find that there is a sucker born very minute and a new scam created every 9 minutes which translates into more than enough suckers to purchase some excellent financial instruments,"Cow Fart Credits".

James
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
As for consensus in science, no one could be more eloquent than Michael Crichton in his lecture, “Aliens Cause Global Warming” at the California Institute of Technology in 2003:


There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it

isn’t consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of.

Let’s review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six

died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were

infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver

Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence.

The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually

eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew,

ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever

until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five

years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the

world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of

women."
By Michael Crichton





http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/GW-Aliens-Crichton.htm



Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, Semmelweis supposedly suffered a nervous breakdown and was treacherously committed to an asylum by his colleague, where he died, a mere 14 days later, at the age of 47, after being beaten by the guards, from a gangrenous wound, due to an infection on his right hand which might have been caused by the beating (officially of pyaemia). Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory, and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist's research, practised and operated, using hygienic methods, with great success.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

Consensus supporters don’t like to admit it, but the situation is getting perilously close to Lysenkoism. Lysenko was a poorly educated agricultural extension agent from Ukraine who gained complete control over biology in the USSR, with the full backing of the Politburo and the personal support of both Stalin and Khrushchev.

Lysenko maintained that the genetic theory of inheritance was a lie, supported by evil western industrialists. He insisted that acquired characteristics of living creatures could be passed on to their progeny…. and we’re not talking about the interesting phenomenon of epigenetics, but something much cruder. He apparently believed in the spontaneous generation of life. He blocked the introduction of hybrid crops to the Soviet Union. Scientists who expressed any doubt about Lysenko’s dogmas were lucky if they were only fired from their jobs. Many were sent to concentration camps in Siberia, and some were sentenced to death. Photos of Lysenko and one of his most prominent opponents, Nicolai Vavilov, are shown below. (See Valery N. Soyfer, Lysenko and the Tragedy of Soviet Science [Rutgers University Press, 1994].)

View attachment 3135

Here is a major statement on the effects of C02 By William Happer you can label him a climate denier too if you choose.

https://thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/happer-major-statement/
Let come back to this very enticing link you gave us a short while back.

I am still studying this well known self-made leading skeptic from of all places, Princeton University, where as a Prof of Physics he has allotted himself above respected authorities on climate change.


James I really love this extraordinarily well written piece, albeit it is mistaken many places in its inferences from available data.

It’s worth reading and reading again as it demonstrates how folk with expertise in one authority in the community can leapfrog over data and crown himself an expert in another field for which he is no authority at all.

Still, because he is articulate, has a well-trained mind, his analysis shouldn’t be ignored out of hand, and immediately dismissed as have zero merit just because much of the opinions come with the bias of an industry funded “expert”!

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I am still studying it and am merely up to statement # 17 of Professor Harper.

But so far, I see that his articulate command of language and his obviously bright intelligence can’t make up for his incomplete thinking of climate problems. Time and again, he appears unfamiliar with apparently important conditions that students of climatology would not likely miss.

But I have much more to study. Dr Harper’s statements, however, does serve to allow us to get to pay attention to data. The review then helps us rank significence.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I am going to suspend further just my additions to this thread as I want to do justice to links given by you, especially to Jérôme’s references and James’ link to Dr. Harper by more studying them.
Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I received protests for temporary pausing this thread!! My apologies!

This is only a hiatus for me in responding to new posts for a short while, so I can catch up. My work deliveries are suffering!

The links are very detailed and I am a slow reader. Dr. Harper’s well written article is demanding to read and its analysis is slow!

Everyone, James Lemon, Jérôme Marot, Tom Dinning, Antonio Correia, Andy Brown et al, I am looking forward to continuing this discussion.

So no one should imagine they are being locked out.

Your voices are welcomed.

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
So you are saying that a reporter from the Wall Street Journal has more credibility than a world renowned scientist?
No, James, I did not write so. If you had read what I wrote in good faith, you would not have written that. But as today is new year's eve, peace on world, etc... I wish you great success with that pipe-line of yours!
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
No, James, I did not write so. If you had read what I wrote in good faith, you would not have written that. But as today is new year's eve, peace on world, etc... I wish you great success with that pipe-line of yours!
Fair enough Jerome, I must have misunderstood, I apologize if I offended you in any way.

James
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
The links are very detailed and I am a slow reader. Dr. Harper’s well written article is demanding to read and its analysis is slow!
The problem with Dr. Harper's article is that it is disingenuous. He first writes that CO2 is good for plants. This is true, but nobody denies it. Then there is this long analysis of radiative power. It suppose it is not there for for wrong reasons but because Dr. Harper's field of expertise is radiation physics so he got carried away. Unfortunately and whatever the reason, it is inaccurate. If it were that simple to predict the temperature of earth, we would not need supercomputers and climate models.

Remains the undisputed fact that in past eons we had more CO2 and the planet was warmer. Not warm enough to kill all life, but warm enough to melt ice caps and make the oceans quite a bit higher. This should be sufficient cause for concern. I mean: there are some possible catastrophic scenarios, but the oceans being quite a bit higher should be enough to make us pause and ponder what we are doing realising carbons by the gigatons.
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
Let come back to this very enticing link you gave us a short while back.

I am still studying this well known self-made leading skeptic from of all places, Princeton University, where as a Prof of Physics he has allotted himself above respected authorities on climate change.


James I really love this extraordinarily well written piece, albeit it is mistaken many places in its inferences from available data.

It’s worth reading and reading again as it demonstrates how folk with expertise in one authority in the community can leapfrog over data and crown himself an expert in another field foe which he is no authority at all.

Asher
Asher

The following link will provide a general background of William Happer. This should answer some of your questions in regards to his expertise.

What he learned during my post-doctoral years turned out to be very useful for subsequent work on climate.

He was one of 14 JASON coauthors of one the first books on global warming, with the nerdy title, The Long-Term Impacts of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels, edited by Gordon J. MacDonald (Ballinger Publishing Co., 1982). We over-predicted the warming from more CO2 as badly as later establishment models.


https://thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/william-happer-interview/

James
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
The problem with Dr. Harper's article is that it is disingenuous. He first writes that CO2 is good for plants. This is true, but nobody denies it. Then there is this long analysis of radiative power. It suppose it is not there for for wrong reasons but because Dr. Harper's field of expertise is radiation physics so he got carried away. Unfortunately and whatever the reason, it is inaccurate. If it were that simple to predict the temperature of earth, we would not need supercomputers and climate models.

Remains the undisputed fact that in past eons we had more CO2 and the planet was warmer. Not warm enough to kill all life, but warm enough to melt ice caps and make the oceans quite a bit higher. This should be sufficient cause for concern. I mean: there are some possible catastrophic scenarios, but the oceans being quite a bit higher should be enough to make us pause and ponder what we are doing realising carbons by the gigatons.
Any attempt by "Western Civilization" to use C02 as a thermostat will fail miserably.

James
 
Last edited:

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
As I had a bit of time to amuse myself by reading the article, I may offer my opinion on the main points. The main points are summarised near the end:

Strongest arguments against consensus view:
  • Climate models have predicted far more warming than has been observed, as shown in Fig. 6. This is strong evidence that the equilibrium temperature increases from doubling CO2 levels is not 3° C to 3.5° C, as assumed in most climate models, but much less, probably close to 1° C.
  • The consensus has largely ignored the huge positive effects of more CO2, as illustrated in Fig. 18.
  • The large temperature changes of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age occurred before the widespread use of fossil fuels after the industrial revolution, as shown in Fig. 11.
  • There is a strong correlation of temperature with solar activity as shown in Fig. 12, 14, and 15.
  • Frenzied, ad hominem attacks on credible opponents show that consensus supporters have a very weak scientific case. You don’t need potentially counterproductive ad hominem attacks if you have strong scientific arguments.
My opinion:
  • This is true, at least till 2010 (when the article references were published), but even 1°C is already noticeable as we are speaking about global climate change. Furthermore, Dr. Harper's conveniently ignores that humanity is still producing CO2 at an increasing rate. The problem of climate change is not CO2 burnt in the past, we cannot change that any more. It is about limiting further CO2 production and further temperature increases.
  • Not really, no. That CO2 increases plant growth is vastly known and even used in greenhouses, where the exhaust of the heating is put back into the greenhouse for example.
  • This is true, but there is some evidence that the medieval warmth period was a local event (only over north Atlantic) and not a global change as would happen when the atmosphere of the whole planet is modified.
  • This is also true, if the sun sends us more energy the planet gets warmer and there is little we can do. I don't see how it should mean we should not try to mitigate CO2.
  • This is a classical straw man argument.
 
Last edited:

James Lemon

Well-known member
As I had a bit of time to amuse myself by reading the article, I may offer my opinion on the main points. The main points are summarised near the end:

Strongest arguments against consensus view:
  • Climate models have predicted far more warming than has been observed, as shown in Fig. 6. This is strong evidence that the equilibrium temperature increases from doubling CO2 levels is not 3° C to 3.5° C, as assumed in most climate models, but much less, probably close to 1° C.
  • The consensus has largely ignored the huge positive effects of more CO2, as illustrated in Fig. 18.
  • The large temperature changes of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age occurred before the widespread use of fossil fuels after the industrial revolution, as shown in Fig. 11.
  • There is a strong correlation of temperature with solar activity as shown in Fig. 12, 14, and 15.
  • Frenzied, ad hominem attacks on credible opponents show that consensus supporters have a very weak scientific case. You don’t need potentially counterproductive ad hominem attacks if you have strong scientific arguments.
My opinion:
  • This is true, at least till 2010 (when the article references were published), but even 1°C is already noticeable as we are speaking about global climate change. Furthermore, Dr. Harper's conveniently ignores that humanity is still producing CO2 at an increasing rate. The problem of climate change is not CO2 burnt in the past, we cannot change that any more. It is about limiting further CO2 production and further temperature increases.
  • Not really, no. That CO2 increases plant growth is vastly known and even used in greenhouses, where the exhaust of the heating is put back into the greenhouse for example.
  • This is true, but there is some evidence that the medieval warmth period was a local event (only over north Atlantic) and not a global change as would happen when the atmosphere of the whole planet is modified.
  • This is also true, if the sun sends us more energy the planet gets warmer and there is little we can do. I don't see how it should mean we should not try to mitigate CO2.
  • This is a classical straw man argument.
Here is a video that will explain why he is not a card carrying member of the climate science community! Also the logarithmic effect of C02.
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
I don't watch videos, sorry.
He is not, nor could he be a climate scientist because that designation is so new that UCLA for example only just launched a degree program in 2018.

However the following link will provide a general description of his background.

https://thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/william-happer-interview/

A list of some of Professor Happer’s major research publications may be accessed at the link below.

http://physics.princeton.edu/atomic/happer/Publications.html
 
Last edited:

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
He is not, nor could he be a climate scientist because that designation is so new that UCLA for example only just launched a degree program in 2018.

However the following link will provide a general description of his background.

https://thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/william-happer-interview/

A list of some of Professor Happer’s major research publications may be accessed at the link below.

http://physics.princeton.edu/atomic/happer/Publications.html
I know that Professor William Happer has considerable expertise in the fields of physics and optics. I even posted so.

It seems that you want to prove he is an "authority". May I direct you to post #144 at page 5 of this thread?

You already cited that first interview from "The best schools .org" at post #168 right above, BTW. I gave my summarised opinion at post #170.
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, James,

He is not, nor could he be a climate scientist because that designation is so new that UCLA for example only just launched a degree program in 2018.
I have been a telephone engineer since at least 1956, yet even today few engineering schools have degree programs (or even specializations within electrical engineering) in such, and none did as of 1956 or for a number of years afterwards so far as I know.

Happy New Year (CE).

Best regards,

Doug
 

James Lemon

Well-known member
Hi, James,



I have been a telephone engineer since at least 1956, yet even today few engineering schools have degree programs (or even specializations within electrical engineering) in such, and none did as of 1956 or for a number of years afterwards so far as I know.

Happy New Year (CE).

Best regards,

Doug
Much appreciated Doug... all the best to you and your family this New Year!


James
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
@Asher Kelman did request photographs to be posted here.
I do agree, let me suggest evryone to follow the link to Fabiano Ventura Italian photographer works on world's glaciers…
Self speaking!
Wether human activities are culprit or not, wether our planet climate evolution might be natural or "helped" by human activity, let's face that lowering our CO2 production might help to diminish its impact…


3149
 
Last edited:
Top