Prominent Scientist Dr. Happer Testifies to Congress: 'Warming and increased CO2 will be good...

Climate Depot ^ | Friday, May 21, 2010 | Marc Morano

[Delacon]

What is amazing is that the committee allowed Dr. Happer to testify at all. What is not amazing is that I had to dig to find his testimony since the MSM refuses to report it at all.

[Delacon]

ping

[Old Retired Army Guy]

It’s the old story “follow the money”. The CO2/Carbon Footprint argument is all about certain investors getting rich from it.

[granite]

The Earth was born dry. The seas have been filling up, some say from constant bombardment from small ice comets that continually increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. If this is true, the sea levels will rise at the same constant rate until perpetuity or the universe runs out of ice.

[Para-Ord.45]

This guy should be heading NOAA not that lying zealot Hansen

[FMBass]

Excellent summary!

[Delacon]

I use to think that was all it is. Capitalists will try to capitalize on anything including hysteria. Just like an alarm salesman will try to sell you an alarm by exagerating the crime statistics in your area, entrepreneurs will try to make money off of the global warming hysteria. But that isn’t the underlying problem. It is, at its base, a governmental power grab. If the government can control the energy supplies then they can control everything. The scary thing is that the progressive/Obamists actually think that this is a good thing and will do anything(lie/cheat/and steal) to bring it about.

[Raycpa]

The fact that he had to precede his statements with his resume’ shows how little weight the scientific method has in our society.

What prevails as science is who can lay claim to the most logical fallacies rather than the results of observation.

[bamahead]

I’m sure the IRS will begin auditing him on Monday in retaliation for this statement.

[Sudetenland]

I used to grind my teeth every time I saw that ad for natural gas or coal (I can't remember which) in which they called CO2 an "impurity."

Man, talk about pandering to the left and dumbing down the nation at the same time.

[mellow velo]

My name is William Happer, and I am the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton University. I have spent my professional life studying the interactions of visible and infrared radiation with gases – one of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect. I have published over 200 papers in peer reviewed scientific journals. I am a member of a number of professional organizations, including the American Physical Society and the National Academy of Sciences. I have done extensive consulting work for the US Government and Industry. I also served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy (DOE) from 1990 to 1993, where I supervised all of DOE's work on climate change.

So what?! Al Gore took a course in climate science in 1967 and was subsequently a divinity school dropout!

[Delacon]

Read his full testimony on the first pdf link. He throws in a disclaimer that his opinions are his own and not those of PU or any scientific organization with which he is a member. IOW, brave though he is to testify, he has been sufficiently cowed. The alarmists at PU and within the scientific have robbed him of his well earned authority and creditability as opposed to Gore’s unearned authority and creditability on the subjest. I’d say “what a shame” but its more terrifying than that when the scientific community is reduced to these circumstances.

[ConservativeMind]

Along with creating government offices for taking all of our medical records, every financial transaction, and requiring everyone send out tax forms to everyone they bought from or sold to through the whole year.

They also want to know all of the websites you visited at all times, but haven’t fully put that one into place. The others mentioned above, unfortunately, are already in place or will be funded starting in a few weeks.

[Nepeta]

I used to grind my teeth every time I saw that ad for natural gas or coal (I can't remember which) in which they called CO2 an "impurity."

Man, talk about pandering to the left and dumbing down the nation at the same time.

If you are describing what levels of non-fuel components are present in natural gas, describing carbon dioxide as an impurity makes good technical sense. "Impurity" need not mean bad, evil, or destructive--it simply is.

[unspun]

Thank you, Delacon:

http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2010/05/princetons-dr-william-happer-debunks.html

FR Ping List for Investigating Obama and Sentinel Radio’s “The Awakening.” Please reply or FReepmail, if you want on or off.

[SteamShovel]

If you are describing what levels of non-fuel components are present in natural gas, describing carbon dioxide as an impurity makes good technical sense.

True.

CO2 content in natural gas is a parasite. It robs useful heat from the desired heating effect and sends it out the stack.

But I do understand the frustration with the anti-CO2 crowd. When CO2 is the result of carbon combustion, it is not a bad thing, and it is plant food. It is not pollution.

[norraad]

Well, I'm glad for that "Impurity'', w/o dry ice, no ice cream at the beach.

I would suspect it would be great to mix in with the drilling mud to add downward pressure to prevent blow-out (but I digress).

Our local gas just went down 10 cents, I joked with the attendants "What, did you just hook up to the Gulf of Mexico?"

[Hoodat]

A warmer planet will support much more life than the current climate. If the very worst predictions of the global warming alarmists comes to pass (i.e. all glacial ice melts and ocean levels rise 267 feet), then there will be MORE arable land than there is today.

[Delacon]

Semantics will get you every time. The effort by the EPA to classify as a “pollutant” is another term that needs defining. I don’t mean that WE need to define it. I mean that we shouldn’t let the government define it on their own terms for their own purposes. The booze I drink has a level of “impurities” useless toward it’s positive effects but that doesn’t mean they are bad. And as far as I can tell, the EPA’s definition of pollutant could be applied to just about everything. I’ve been told, broccolli is good for me. Yikes, humans are making broccolli by the ton. If humans make so much broccolli that I get buried by it, then I will surely die. Therefore it must be a pollutant. IOW we are not endangered by CO2 and it certainly shouldn’t be considered a pollutant.

[shield]

bfl