“CNN had a real scientist on? One who questioned “global warming”?
Wow. Gotta hand it to them. Very good.”
Happer’s a physicist not a climatologist; his views on climate change are bought and paid for by the Energy lobby.
CNN had two hack ‘scientists’ on for their ‘debate’, neither with any scientific credibility in the field they were debating - which is probably why they were on CNN!
“..his views on climate change are bought and paid for by the Energy lobby.”
Do you have evidence to support this accusation?
No? Then I’m compelled to ask: who bought and paid for your views?
Troll Alert!
“Happer’s a physicist not a climatologist; his views on climate change are bought and paid for by the Energy lobby”
Are you a bot?
Prove it.
A physicist is far more qualified to speak on the effects of CO2 on climate than an engineer. I'm a biochemist, and I am also far more qualified to speak on the effects of CO2. That is because CO2 is a chemical and obeys immutable physical principles. Both physicists and chemists understand the physical properties of atoms and molecules because they have studied these subjects for years. Being a biochemist, I have also studied biology, and so can discuss the crucial role of CO2 in maintaining life on earth.