Princeton Professor Denies Global Warming Theory

The Daily Princetonian ^ | January 12, 2009 | Raymond Brusca

[SuperLuminal]

"The exceptions were climate change scientists, he said. “They would give me a briefing. It was a completely different experience. I remember one speaker who asked why I wanted to know, why I asked that question. So I said, you know I always ask questions at these briefings … I often get a much better view of [things] in the interchange with the speaker,” Happer said. “This guy looked at me and said, ‘What answer would you like?’ I knew I was in trouble then. This was a community even in the early 1990s that was being turned political. [The attitude was] ‘Give me all this money, and I’ll get the answer you like.’ ” Happer said he is dismayed by the politicization of the issue and believes the community of climate change scientists has become a veritable “religious cult,” noting that nobody understands or questions any of the science. "

Exactly so!

Long before the marxists and other imbeciles adopted the "global warming" strategy, the same sort of thing occurred in the national labs when, during the 1970's, weapons research resources were transmuted into environmental and/or alternative-energy-source research through the same tactics.

[xcamel]

I think the “total carbon burned” would be nearly impossible to calculate.

Not all carboniferous fuels produced are burned (conversion to plastics and other products).

That being said, I did see in a scholarly study that the “gross greenhouse gas production” of either Krakatu, Toba, or Tambora, was more than the total output of all the fossil fuels we will ever extract and burn.

The exact method by which they came to that conclusion I do not know, but I believe it had to do with ice, and ocean floor cores dating back to about 1.1 million years.

[steelyourfaith]

Thanx !

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Jaime2099]

This is an old story. Scientists are as fallible and immoral as anyone else. The are as inclined as anyone to have political views and biases and use underhanded means to promote those views. That said, once a theory is established there is hell to pay to undo it as the favored theory attains cult status as has the Global Warming theory. It is not just the belief system. It is the money and power that follows the theory. Get a good line of BS going like the Global Warming theory you can get rich and famous like Al Gore. Sacred Cows make great Hamburger: The Lies of Rachel Carson"

Great post and well said. I enjoyed the article.

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

“This guy will probably soon lose his spot at Princeton.”

Oh, I’ll bet it’ll a LOT worse than that....

[Nipfan]

“Happer explained that his beliefs about climate change come from his experience at the Department of Energy, at which Happer said he supervised all non-weapons energy research, including climate change research. Managing a budget of more than $3 billion, Happer said he felt compelled to make sure it was being spent properly. “I would have [researchers] come in, and they would brief me on their topics,” Happer explained. “They would show up. Shiny faces, presentation ready to go. I would ask them questions, and they would be just delighted when you asked. That was true of almost every group that came in.”

The exceptions were climate change scientists, he said.

“They would give me a briefing. It was a completely different experience. I remember one speaker who asked why I wanted to know, why I asked that question. So I said, you know I always ask questions at these briefings … I often get a much better view of [things] in the interchange with the speaker,” Happer said. “This guy looked at me and said, ‘What answer would you like?’ I knew I was in trouble then. This was a community even in the early 1990s that was being turned political. [The attitude was] ‘Give me all this money, and I’ll get the answer you like.’ ””
>>>>>>>>>>>>

This says it all.

[SteamShovel]

I think the “total carbon burned” would be nearly impossible to calculate.

True

But if a high estimate based on coal mined and oil pumped were to show that it is impossible for the rise in CO2 concentration over the same period of time to have been caused exclusively by man, it would make an interesting problem for the AGW theory.

The question is, could the nearly 0.01% increase since 1900 be caused by a high estimate of the carbon burned?

Knowing that carbon is also returned to the land and oceans, if the amount of carbon burned is less than or equal to a 0.01% increase in atmospheric concentration, then at least some of the rise must be caused by other sources. If it is much lower, then it would be pretty clear that man's influence is small.

[xcamel]

Bottom line.. Mans impact on the least important “greenhouse gas” is incalculably small.

[pt17]

I’d like to believe that, but liberal dogma has taken over science, which is why we are even discussing this global warming bs in the first place. However, I’d like to be pleasantly surprised.

It has taken over to the extent there are playbooks on how to talk to "non-believers." There is one HERE, just in case you haven't seen one.

[Anti-Bubba182]

Thanks.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Obama's 'climate czar' tied to socialism

Global warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News Site

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Junk Science

Latest from Terra Daily

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment

Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

[nickcarraway]

How long before this guy is at Guantanamo?

[razorback-bert]

If their warming models work so well, what don’t they do Yellowstone and tell us what is happening?

[StopGlobalWhining]

Good to see you here SL! We spoke back on Oct 31 1998 at the FreeRepublic March for Justice on the Mall. I was posting as Houlihan back then.

[StopGlobalWhining]

If their warming models work so well, what don’t they do Yellowstone and tell us what is happening?

Here's something happening at Yellowstone they would prefer that you don't know about:

Hot Springs are a Significant Source of Atmospheric CO2 (Yellowstone included)

[StopGlobalWhining]

Hello Peter, good to see another old timer back here.

“This guy will probably soon lose his spot at Princeton.”

I doubt it. I suspect that by now Dr. Happer is long tenured and has possibly reached Emeritus status. He is clearly not intimidated. I first became aware of the hoax going on in this global warming stuff after reading a paper by Dr. Frederick Seitz (mentioned in the posting) who was an author of the original IPCC report.

Seitz related how he and many other authors had initialed the draft of the report, but when it was released to the public all the uncertainties that were specifically included had been removed from the final report. He demanded that his name be removed as a signer.

I have that report saved somewhere if anyone would really like it.

[StopGlobalWhining]

Or was it on Dec 5, 1998 at Congress for the Day of Justice that Bob Barr hosted? I was at both events. Two weeks later Clinton was impeached.

[NellieMae]

He’s not the only one:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

[StopGlobalWhining]

Great! Thanks for posting.