Princeton professor likens climate agreement to appeasement of Hitler

William Happer

Princeton University Professor William Happer appeared on CNN on Earth Day likened the 2016 Paris Agreement on climate change to the appeasement of Adolf Hitler before World War II.

Happer, a physics professor and supporter of President Trump, said the Paris agreement should be canceled and called it “a silly thing.” He then compared it to “the Munich agreements that Chamberlain signed.”

Fellow panelist Bill Nye, who had objected to Happer’s presence on the segment, raised his eyebrows, shook his head and said “Wow.” Nye had said it was wrong to give a climate change denier a platform on Earth Day.

CNN’s Victor Blackwell asked for clarification from Happer. “I just wanted to make sure that you are comparing the Paris Agreement to the appeasement policy? How so? How is this comparable to Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler? How is that an appropriate comparison?”

Happer said it was an appropriate comparison  because it was a treaty that was not going to do any good.

This treaty also will not do any good,” Happer claimed. “Even if you take the alarmist computer models the effects on the earth’s climate are trivial. It will not make any difference, and yet it will cause enormous harm to many people.”

The scientific consensus is that the Earth’s climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. Happer has previously said that carbon dioxide is demonized, and is a benefit to the world.

As Happer spoke on CNN, thousands of people gathered in cities around the world for the March for Science, a celebration that highlighted the essential role that science plays in the world and the importance of evidence-based research.



  1. The most disturbing thing about this article is that those opposed to Professor Happer want to silence him.

    If he’s wrong, then people like the Science Guy can establish that face-to-face. That’s the way this is supposed to work. If the cases for (1) warming and (2) warming that is man made are so compelling, it should be a fairly easy exercise.

    When a scientist from one of the world’s leading (and groundbreaking) geology departments has an opinion, I would like to hear it and hear why others think it’s incorrect.

    I don’t like censorship. It makes me nervous.

    1. This is where the appeasement analogy starts to work. Science is not based on consensus (popularity), it is based on proof. This is why you don’t see many scientists making statements, just populist children’s celebrities. The climate change bullies fill the role of the NAZIs, as such they seek to deny the possibility that even their most outlandish predictions are not absolute fact.

      1. Absolutely, stifle that thought, make sure that peoples minds are all smoothed out in the same direction. That, I hate to say, is what constitutes brainwashing. We need a national rinse day!

        1. That was my original hope for the march for science. Didn’t work out that way, as you can see in this biased article. Happer’s credentials are listed as his field of study and his political preferences.

      2. Actually, many aspects of Einstein’s theory of relatively have yet to be proven and some have even been disproven, but it is nevertheless taught in classrooms all over the world, based on scientific consensus that it is largely correct.

        1. Now it is because it has been proven in the main to be the way that the world works. It was not so in his time until the events in the physical world gave proof to his work. Concensus by it’s very nature does not encourage the view of those who make breakthroughs on the frontier of science. Especially since it comes connected with fame and fortune in the minds of the small ones.

        2. Einstein had several theories. His best was to never work for Princeton University.

      3. It’s well-accepted that people invoke Hitler and the Nazis when their arguments aren’t solid.

        Are you referring to the “climate change deniers” when you speak about bullies? The mainstream climate scientists definitely admit the possibility that their predictions may not be fact. Their predictions are simply the most likely, given our current understanding of the data and our models (which are based on the same models we use in the rest of climate modeling).

        It is the “deniers” who are unwilling to follow the scientific method and must resort to name calling. If they had scientific proof, they would publish it. The lack of any such proof shows that their positions are political and not scientific.

        1. It is also most obvious that you have a political agenda. No advanced scientific breakthrough made in history was the result of peer review, most particularly when the boards who made those decisions, the universities who made up the “peers” etc, were all constrained to conform to the prevailing “academic” view. That is not science, that is a popularity contest whose ultimate gain is financial, not the ideas themselves. Don’t preen yourself with your unbiased peer review baloney. Who are you, that masquerades behind the nomiker of Marcher for Science? In other words, who pays your salary to run around with the old saw of “climate deniers”, which is a really simpleminded way of trying to get around the notion that no one is denying that there is a climate. It is primarily that you are so apparently a hater of Mr. Happer, and have no idea of the value of his work as opposed to those who conform to the view that the world is overpopulated, and the climate science that is acceptable to you, becomes a simple minded oppositional position to the fact that it is absolutely unproven that man made carbon is destroying the world. In fact the trees love carbon. You are going to be lucky to get a job at McDonalds with your view of science. That is the not view of those who made the greatest breakthroughs in all of history, Kepler was not peer reviewed and he was attacked by jealous inferiors, same goes for so many others, Einstein one of the biggest examples until Princeton took him under their wing, and then he complained that he was being used as a circus exhibit elephant. Ideas change the world. Control of ideas come from small minded individuals with an agenda. If the media and the universities are controlled by the same income stream, and those scientists in the labs depend upon that same source, from whence comes your independent review? Your argument is as full of holes as Swiss cheese. Come out of the closet Mr. Or Mz MFS and say who you are, since we all say who we are. Let us have a little transparency shall we?

          1. “No advanced scientific breakthrough made in history was the result of peer review”

            On the contrary, pretty much every scientific breakthrough was validated through peer review. Peer review is not perfect but is how scientists weed out true results from those with scientific errors.

            I am not a hater of Dr. Happer, but merely pointing out that he is publishing personal opinion and not scientific studies based on facts. He has admitted this himself. I’m not sure why you feel the need to go on a personal attack here. Perhaps you feel the need to play the role of a bully?

            1. Perhaps you need to grow a thicker skin. Stupidity, arrogance, or perhaps, a lack of the needed passion to investigate the truth does not need to be handled to the coddled juveniles of the day as maybe more acceptably “you have been given misinformation”, because all that would imply is that one needs more information or better information. I am telling you, your world view is askew and you tell me I am bullying you. If you cannot stand up for your ideas, I cannot see that you have a lot of faith in them yourself. Crying foul or claiming abuse, as the boy who cried wolf once did, will not, in the long run, give you much room for maneuvering in defense of your ideas. That is what this is, a discussion of important ideas, if you find that bullying then perhaps you are in the wrong discussion. Take it up in romper room maybe where everyone believes like you, and most of all in Miss Sally.

              Here is what a good friend of mine, a true Renaissance person who struggles inside of the stifling environment of “accepted theories” had to offer on the subject. “Peer reviewed” papers almost axiomatically preclude scientific breakthroughs. Guess why? The “Peer Reviewers” probably have never investigated the phenomenon that a breakthrough engenders.

              In other words, scientific creativity is discovering what we did NOT understand by developing crucial experiments. A creative personality looks at existing evidence to discover an irony or “hole” in the knowledge, and then develops a crucial experiment to test the implications of that hole.

              For example, Michelson and Morley developed the experiment at the sea wall at Annapolis to measure the “velocity of the earth relative to the fixed ether.” They did not find any velocity for the ether. However, that led, not too far down the line, to Einstein’s theory of relativity. Einstein could not even find a job in physics after college, because he had become so unpopular. He couldn’t publish a “peer reviewed” paper, because he had no peers! So, to keep him from starving, some of his friends found him a job at the Patent Examination office, so he would at least have income.

              We do NOT understand climate change, and neither did the ediacarans. We certainly cannot understand what CAUSES it by making statistical projections based on a limited set of data points, even if NASA or some other agency is ordered to “change their calibration” or cherry pick data to make data points fit some kind of statistical “Occamite” curve.

              Trump is pretty dumb on this. Yes, he does not want to be manipulated by a bunch of globalists and empiricists. But, coal and petroleum should be used for chemical feed stocks. Fusion should be developed to produce hydrogen for combustion. What kind of primitive society do we have, that burns a 19th century fuel source, like petroleum, or 17th century fuel source, like coal, when those resources are invaluable for chemical feed stocks to raise our standard of living?

              Perhaps, empiricists don’t believe in fusion, either? Is “fusion” “too radical”? Or, because they are positivist, fusion cannot exist, because it is beyond their experience?


        2. My words were clear. Your thoughts are not.

          It is the AGW proponents who attempt at every-opportunity to silence opposition, so I’m sure you do not see them as “main stream climate scientists.” This is where the fog begins. A bunch of yahoos claiming to be scientists are discrediting the entire AGW movement.

          And if you have any background in publishing scientific papers, you know that unpopular ideas are rarely published. For instance, tell me about all the research on marijuana. Nothing for a hundred years, then it becomes legal and suddenly the data stream is packed with studies.

          Your lack of understanding places you with the bullies.

          1. First, you start with the Nazis. Then an ad hominem attack. Oh my …

            All the climate scientists are doing is pointing out that the “climate deniers” are making claims based on no facts. It appears to be dogma to you that climate change cannot be happening. But the scientific literature doesn’t back up your claims. Of course, it’s easier to believe in a conspiracy of scientists than to believe in the data. But the same scientific method that brings us advances in many fields is also the same science producing the climate models. You can’t pick and choose which scientific facts you like.

            As someone with a scientific background, it is papers with flaws that are not published. There is a difference between being unpopular and being erroneous.

            1. Here you go person with no name or identity. And for the average Joe with little to know knowledge of the matter, if you had one tenth of Lyndon LaRouche’s knowledge and integrity, there may be a reason to continue the dialogue with you, but since your agenda is as clear as this not so long ago fraud, I will give you this to chew on along with your Soros funded drug leagalizing, anti-science blabsters. The plural of data is not science. Remember the Ozone Hole hoax? Well, here were the papers produced after the political damage had been done with by the hoaxsters.

    2. That is the most famous routine of all, don’t like it, turn off the channel, if it disagrees with your predetermined pater familia dogma, by all means, chop it to pieces with the knife of PUBLIC OUTRAGE via the mainstream media. Censorship of scientific or any discussions are the order of the day right now. Americans in particular are famous for either just screaming obscenities or running away and pretending that a search for truth and justice belongs in the hands of the mainstream research projects funded by whom? Where has independent thought gone, that vacation better be long over soon.

      1. I’m pretty well educated, but I personally have no “independent thought” when it comes to climate science — so I listen to the expert consensus.

    3. Happer is NOT from Princeton’s geology department. He earned his degree in physics in 1964. Oppenheimer is a leading scholar compared to this Happer fellow.

    4. I haven’t heard Happer defending his position with science or facts, just generalizations and crazy statements. Also he is a physicist, not a climate scientist.

      1. So then why not include Prof. Happer on the panel? Then, Mr. Nye can refute his position and Prof. Happer can defend his – if either are able. That’s all I’m saying. (Please re-read my comment.)

        BTW, Princeton physicist works for me.

        1. The goal is to have a panel of experts. Happer is a distinguished physicist, but hasn’t published anything relating to climate science. Simply having a different opinion does not make one an expert.

          1. What has Bill Nye published? Name one peer review article published by Nye on any subject. Face it, he’s just adds PR fluff to a pre-determined point of view. But, I guess that’s ok when it supports the orthodoxy. Hence, my original, non-controversial point.

            Also, please give us a citation as to the stated goal of the program.

  2. So the consensus of the world’s actual climate scientists is just so much chopped liver. And he’s a supporter of Trump. Did he support Trump’s birther nonsense?

    1. Who precisely is a “Climate Scientist”? Certainly not a guy with a degree in mechanical engineering who couldn’t cut it as an engineer and made training films for Boeing.

      What credentials, if any, do you accept? Obviously you’re very interested in political stands, does that make you a climate scientist?

  3. Happer is brilliant on somethings, but very, very wrong on this subject. There are precious few scientists who agree with his points. Seriously. Like, maybe single digits. But that’s not easy to know given how much ink climate change denial gets.

    A recent peer review (“Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature” Cook, et al) of 11,944 papers from 1991-2011 found about a whopping 4% rejected the consensus that climate is real and caused by humans. The abstract ends “Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.” AGW meaning anthropogenic global warming.

    James Lawrence Powell has another study under review showing that out of 69,404 authors of about 25,000 papers only 4 (!) reject the idea that humans are causing global warming.

    If you don’t realize how hard it is to get scientists to reach a consensus, well… it’s pretty damn hard. Almost impossible. In fact, you’ll always get outliers that don’t agree even when the weight of evidence is overwhelming. Heck, you can find scientists disputing that smoking causes lung cancer. However, that’s how real climate change is. That’s how dire our situation is. Unfortunately that denial is driven by politics and money in our country, not science. And the sad part is, most of the people posting on this board won’t be paying for it when the reality sets in. But our kids and grandkids sure as hell will.

    1. I do not think science is a personality or popularily contest. How many scientists “agreed” with Einstein early on his theory of relativity. These discussions so much remind me teen cliques in school. Meanwhile back at the real science labs, the Chinese are looking to go to the moon to mine HE3 for unlimited cheap energy with Fusion, which we could have had here if the maniacs had not been unleashed on the world. Adolph Hitler was a greenie, does anyone with half a brain cell to rub together with another, not know this. Fundamentally he was in agreement with the Briish empire’s kook theorists that the world is overpopulated. That little gem is the the biggest and nastiest outlook of the climate “change” experts if you really get down to their core. One of the ugliest scientific frauds ever to be unleashed on the human race, all courtesy of the empirical school of “fact” based, peer reviewed funded by whom research. We have become a nation of kooks, sci-fi cultists and leftwing alarmists. Real science looks to overturn poor orthodoxy, the real scientists are so marginalized right now, that Adolph Hitler would indeed be proud if he were not in the place from whence no man returns.

      1. Adolph Hitler was a greenie?!!! Oh yeah, sure, Hitler was erecting wind turbines and solar panels all over Europe.

        1. Well that was a pretty stupid response, to be blunt. My mother lived through this, as a very advanced culturally educated young woman, she was forced to sit through Nazi Youth Group classes every day. She barely escaped being sent to a camp because of that greenie training when she did not attend so that she could practice piano. She won a scholarship in a music school for her self taught piano work. So, yes, she was subject, as were all of the youth to the equivalent of Girl Scouts survival training and back to the land school. Hitler “loved” nature, anyone who has even the tiniest education on what constituted his Third Reich knows this, sorry you do not but perhaps you need a different source for your knowledge?

          1. Thanks for the lame ad hominem attacks, I won’t return the favor. You are the one who claimed that Hitler was a “greenie” meaning that he believed in climate change which was not even a concept at that time. Hitler was certainly pro coal and pro oil, how does that make him a greenie? Hitler “loved” nature? Most people love nature on both sides of this debate.

            1. No they do not. They claim to love nature, when it point of case, they are destroying it roundly. Like the World Wild Life Fund for Nature’s Prince Philip, he uses it for the mickeys so they can continue to monopolize, or think they can, the world’s resources. That is what the sanctuaries are used for, for the most part, large tracts of areas locked up by those financial houses who gain from the “shortages” that are created. When Philip was caught shooting one of the world’s rarest rhinos, the black, was that posted on your news sources? The so called debate is not. It is like someone else said, on one side is the March of the Empiricists, on the other, are those who promote the human race and it’s great creative capacity that can solve any problem that it is confronted with if the discussion is not one sidedly controlled by the media who are financed by the same people who control the research.

      2. The foundation of science is not popularity but the scientific method. This is checked through peer review. Happer can have whatever opinions he wants, but they don’t matter scientifically as he isn’t publishing an peer-reviewed articles. He’s writing op-eds in the Wall Street Journal and has admitted his work wouldn’t pass peer review. Until he does, he should be ignored if you believe in science.

    2. We are “paying” right now for lack of sound development. We do not have to wait, millions are being killed by wars, starvation, diseases, etc. for that very blind adherence to “peer” reviewed orthodoxy, when that peer review, like the March for Science itself, was funded in part by George Soros, the NGOS are famous for this. Follow the money, if you can find it, (not by Google) and your world may very well be a little bit changed. Follow the politically driven orthodoxy since we basically cancelled any more water projects, high speed rail systems and a real thrust for advanced Fusion and space science by the morons, like Mr. Nobel, Obombum, who was famous for saying, “go to the moon, I have to say, been there, done that”, kind of anti science fanatical politics. On the other hand, what people do not even know is what Trump has said about space science, that he had a national science link with astronaut Peggy Whitson today, or that he released a science project at the White House in which he called upon the US to reflect on the need for increased funding and the reason for the space program itself. All of that was censored from the main stream media. Do not Google it, you will not find it. Here it is, click on video linked in this article.

  4. From the guardian web site, 2-20-17: “Prof Michael Oppenheimer has scores of articles on climate science in leading journals going back to the mid-1990s. He’s a climate scientist … at Princeton.

    So what does Oppenheimer think of his colleague?

    “With respect to climate science and scientists,” Oppenheimer told me by email, “[Happer] is not only unknowledgeable but appears to have become unmoored.””
    Professor Michael Oppenheimer is an actual climate scientist.

    1. Yet CNN decided to interview Happer. What is it that makes one a “Climate Scientist”? What is Oppenheimer’s field of study?

      Yes, there have been few papers criticizing the AGW theory, just as there were NO papers endorsing marijuana when it was illegal. Consider that. Unpopular science doesn’t get funded, and AGW is popular, even if it is not science.

      Grading papers to determine if they support your view or not is subject to confirmation bias, which is the soul of the AGW movement.

      1. You have to look far and wide to find a scientist who doesn’t accept global warming…

  5. From the Washington Post, 1-13-17: Quote – In a 2011 essay in the journal First Things, Happer further argued that “the ‘climate crusade’ is one characterized by true believers, opportunists, cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types — even children’s crusades — all based on contested science and dubious claims.”
    The essay triggered an in-depth rebuttal from Michael MacCracken, a climate scientist who formerly directed the U.S. Global Change Research Program in the Bill Clinton administration, and who characterized it as “so misleading that, in my view, it merits a paragraph-by-paragraph response.” End quote

  6. And who is Bill Nye? Is he a scientist -no, he just plays one on TV! It is unfortunate that climate science increasingly becomes the public face of science in general. It has none of the ingredients of a credible scientific inquiry: blind trials, control experiments, impartial researchers. Claims of consensus imply that scientific facts are based on a majority opinion. How is it different from asking what fraction of Catholic priests believe in immaculate conception?

    1. You can do controlled experiments in a laboratory by changing the carbon dioxide levels in a sealed system and measure the differences. The last I checked, you can’t do that with immaculate conception.

      1. Yes, and controlled laboratory experiments only show the beneficial effects of CO2 on plants! Its hard to measure in a laboratory even such basic effect as global warming potential of CO2. As for various historical temperature records, they are not really that much more reliable at 1 degree level than biblical writings.

        1. Of course it’s only for plants, but it shows you can do experiments that confirms similar behavior to what we’re seeing plantwide. The only way to do a true experiment is to find ourselves another Earth plant and that isn’t possible.

          Did you miss the part about your original statement being untrue?

        2. Just get in the balloon with the plants. Let us know how that works out after a week or so.

    2. this is an example of a “one-off”. One uses the scientific method together with detective sorts of methods. We will only experience one “earth history” from here on out, which differs from being able to repeat quantum interference experiments at will.

      1. Yes and that is the reason that climate science is weak, worse really that medical and social sciences, which do controlled experiments and still end up with plenty of false results. The evidence for human-caused global warming is no more than a 50/50 shot and all the climate scientists trying to make it into a near certainty do a disservice to science in general.

        1. We can disagree here. I won’t play a game of Russian Roulette if I know there is 50% chance of a bullet. Why should we play that game with Earth when we can avoid it, with minimal costs to our way of life?

          1. If climate scientists said there is a 50% chance that we will have a problem, I would be OK with it. One can discuss what is the “minimal” cost that is appropriate. But that’s not what they are saying. They believe that politicians will only act if they exaggerate their findings. So, they exaggerate the confidence in their conclusions and likely even bias the research results themselves to convince the public and politicians. And this undermines overall public confidence in science in general.

            1. They are saying it is a 99% chance because that is what the data indicates.

              It seems that many people don’t like that fact, so they start with the unsupported claims about exaggerations. It is more likely that the “climate deniers” are exaggerating the doubts and are the ones responsible for undermining public confidence in science.

              1. If you look at actual plots produced by IPCC, they can’t claim 99% because most effects they see are never 3-sigma even according to their own estimates. At most they are 2-sigma, about 95%. Their confidence intervals (1-5C) are only 1-sigma intervals. So, they have not disproved the null hypothesis. And that’s even before you account for observer bias, since the entire research field, including peer review, is determined to prove global warming.

  7. The brilliant Dr. Happer is subjected to death threats and mockery because he does not follow the group think so prevalent in the AGW religion. And, yes, it is closer to a religion than science, and Happer is a heretic. Here is Happer in four minutes, and if the link does not work simply google ‘Princeton’s Galileo.’

  8. Happer does himself no favors by making ridiculous comparisons to the Nazis and Hitler. He has done this on more than one occasion and it makes him sound like a kook. It’s not just climate change denial, he’s also pushing coal energy, he’s a big fan of coal.

      1. Except no one, absolutely no one, denies ‘climate change.’ Reasonable people question the cause, what can be done about it, the possible dangers, and how much to spend to alleviate any danger that might exist.

        1. Just noticed you said no-one denies climate change.

          Trump called it a hoax invented by the Chinese.

  9. From the NASA web site: Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations: “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” (2009)2

    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” (2006)3

    U.S. National Academy of Sciences
    “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” (2005)11
    Go to the NASA Climate change site for the full list.

    1. Joe, if you want to decide for yourself whether to believe global warming data, spend some time looking at the data. Your quotes are a decade old, since then the case for a significant global warming has weakened.

        1. Look at differences between models and temperature data in the recent decade, they have grown as the data do not show as much warming as models.

          1. Are you referring to the difference in surface temperature data? It’s true that it hasn’t been rising as quickly as predicted by the models. People still don’t know exactly why. The latest papers show that the ocean temperatures have still been rising. The upshot should be that for all the uncertainty, temperatures are still going up and aren’t going down. No one is saying that the long-term case for significant global warming has weakened.

            1. You are correct: the building heat is currently being absorbed by the oceans. This has happened during other periods of increasing temperatures, which is why if you look at a short range of historical tempurates it will appear that yes it’s normal to see this “up and down” of temps. Climate deniers will attempt to use this to say “rise is normal, it will go down again. Look at history.” However, looking at long range historical temps will show that since the industrial revolution we are actually on a “staircase” of increasing temps, with occasional flatlines. We are in one of those flatlines at the moment, thanks to the oceans. However, once the oceans stop absorbing the current heat increase we will see a rapid increase in temps.

          2. Well, I’m no great expert but a number of thoughts occur to me.

            First, the evidence for significant global warming does not depend entirely, or even primarily, in models. Evidence from paleoclimate (the period before modern instruments) indicates an equilibrium sensitivity of about 3C per doubling ofCO2.

            Second, it appears that the models do not deviate beyond 2 sigma (95% confidence) more than expected, and when it does it does equally in the high side and the low side.

            Third, and this to MarcherForScience’s point, the models cannot account for the exact timing of phenomena like ENSO (bit because of fundamental flaw but because these phenomena are inherently unpredictable)

            That means that we cannot take specific predictions of atmospheric temperatures year by year very seriously.

            Rather it is the long term trend that matters.

            Or to put the same point in a different way: it odd not just atmospheric temperatures that matter. Ocean heat content and glacial melt also matter because sometimes the heat votes into the atmosphere, sometimes into the oceans and sometimes into the ice.

            Finally, and this is really about policy rather than science, the IPCC estimates that climate sensitivity is somewhere between 1.5C and 5C per doubling.

            It would be nice if it is at the lower end of the range, but what if it’s not? What are the costs of betting that sensitivity is low when it is in fact high versus the cost of betting that it might be high when it is in fact low?

  10. Oh please, Lyndon LaRouche is a total crackpot loony. You have lost what little credibility you had. You might as well be quoting Alex Jones.

  11. Climate change is real. Climate change is caused by humans. Anyone denying this is likely tied to wealthy backers like the Koch Brothers, Robert and Rebekah Mercer, a fossil fuel company, or a front organization like the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Or they are independent and impossibly wrong headed. It’s that simple.

    The science is there. The evidence is there. It is peer reviewed. People hollering and throwing insults around are doing their best to disrupt the conversation. Their hope is that they get the attention and focus. If that happens energy gets diverted from the reality of climate change. If Happer truly believed the Paris Agreement wasn’t worth it, he would simple say that. But if he wants to get people riled up and grab headlines, he will go full Godwin and compare it to appeasing Hitler. So he does. It’s a transparent and predictable move that only shows how weak his hand it. That’s his best move? Seriously? People will push and yell to get you angry and fixated on proving their empty attacks wrong. Ignore them. Focus on pushing for change and fixes. That’s the only option we have.

  12. From THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN web site, 4-21-17: On Tuesday, the Mauna Loa Observatory recorded its first-ever carbon dioxide reading in excess of 410 parts per million (it was 410.28 ppm in case you want the full deal). Carbon dioxide hasn’t reached that height in millions of years. It’s a new atmosphere that humanity will have to contend with, one that’s trapping more heat and causing the climate to change at a quickening rate. [snip]

    Carbon dioxide concentrations have skyrocketed over the past two years due to in part to natural factors like El Niño causing more of it to end up in the atmosphere. But it’s mostly driven by the record amounts of carbon dioxide humans are creating by burning fossil fuels.

    “The rate of increase will go down when emissions decrease,” Pieter Tans, an atmospheric scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said. “But carbon dioxide will still be going up, albeit more slowly. Only when emissions are cut in half will atmospheric carbon dioxide level off initially.”

    1. Water helps plants grow, too. But too much water in the form of rising sea level, floods or a tsunami can wipe out cities and crops.

    2. Helps kill polar bears and coral reefs and … coastal cities … island nations …

  13. He’s a Princeton professor? What a joke. Some nice egg on the face of PU. Might be time to put this “professor” on a permanent sabbatical to study the fuzz in his navel.

Comments are closed.