Prominent Princeton Scientist Dr. Happer Testifies to Congress: ‘Warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind’
‘CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving ‘pollutant’ and ‘poison’ of their original meaning’
Friday, May 21, 2010By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
Climate Depot’s Selected Highlights of Dr. Happer’s May 20, 2010 Congressional Testimony: (Dr. Happer’s Full Testimony here: (To read the warmists’ testimony of Ralph Cicerone, Stephen Schneider, and Ben Santer, see here. )
Dr. Will Happer’s Testimony Before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming – May 20, 2010
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.
Key Excerpts: The CO2 absorption band is nearly “saturated” at current CO2 levels. Adding more CO2 is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but you are only wearing a windbreaker. The extra hat makes you a little bit warmer but to really get warm, you need to add a jacket. The IPCC thinks that this jacket is water vapor and clouds. […]
The climate-change establishment has tried to eliminate any who dare question the science establishment climate scientists and by like-thinking policy-makers – you are either with us or you are a traitor.
Orwellian: I keep hearing about the “pollutant CO2,” or about “poisoning the atmosphere” with CO2, or about minimizing our “carbon footprint.” This brings to mind a comment by George Orwell: “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving “pollutant” and “poison” of their original meaning. Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2. That is 40,000 parts per million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration. CO2 is absolutely essential for life on earth. Commercial greenhouse operators often use CO2 as a fertilizer to improve the health and growth rate of their plants. Plants, and our own primate ancestors evolved when the levels of atmospheric CO2 were at least 1000 ppm, a level that we will probably not reach by burning fossil fuels, and far above our current level of about 380 ppm. We try to keep CO2 levels in our US Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels. […]
Lees hele artikel -> climatedepot.com
Voor de mensen die graag zoveel mogelijk informatie tot hun beschikking willen hebben:
William Happer, voorzitter van denktank George C. Marshall Institute
Happer geloofde net als pionier-'skeptici' Singer, Michaels en Seitz niet in het ozongat
Nog wat meer over Happer en ozon
Hajo, ik herhaal nogmaals: als deze site het Nederlandse doorgeefluik van de propaganda van denialist sites als ClimateDepot en WUWT wordt, zal het alleen maar deel van het probleem zijn, en niet deel van de oplossing.
Maak alsjeblieft een begin met een schifting tussen authentieke skeptici en denialists.
Het is inderdaad waardevol om op basis van de kwaliteit van argumenten te selecteren. Mensen die overal teuge zijn overtuigen niet. Maar Happer's stelling dat CO2 netto meer voordelen kan opleveren dan nadeel is verdedigbaar
Mijn probleem is dan ook dat het gros van het AGW-kamp door het ijs zakt, en dat men elkaar niet corrigeert als bij gezonde wetenscahp hoort. Er is bijv niemand die een fatsoenlijke verklaring gaf voor de warmere middeleeuwen tov nu, en men ontkent nog steeds dat de Hockeystick is gedebunked.
En neem dan de climategate-deniers.. Kortom, als je flauw wilt