Happer vs. AOC: a telling contrast

By David Wojick  April 23rd, 2019|Climate|39 Comments

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) is by far the best known climate change alarmist today, having way surpassed Al Gore for that title. Gore is now something of a has-been in the fame department. On the other side, Will Happer is far and away the best known skeptic (not counting President Trump, who is not an active skeptic).

The contrast between these two icons — AOC and Happer — is remarkably telling when it comes to the climate change debate in America. Each is ideal in their way. Let’s consider this a bit.

As a member of Congress, AOC is in a position of political power. As a National Security Council staffer, Happer has considerable influence but no actual power. In the same way, alarmists control many political institutions, while skeptics are outside voices of reason.

AOC has a basic degree in economics, while Happer was a named chair in physics at Princeton. His field is radiation physics, which is central to the climate change scientific issue. (It is laughable in this context that alarmists criticize Happer supposed lack of scientific knowledge.)

More broadly, alarmists are focused on economic measures like carbon taxes and the subsidized or forced use of renewables. They claim there are no outstanding scientific issues. In contrast, skeptics like Happer (and me) are all over the science. We argue that the science is far from settled and what science we have strongly suggests that no serious problem exists. I repeat, there is no problem to be solved, other than alarmism itself.............To Read More....

Happer Is Right Person to Lead Objective Federal Climate Commission

 H. Sterling Burnett March 12, 2019


The left-wing media’s rumor mill has been rumbling in recent weeks like an upset stomach in need of an antacid at the thought that President Donald Trump will soon form a Presidential Commission on Climate Security (PCCS) to objectively examine the science behind the oft-repeated claim that humans are causing dangerous climate change.

A PCCS is long overdue, and award-winning physicist William Happer, the administration’s senior director of the National Security Council office for emerging technologies, is the perfect person to run it.

Such a committee should have been formed before 1992 when President George H. W. Bush brought the United States into the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Bush put the cart before the horse, agreeing to the formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) despite the fact no comprehensive assessment of the state of climate science had been undertaken.

The IPCC wasn’t charged with examining the causes and consequences of climate change but, from the start, was directed to limit its inquiries into the “human causes” of change.

A problem can’t be understood if only one aspect of it is studied. It’s like the parable of the blind men and the elephant—if all the blind men had only been allowed to touch the trunk.........To Read More...

Dr. Happer will set them free

March 7, 2019 By David Archibald

It was easy enough to predict that Trump would appoint Dr. William Happer to set up a Presidential Committee on Climate Science.

Two years have passed and have been lost.  The first years of the Trump administration were hobbled by poor Cabinet picks, a proportion of whom conspired against him and others who were just hopeless.  Scott Pruitt at the EPA should have got on with Dr Happer's appointment straight away but instead spent $3.5 million on his own security detail.  In the meantime, the climate juggernaut rolled on, producing 1,500 pages of alarmist nonsense in an official government report.

You can tell how important Dr Happer is by the forces that have been marshaled against him.  The three major lefty media organizations — CNN, the Washington Post, and the New York Times — all came out to say Dr. Happer's efforts would be wasted.  The Democrats are alarmed, calling Dr Happer's proposed panel "dangerous."..................

Brazil had an election last year, and the corrupt and incompetent socialists were thrown out and replaced by people who seem to understand how the world works.  The first words out of the mouth of Brazil's new foreign minister were that climate change is a Marxist plot.  Why would he say that? Actually, he is only repeating what the Marxists doing the plotting have been saying:

Senator Tim Worth, 1992: "We have got to ride the global warming issue.  Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." 

Mikhail Gorbachev, former chief communist on the planet, 1996: "The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order." 

Richard Benedick, U.S. State Department, 1992: "A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."

That's just a sample. There are plenty more such statements. Why did the Marxists latch onto global warming as an issue in the early 1990s?

 The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990 meant that suddenly, the left side of politics had no basis for existence. Socialism was discredited by its failure, and so there was no need to rule the world, interfere in people's lives, and take income from workers and give it to bludgers.

So the threat of global warming was conjured up on no evidence — thus that last statement that a global warming treaty didn't need to be based in scientific fact. Science fiction will do the trick.........To Read More.....