“[Climate change theory has] been extremely bad for science. It’s going to give science a really bad name in the future,” he said. “I think science is one of the great triumphs of humankind, and I hate to see it dragged through the mud in an episode like this.” William Happer
From The Daily Princetonian, which also writes:
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.’ ”
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.
John Tomlinson reports at the Flint Journal in an article entitled, “It’s time to pray for global warming…”:
At December’s U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world’s top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?”
I asked myself, why would such obviously smart guy say such a ridiculous thing? But it turns out he’s right.
The earth’s temperature peaked in 1998. It’s been falling ever since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures touched 1980 levels.
Meanwhile, the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels. What’s more, measurements of Antarctic ice now show that its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980.
Ironically, in spite of being shown false, we must now pray for it. Because a massive study, just released by the Russian Government, contains overwhelming evidence that earth is on the verge of another Ice Age.
Based on core samples from Russia’s Vostok Station in Antarctica, we now know earth’s atmosphere and temperature for the last 420,000 years. This evidence suggests that the 12,000 years of warmth we call the Holocene period is over.
It would seem that science is not what it used to be; or, at least hasn’t progressed to the point that many would have us believe. It may not be that objective search for knowledge that many hold it to be. It is, after all, simply a tool in the hands of highly fallible humans.
Whay is it then, that the ‘global warming’proponents have switched their name for this so-called phenomenon and are now calling it,”climate change”. Since it has been colder than all get out..that’s when.
Junk science with political ramifications and the search for a new fear.
My wife and I crack up at ‘The Weather Chanel’. 50% of their programs are fear based. They are always trying to scare us.
What caused the Great Lakes? Melting glaciers. When did this happen? Thousands (if not millions) of years ago. SUV’s driving around then? What a joke!
That big ball of fire in the sky couldn’t have anything to do with changing the climate…could it?
Mike, are you paying attention to the facts, or just the propaganda?
While your dad may think that is cute, and while I am writing this while the temperature is ten below (again,) it belies a deep ignorance of what climate change involves…
There is a vast difference between local weather conditions and the global climate. One can’t review the local weather conditions for any particular year to extrapolate to global conditions over a trend.
Since your dad is in North Dakota, he would probably understand this analogy:
Suppose I were to examine a field of beets in spring and find no weeds in a one square yard section. Would it be sensible for me to say “There are no weeds here, so there are no weeds in the field and there will be none. Therefore I don’t need to spray herbicide.”
In October, I would see the error of my logic.
The deniers (not skeptics, skeptics use facts) are guilty of this same sort of thinking.
There is record snow in North Dakota already this winter. My dad, who has lived there all his life, says “If they don’t fix this global warming soon I’m going to have to buy a new pair of thermal underwear.”
Pingback: Give Me All This Money, and You’ll Get the Answer You Like | Skeptics Global Warming
I guess we could just go back and forth on this one, couldn’t we. In this case, reality has a well-known liberal bias.
“Global warming denialism is to climatology as Intelligent Design is to evolution.”
I would tend to agree with this statement, although I’d replace “denialism” with “skepticism.” Also, there are no religious implications of global warming. From the beginning, the GW movement was questionable, cherry picking data and ignoring the rest. We’ve seen in the last few years that in the U.S., it’s been largely political.
I am what could be called a Theistic Environmentalist. That is, I believe that humans are called to be good caretakers of the world we have been given. That being said, I am not inclined to jump on bandwagons when there is so much evidence that doesn’t line up with the theory.
GW is quite similar to evolution in that it has become a belief system, with adherents who protect the theory with religious fervor.
Clueless. Global warming denialism is to climatology as Intelligent Design is to evolution. As astrology is to astronomy. Plugging your ears and saying “I can’t hear you.”
These claims have been shown to be false and I have shown you where.
“Science is not what it used to be;” compared to when?