Prominent Scientist Dr. Happer Testifies to Congress: 'Warming and increased CO2 will be good...

Climate Depot ^ | Friday, May 21, 2010 | Marc Morano

[Delacon]

 

 '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'

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. [...]

That we are (or were) living at the best of all CO2 concentrations seems to be an article of faith for the climate-change establishment. Enormous effort and imagination have gone into showing that increasing concentrations of CO2 will be catastrophic: cities will be flooded by sea-level rises that are ten or more times bigger than even IPCC predicts, there will be mass extinctions of species, billions of people will die, tipping points will render the planet a desert. Any flimsy claim of harm from global warming brings instant fame and many rewards.

Sea Level: The sea level is indeed rising, just as it has for the past 20,000 years since the end of the last ice age. Fairly accurate measurements of sea level have been available since about 1800. These measurements show no sign of any acceleration. The rising sea level can be a serious local problem for heavily-populated, low-lying areas like New Orleans, where land subsidence compounds the problem. But to think that limiting CO2 emissions will stop sea level rise is a dangerous illusion. It is also possible that the warming seas around Antarctica will cause more snowfall over the continent and will counteract the sea-level rise.

Hockey Stick: I was very surprised when I first saw the celebrated “hockey stick curve,” in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. Both the little ice age and the medieval warm period were gone, and the newly revised temperature of the world since the year 1000 had suddenly become absolutely flat until the last hundred years when it shot up like the blade on a hockey stick. This was far from an obscure detail, and the hockey stick was trumpeted around the world as evidence that the end was near. We now know that the hockey stick has nothing to do with reality but was the result of incorrect handling of proxy temperature records and incorrect statistical analysis. There really was a little ice age and there really was a medieval warm period that was as warm or warmer than today. I bring up the hockey stick as a particularly clear example that the IPCC summaries for policy makers are not dispassionate statements of the facts of climate change.
Conclusion: I regret that the climate-change issue has become confused with serious problems like secure energy supplies, protecting our environment, and figuring out where future generations will get energy supplies after we have burned all the fossil fuel we can find. We should not confuse these laudable goals with hysterics about carbon footprints. For example, when weighing pluses and minuses of the continued or increased use of coal, the negative issue should not be increased atmospheric CO2, which is probably good for mankind. We should focus on real issues like damage to the land and waterways by strip mining, inadequate remediation, hazards to miners, the release of real pollutants and poisons like mercury, other heavy metals, organic carcinogens, etc.

Life is about making decisions and decisions are about trade-offs. The Congress can choose to promote investment in technology that addresses real problems and scientific research that will let us cope with real problems more efficiently.

Or they can act on unreasonable fears and suppress energy use, economic growth and the benefits that come from the creation of national wealth.
Related Links:

Prominent Scientist Will Happer Tells Congress: Earth in 'CO2 Famine' - Feb. 25, 2009
Flashback 2009: Princeton Physicist Happer: 'The idea that Congress can stop climate change is just hilarious' - Warns of 'climate change cult' -- Declares Congress has been 'badly misinformed' on global warming

Flashback 2009: Princeton Professor Will Happer on the Orwellian Movement: UN IPCC 'rewrites the history of the past climate of Earth' with the Hockey Stick 'which is clearly fraudulent'

Flashback 2009: Team of Scientists' Open Letter To U.S. Senators: 'Claim of consensus is fake'

[Delacon]

What is amazing is that the committee allowed Dr. Happer to testify at all. What is not amazing is that I had to dig to find his testimony since the MSM refuses to report it at all.

[Delacon]

ping

[Old Retired Army Guy]

It’s the old story “follow the money”. The CO2/Carbon Footprint argument is all about certain investors getting rich from it.

[granite]

The Earth was born dry. The seas have been filling up, some say from constant bombardment from small ice comets that continually increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. If this is true, the sea levels will rise at the same constant rate until perpetuity or the universe runs out of ice.

[Para-Ord.45]

This guy should be heading NOAA not that lying zealot Hansen

[FMBass]

Excellent summary!

[Delacon]

I use to think that was all it is. Capitalists will try to capitalize on anything including hysteria. Just like an alarm salesman will try to sell you an alarm by exagerating the crime statistics in your area, entrepreneurs will try to make money off of the global warming hysteria. But that isn’t the underlying problem. It is, at its base, a governmental power grab. If the government can control the energy supplies then they can control everything. The scary thing is that the progressive/Obamists actually think that this is a good thing and will do anything(lie/cheat/and steal) to bring it about.

[Raycpa]

The fact that he had to precede his statements with his resume’ shows how little weight the scientific method has in our society.

What prevails as science is who can lay claim to the most logical fallacies rather than the results of observation.

[bamahead]

I’m sure the IRS will begin auditing him on Monday in retaliation for this statement.

[Sudetenland]

I used to grind my teeth every time I saw that ad for natural gas or coal (I can't remember which) in which they called CO2 an "impurity."

Man, talk about pandering to the left and dumbing down the nation at the same time.

[mellow velo]

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.

So what?! Al Gore took a course in climate science in 1967 and was subsequently a divinity school dropout!

[Delacon]

Read his full testimony on the first pdf link. He throws in a disclaimer that his opinions are his own and not those of PU or any scientific organization with which he is a member. IOW, brave though he is to testify, he has been sufficiently cowed. The alarmists at PU and within the scientific have robbed him of his well earned authority and creditability as opposed to Gore’s unearned authority and creditability on the subjest. I’d say “what a shame” but its more terrifying than that when the scientific community is reduced to these circumstances.

[ConservativeMind]

Along with creating government offices for taking all of our medical records, every financial transaction, and requiring everyone send out tax forms to everyone they bought from or sold to through the whole year.

They also want to know all of the websites you visited at all times, but haven’t fully put that one into place. The others mentioned above, unfortunately, are already in place or will be funded starting in a few weeks.

[Nepeta]

I used to grind my teeth every time I saw that ad for natural gas or coal (I can't remember which) in which they called CO2 an "impurity."

Man, talk about pandering to the left and dumbing down the nation at the same time.

If you are describing what levels of non-fuel components are present in natural gas, describing carbon dioxide as an impurity makes good technical sense. "Impurity" need not mean bad, evil, or destructive--it simply is.

[unspun]

Thank you, Delacon:

http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2010/05/princetons-dr-william-happer-debunks.html

FR Ping List for Investigating Obama and Sentinel Radio’s “The Awakening.” Please reply or FReepmail, if you want on or off.

[SteamShovel]

If you are describing what levels of non-fuel components are present in natural gas, describing carbon dioxide as an impurity makes good technical sense.

True.

CO2 content in natural gas is a parasite. It robs useful heat from the desired heating effect and sends it out the stack.

But I do understand the frustration with the anti-CO2 crowd. When CO2 is the result of carbon combustion, it is not a bad thing, and it is plant food. It is not pollution.

[norraad]

Well, I'm glad for that "Impurity'', w/o dry ice, no ice cream at the beach.

I would suspect it would be great to mix in with the drilling mud to add downward pressure to prevent blow-out (but I digress).

Our local gas just went down 10 cents, I joked with the attendants "What, did you just hook up to the Gulf of Mexico?"

[Hoodat]

A warmer planet will support much more life than the current climate. If the very worst predictions of the global warming alarmists comes to pass (i.e. all glacial ice melts and ocean levels rise 267 feet), then there will be MORE arable land than there is today.

[Delacon]

Semantics will get you every time. The effort by the EPA to classify as a “pollutant” is another term that needs defining. I don’t mean that WE need to define it. I mean that we shouldn’t let the government define it on their own terms for their own purposes. The booze I drink has a level of “impurities” useless toward it’s positive effects but that doesn’t mean they are bad. And as far as I can tell, the EPA’s definition of pollutant could be applied to just about everything. I’ve been told, broccolli is good for me. Yikes, humans are making broccolli by the ton. If humans make so much broccolli that I get buried by it, then I will surely die. Therefore it must be a pollutant. IOW we are not endangered by CO2 and it certainly shouldn’t be considered a pollutant.

[shield]

bfl

[devere]

“Al Gore took a course in climate science in 1967”

As a sophomore at Harvard Gore got a “D” in Natural Sciences 6 (Man’s Place in Nature), and then got a “C+” in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year.

[devere]

“I’m sure the IRS will begin auditing him on Monday in retaliation for this statement.”

An endowed chair in physics at Princeton is pretty good insulation from the cares of the world.

Thank you for your testimony Professor Happer.

[Delacon]

Ping and thanks for your replies on the last thread I started when Dr. Happer addressed the EPW.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for posting this.

[CottShop]

[[Climate Depot’s Selected Highlights of Dr. Happer’s May 20, 2010 Congressional Testimony]]

Sadly, this info will never make it to the general public except in a few select forums like FR- TRhe truth about GW and CO2 must not be made public lest Feingold and others of his ilk lose their bid to extort trillions of dollars from the unsuspecting with their assinine ‘cap and tax’ scam

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

EatB,
Already sent this to all my “warmist” friends! I’m sure they’re fuming! I can almost smell the smoke from here!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From the article:

***************************************EXCERPT*****************************************

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. [...]

************************************************************************

Related threads:

If We Double CO2 Levels, What Does It Look Like?

Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today

Preindustrial People Had Little Effect on Atmospheric Carbon Levels

Where is the evidence that CO2, at anywhere near the levels we have today, leads to global warming?

Want to include link to the 25 page PDF at the David Evans website *********************************************************

There is no evidence for the theory that rising carbon dioxide levels are the main cause of global warming.

*******************************************

I.E. if the Globe is warming then radiosonde measurement at the tropics should show such a fact.....

****************************************************

NO DETECTED HOT SPOT CAN BE FOUND

**************************

Will add another link soon as I find it.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Obama used the word "Pollutant" in a speech the other day and of course since CO2 comes from vehicle's tailpipes....there you are.

Atty Gen "Moonbeam" Brown also is taking advantage of that approach in clever wording of a California Referendum to be voted on soon.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From the JoNova website:

Co2 is the magic gas that makes plants grow

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Also from JoNova:

4. Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can

**************************************************

Threads:

Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can.

Climate change study shows Earth is still absorbing carbon dioxide

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

AND AN IMPORTANT THREAD:

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Good...keep up the good work.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From JoNova....see link above at #30.

****************************************************

4. Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can

Here’s why it’s possible that doubling CO2 won’t make much difference.

The carbon that’s already up in the atmosphere absorbs most of the light it can. CO2 only “soaks up” its favorite wavelengths of light, and it’s close to saturation point. It manages to grab a bit more light from wavelengths that are close to its favorite bands, but it can’t do much more, because there are not many left-over photons at the right wavelengths.

The natural greenhouse effect is real, and it does keep us warm, but it’s already reached its peak performance.

Throw more carbon up there and most of the extra gas is just “unemployed” molecules.

This graph shows the additional warming effect of each extra 20ppm of atmospheric CO2.

AGW says: The climate models are well aware of the logarithmic absorption curve, and use it already.

Skeptics say: The models make brutal estimates and many assumptions (guesses). “Lab-warming” doesn’t necessarily translate to “planet-warming”: Test tubes don’t have ocean currents, clouds, or rain. The “clouds and humidity” factor is bogglingly complex. For example, high clouds tend to warm the planet, but low clouds tend to cool it. So which effect rules? Models don’t know, but they assume clouds are net-warming. This is not a minor point: The feedback from clouds and humidity accounts for more than half of carbon’s alleged effect. E’Gad.

AGW says: It’s not 100% saturated.

Skeptics say: True, but meaningless. Log curves never get to 100% (so even the air on Venus, which is almost pure CO2, does not absorb 100% of the infrared light). Every CO2 molecule will increase warming by a small amount ad infinitum, but it has less effect than the CO2 that’s already up there.

And the effect is already so small, it cannot be measured.

Conclusion: If adding more CO2 to the sky mattered, we would see it in ice cores and thermometers. We don’t. Ergo, carbon’s effect is probably minor.

---

Notes about page 8 of The Skeptics Handbook:

When someone pointed out this basic chemistry to me, it resonated, and again I marvelled that something so basic had been carefully not mentioned in this debate. I realize log curves are not something you want to reach out to the public with in detail, but I felt everyone who has done chemistry at university would grasp this point quickly. It explains the paradox: It’s true that carbon has some warming effect, but it’s also true that extra carbon doesn’t have the same effect. When alarmists point out that the natural greenhouse effect causes “X degrees of warming,” they usually fail to mention that the first 100pm does almost all of this, and no additional 100ppm will ever do as much. It’s a lie by omission.

The graph in the first printed edition of The Skeptics Handbook is shown below, and comes from David Archibald, who was the first to arrange the results in this powerful format. It’s a good graph, and he deserves credit for being the one to capture the increasing ineffectiveness of carbon very well.  This was calculated (like the top graph) using Modtran, which is a model provided by Spectral Sciences and the US Air Force, and used by researchers around the world.

Archibald based his figures on a climate sensitivity calculated by Craig Idso and published in peer reviewed literature (Idso 1998).  The graph itself was not published in peer reviewed paper*. The top graph above comes from Patrick Michaels, and was also constructed on Modtran. It  started with a climate sensitivity estimate from Richard Lindzen in his recent ERBE paper (Lindzen and Choi 2009). Useful discussions on the observational backing for a low climate sensitivity are at Friends of Science and Niche Modelling.

The two log curves here are not that different (which is one of the things about a log curve: Once you get past the initial slide, it’s all “small” or “smaller”). Overall, both graphs accomplish what I wanted; namely, to show that the basic effect of carbon dioxide on it’s own dwindles to almost nothing. Sure, each extra molecule of carbon makes a little difference, but it becomes less and less so, and there’s a point where it’s irrelevant and cannot be measured. We’re not at that point yet. Even if doubling carbon leads only to a 0.5 degree difference on a global scale, it’s arguably still measurable (well, at least theoretically).

My point with this page was not that we could use Modtran to calculate whether there is a crisis due to carbon. I was not so much interested in the exact numbers as in the shape of the curve. From a science communicator’s point of view, this is basic science: Additional carbon has less effect.  But, can anyone find a school climate education program with this chemistry?

The exponential “hockey-stick” curves of the IPCC et al emphasize just how much difference extra carbon supposedly makes. Few people realize that the exponential rising curves come from feedback factors (which are the fatal flaw of the science behind the scare campaign).

Attacks on this page

There have been plenty of people who have claimed the log graph is totally, completely, utterly wrong. Desmog argued that Earth’s atmosphere wasn’t even close to saturated: “…look at Venus.” So I did, and demolished that point in this reply.  (Basically, Venus’s atmosphere is 90 times denser than Earth’s. No wonder it’s hot. It wouldn’t matter what gas was in it’s atmosphere).

Other people come out with irrelevant things, like the Idso paper is “old” (so is the theory of gravity). They launch ad hominem attacks on Archibald, and claim the graph is not peer reviewed.  Their most inflated argument is that the creator of Modtran says Archibald misused it. But in the cold light of day, it only means that the guy who developed the web interface for the Modtran model didn’t like the climate sensitivity that Archibald chose.  And we are supposed to care?

*UPDATE:

David Archibald writes in #104

The graph’s first outing, in 2006, was in a peer-reviewed paper, published in Energy and Environment. Thanks for republishing.

David

The short killer summary: The Skeptics Handbook. The most deadly point: The Missing Hot Spot.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

CA: jobs initiative to limit California’s AB32 greenhouse gas law will be on the November ballot

[Delacon]

And thank you Ernest.

[Nepeta]

The EPA pronouncement that carbon dioxide is equivalent to churches declaring that the earth is the center of the universe. Making the assertion does not mean that it reflects reality.

People have strange notions of what "purity" implies. Pure = good, which is of course nonsense. A pure nerve gas is nothing good.

[Nepeta]

Obama and Moonbeam are both uneducated fools as far as technical matters go. Unfortunately, a lot of people are just as lost when it comes to science/technology.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

You might enjoy this...at JoNova:

Shattered Warmers Become Global Mourners

*****************************Intro*************************

It’s unsubtle, twice as long as it needs to be, it’s unashamedly smug,  and worth watching.

Be patient with the start. (Click on the pic to go to PJTV)

Betrayed By Climategate, …

Use link above ....

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Guess that link now requires that you join PJTV...comments are useful/.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From the comments on the article at JoNova...see link just above:

*********************************EXCERPT**************************************

val majkus:
May 9th, 2010 at 7:51 am

Thanks for the link Jo; and relevant to this topic I’m sure you’ve all heard about Virginia Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli’s investigation of alleged climate science fraudster, Michael Mann; here’s a link to a great article by John O’Sullivan How to Expose Post-Normal Junk Climate Science in Five Steps in which John (a legal advocate and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain) examines the legal aspects of the case http://co2insanity.com/2010/05/07/how-to-expose-post-normal-junk-climate-science-in-five-steps/
and leave a comment

[Delacon]

I totally agree with you about the popular misconception of impurity = bad thing but its not the same as the EPA calling co2 a pollutant. We can explain to people that impure is not always, in fact almost never is, a bad thing. Good or bad, we know and agree on the definition of the word impurity. But when the EPA calls co2 a pollutant, they (and by extension the whole government) can change the very meaning of words. The EPA seeks to change the meaning of the word pollutant by saying co2 is “potentially” harmful to the environment. My DEFINITION of a pollutant is that it has DEFINITELY been proven to be a harm to the environment. What’s next? I am “potentially” a threat to civil society because I am conservative?

[Nepeta]

I am “potentially” a threat to civil society because I am conservative?

Exactly so, just like the global warming "deniers" are analogous to Holocaust deniers...sigh.

[ETL]

"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. "

So, greenhouse [effect] is all about carbon dioxide, right?

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds [clouds of course aren't gas, but high level ones do act to trap heat from escaping, while low-lying cumulus clouds tend to reflect sunlight and thereby help cool the planet -etl]. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, 'Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,' Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other 'minor greenhouse gases.' As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
_______________________________________________________________

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many 'facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
_______________________________________________________________

Water Vapor Confirmed As Major Player In Climate Change

ScienceDaily (Nov. 18, 2008) — Water vapor is known to be Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117193013.htm

[palmer]

Sure. Don't forget to thank cog for his contributions on that thread ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2196437/posts) without which mine would not have been possible!

Looks like Happer is a little more circumspect this year, or at least not trying to give a complete laundry list of why CAGW is wrong. The dups from last year, CO2 saturation, hockey stick, sea level haven't changed much on either side except for hockey stick. We now know that the decline of proxies below MWP levels

was "hidden" using a "trick"

Who would have ever guessed?

[Sudetenland]

Technically, I suppose you are right, as in impurities in an natural resource, but the way it is presented in the ad, is as a negative, i.e. something to be gotten rid of to prevent global warming. It is a total falsehood.

[Marine_Uncle]

Lots of great links as usual. Thanks for the ping.

[steelyourfaith]

Thanx !

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Rocky]

It is, at its base, a governmental power grab. If the government can control the energy supplies then they can control everything.

I am convinced that this is exactly what is behind it. It's a big government, socialist power grab.

[Nepeta]

Technically, I suppose you are right, as in impurities in an natural resource, but the way it is presented in the ad, is as a negative, i.e. something to be gotten rid of to prevent global warming. It is a total falsehood.

Scientific ignorance allows people like Gore to have credibility...sigh.

[neverdem]

Thanks Ernest

[SierraWasp]

Dr. Happer is a friend of Dr. Bill Wattenburg, heard on KGO AM 810 each Sat/Sun nite from 10PM to 1AM! He's complained for years how Algore had Dr. Happer fired simply because he challenged numb-nuts Gore's supposed "Inconvenient Truth!"

Dr. Happer was the REAL "Inconvenient Truth" they've been trying to stiffle!!!