It is interesting to do a little duck diving into the murky waters of CC denial.
There is absolutely no doubt that dense, complex , creative paper by Happer and Windjaarden that announced the "possible peaking" (wow!!) of global heating due to rises in CO2 has been widely flogged in the fours corners of denial.
As well it should of course. In fact if it was true they should get a dozen Nobel Prizes each for such a ground breaking discovery. But hey that isn't going to happen is it ? And for exactly the same reason no Physics Journal with any sort of Peer Review process would touch it with a barge pole.
I did find a very interesting story however of a public debate a few years back on the topic of how wonderful our earth would be with CO2 levels at 2000 plus PPM (Currently 415 plus and burning down the house..) The debate and almost all the material reflected the views of William Happer.
It's long story but it is interesting to see just how the ol guy tortures tables, cherry picks research to a pip and ignores absolutely everything he possibly can that doesn't fit his pre paid story. And of course he wraps it up in his special tasty sauce of dense, complex, creative physics.
Debating Climate Science: Uncovering the Truth Behind William Happer and the “More CO2 is Better” Claim
June 29, 2019 /
JeffreyBennett /
Climate/Global Warming Science,
Op/Ed Pieces
Please also see this post as published on Medium.
If you follow news about climate science and politics, you’ve probably heard of
William Happer, who is one of the forces behind the
Trump Administrations plans to go forward with a panel to “investigate” whether global warming really poses the threats claimed by most scientists; he may also lead the proposed panel. Happer’s views are perhaps best summarized by this quote from an op-ed that he co-authored:¹
“
Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.” — William Happer, Wall Street Journal, 8 May 2013
You might wonder where a view like this comes from, and as it turns out, I recently had the opportunity to gain some insight into the truth behind the “more CO2 is better” claim. This came about because I engaged in a formal debate (hosted by The Soho Forum in New York City) against a guy by the name of Craig Idso, who shares Happer’s views. Indeed, in researching both individuals, I found virtually no daylight between any of their claims. Moreover, it appears likely that two Idso-led groups — the “NIPCC” and the “Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change” (more on those organizations below) — provide the source material behind many or most of Happer’s statements.
Given the potential prominence of the proposed Happer-led panel, I’ve decided to share my insights from the debate in this post. I hope that people of all political persuasions will find these insights enlightening.
Please also see this post as published on Medium. If you follow news about climate science and politics, you’ve probably heard of William Happer, who is one of the forces behind the Trump Administrations plans to go forward with a panel to “investigate” whether global warming really poses the...