There are those who would have us live in a post-truth world. All we can know are principles, and individuals. Liars don’t just lie, but often tell the opposite of the truth. They use logical fallacies when they can to distract from the truth. If you identify those with no respect for logic, you can weed out the vast majority of noise. It isn’t foolproof, but it is very effective.
Expect the noise level here to increase as SAFE Network progresses.
There is an ignore list in the preferences of your account settings. It works pretty well to tamp down the noise of those who are unable or unwilling to attack all premises equally.
I’ve not used it yet, I like to see what the a holes are saying and bite back.
I’ve clearly not been working for to long and have to much time on my hands lol.
Hour long talk by Professor Happer of Princeton thoroughly explaining why more CO2 is not a threat to humanity, but in fact a benefit.
A tiny demo for the Commodore 64. 1st place in the Oldskool 4K Intro compo at Revision 2017.
(Yep, what you hear and see is generated by a program that is no larger than 256 bytes.)
Some of his arguments makes sense, as with historical CO2 levels. Would be interesting to hear him against another strong scientist. One of the big problems in the world, as I see it, is that is too much monologue and too little debate. Another problem is people want to fit into groups with the cost that any rational/logical reasoning flies out the window.
What Happer claims sounds good but without a counter from another scientist on his level, there is no way a person without extreme level of education can figure out if the statements holds true or not
What I have found over the years of researching this is that there are many strong scientists on the side of Happer - specifically many who are willing and able to debate. But not on the other side. I’ve only ever seen a couple of debates between a pro-warming guy and an anti-warming guy - they are very rare (and not because the anti-side won’t debate, but because the pro-warming side won’t debate) … in both that I’ve seen the pro-warming guy just had talking points and wasn’t even there to really debate.
I think you will find that to be true if you look. If you do find one where a real debate occurs and they are looking at the critical theory and not merely spewing some random observations here and there, please do share. I’d love to see it.
My background allows me to understand him quite well and I’ve even explained it in detail to my 13 yo daughter. It’s not really that difficult IMO. It’s basic to intermediate physics.
If you have any references or similar it would be interesting.
When looking at the other side there are heavy contenders.
If you can explain and show me in a mathematical way how carbon dioxide levels affects temperatures and how carbon dioxide absorb radiation than give it you best shot. I would want you to also derive and explain the different mathematical steps. I’am not on that level and the only way for me to in some way make somewhat educated opinion would be to listen to top scientists battle over data and maths.
I believe I already did that here on this forum … not sure what the topic heading was though. I’m not going to dig for it though so will reproduce in a private message as I don’t wanna clog up this topic.
Or post it here, the discussion could be moved to off-topic after it is done. It is an important topic
Mods upset you have they?
When, what, I don’t understand what you mean, please be more specific.
When trying to break down his presentation, it is incoherent, sometimes very irrelevant and also fails to comment on negative effects or explain negative effects, future or/and historical. Makes contradictory claims and failed logical reasoning.
This guy could be bought by oil companies or his brain might be getting old and demented, he seems to try some cherry picking and then talks none relevant stuff and avoid to talk about or explain negative effects.
First 13 minutes he talks most garbage about none relevant subjective conclusions about a lot of things. 0-13:00
Then explains atmospheric circulation from equator to the poles, around 15:00
Then somewhat explains radiation and absorption, but also talks irrelevant of high and low CO2 levels instead of average levels, making failed logical reasoning when comparing high/lows with average CO2 levels 18:00
22:00 Continues to speak about radiation
23:00 Talks about history about greenhouse gases
25:00 Talks about radiation at different wavelengths and absorption of sun light at different frequencies, which doesn’t seem to give anything important to anything, just that the effect of absorption in different frequencies doesn’t change at different CO2 levels. I and probably most people won’t argue and or make arguments about absorption at different frequencies, and that it irrelevant with total CO2 levels.
29- talks about models and that if you combine all models they overestimate, but he doesn’t mention observed data compared to the warming that has happened and is happening.
Says carbon dioxide don’t make any difference, then talks about that the difference seen today is positive.
34 Talks about that CO2 levels have been greater in the past but don’t talk about negative effects with those levels
35-40 Talks about Co2 is good for plants, ignore living things
40 Talks about that policies is made based on incorrect prediction models of future warming, but doesn’t touch on models that compare data with todays/historical warming and that those show high correlation.
43 Talks about fossils 300-400 million years ago and shifts in oceanic plates
Says we live in a CO2 famine today compared to past, doesn’t explain the last event 300 years ago when CO2 levels where as high as today.
Says bad effect of CO2 only that we can grow higher towards the poles, fails to explain a 15-20 meters higher sea levels 300 million years ago. Fails to explain negative consequences drought, famine, lack fresh water, temperature spikes, rising sea levels and so on
Talks about plants but not consequences for animals and living things.
Says prediction models are wrong but don’t talk about observed data and models
His main points are that models exaggerate, but he doesn’t touch on observed data and historical events to what happened on earth, when similar conditions where present.
He says more CO2 is beneficial, while saying earlier that they have no to minimal effect, then saying that the increase in temperature is positive for growing things.
He very much has spent time rubbing shoulders with people from big oil companies, a bit of wikipedia-ing shows that he was a trustee with these lads George C. Marshall Institute - Wikipedia
If wikipedia is to be believed of course. This was 15 minutes of reading maybe, and there are already links between him and powerful interests who have a strong profit-motive to promote the idea of CO2 being harmless.
At that stage I won’t personally be putting more time into his ‘proofs’.
Another little bit of wikipedia-ing reveals this book which talks about the George C Marshall institute from above, where Happer spent some time. Here’s a quote from the wikipedia article:
"Oreskes and Conway write that a handful of politically conservative scientists, with strong ties to particular industries, have “played a disproportionate role in debates about controversial questions”
I presume @TylerAbeoJordan if you’re linking to this man’s work and mentioning only that he is a scientist from princeton that you either don’t know of this book and these links? Or you do, but it’s not relevant for some reason? If not relevant, I’d be interested to know why. Seems very relevant to me
8 min.
CLIMATE FORCING Playlist
RESPONSE TO ALL DETRACTORS
I showed only a TINY fraction of the literature. Find hundreds of relevant papers here in the bibliography Publications – Space Weather News
The models don’t include the Birkeland Current. They don’t predict the past when run backward. Nor do they predict the future when run forward. Excluding Solar forcing in the models leaves them broken.
Seems the models have strong correlation showing global warming if including many variables, even if only using variables that humans are accountable of:
Orbital Changes
Solar
Volcanic
Land use
Ozone
Aerosols
Greenhouse Gases
Seriously?
And yet you still get it wrong . .
