The Phaserl


Trump Meets With Professor Who Thinks Global Warming Is Positive

from The Daily Bell:

Trump meets with Princeton physicist who says global warming is good for us
By Chris Mooney January 13 at 3:49 PM

Physicist William Happer arrives for a meeting with President-elect Donald Trump at Trump Tower in New York City on Jan. 13. (Albin Lohr-Jones/European Pressphoto Agency/Pool)
This story has been updated.

Yes, Donald Trump met with Al Gore. But on Friday, according to the Trump transition team, the president-elect also met with William Happer, a Princeton professor of physics who has been a prominent voice in questioning whether we should be concerned about human-caused climate change.

In 2015 Senate testimony, Happer argued that the “benefits that more [carbon dioxide] brings from increased agricultural yields and modest warming far outweigh any harm.”

While not denying outright that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will warm the planet, he also stated that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would only cause between 0.5 and 1.5 degrees Celsius of planetary warming. The most recent assessment of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change puts the figure much higher, at between 1.5 degrees and 4.5 degrees C.

“All trees, and many other plants, wheat, rice, soybeans, cotton, etc., are handicapped because, by historical standards, there currently is too little, not too much, CO2 in the atmosphere,” read a slide contained in Happer’s testimony.

“A dispassionate analysis of the science indicates that more CO2 will bring benefits, not harm to the world,” he also said in the testimony.

Timothy Cama ✔ @Timothy_Cama
William Happer, a leading climate skeptic who worked at DOE under Bush 41, is at Trump Tower, per pool
3:22 PM – 13 Jan 2017
9 9 Retweets 20 20 likes
Happer did not answer questions on his way into the elevator to meet with Trump, according to pool reports. He did not immediately respond to requests for comment from the Post.

E&E News, which was apparently first to report on the meeting, noted that it was “unclear” whether Happer might be under consideration for energy or science positions in the administration. There certainly remain many of those to fill.

Happer is not wrong that carbon dioxide appears to bolster plant growth — the greening up of the Arctic has, indeed, been observed. But that comes with many other consequences, including melting of glaciers and thawing of permafrost, which can emit still more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Read more @ The Daily Bell:

Help us spread the ANTIDOTE to corporate propaganda.

Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.

2 comments to Trump Meets With Professor Who Thinks Global Warming Is Positive

  • Ed_B

    “… William Happer, a Princeton professor of physics who has been a prominent voice in questioning whether we should be concerned about human-caused climate change.”

    No doubt whatever that Dr. Happer knows WAY more about science than Al Gore, who is not known as “The Tennessee 2×4” for nothing.

    Additionally, the question of “IS anthropogenic global warming happening at all?”, should be answered before any question of “should we be concerned”. Determining whether or not global warming is occurring is merely a matter of collecting accurate data. But assigning a cause to it, whether rising or falling, is more a matter of speculation at this time rather than real science.

    It is common in science to develop models that are used to describe some physical reality. As more data is collected, these models can then be revised and improved to deliver better accuracy. But the model used by the AGW proponents did not even include clouds because they complicated their model too much for their available computing power to handle. Unfortunately for this approach, it delivered completely inaccurate results. Ignoring the 2nd largest regulator of temperature on the planet tends to do that. The 1st largest, of course, being the sun itself. This is where the AGW crowd makes a serious error because when their models are tested with KNOWN temperature data from the past, the changes in the temperature changes that then occur are far less than the model predicts. When a model fails to respond appropriately to known data, how can it then be accepted as true for future data, which is not known? The answer, of course, is that it cannot.

  • KRELL427

    Trump meets with everybody to get all sides of a story.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>