From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.global-warming,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics
Subject: Re: Are YOU Smarter Than A Professor Emeritus of Physics At Princeton
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 10:58:29 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 2024-10-13 06:43, Paul Aubrin wrote:
> Le 13/10/2024 à 04:23, Alan a écrit :
>>> "Listen to your instincts, and do a little reading yourself. It's not
>>> hard to teach yourself."
>> Being a professor of physics--emeritus or otherwise--is no proof of
>> expertise on matters of climate.
>
> Climate is highly dependent on all the scientific specialties of physics
> and chemistry. William Harper has a broad understanding of all those
> matters, plus a high level understanding of the scientific method.
>
>
First of all, it's "Dr. William HAPPER".
Second of all, his areas of study are atomic physics, optics and
spectroscopy...
...and they're all very far removed from the kinds of physics that might
inform climate science.
Here's one take on the man's arguments
'Happer argues that the current concern over human-caused greenhouse
gases is overblown. Although he clearly understands basic climate
science, his presentation includes claims that are exaggerated,
misleading, or incorrect regarding human-caused climate change. His
presentation is entertaining, but he argues in many places against
claims that climate scientists do not make. He acknowledges that CO2 has
an influence on climate, but emphasizes that the influence is small. Yet
he gives no physical reason to conclude that the current scientific
understanding on the response of climate system to CO2 (the âclimate
sensitivityâ) is wrong, other than to say that he does not trust climate
models.'
<https://west.web.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/18897/2019/09/ResponseToHapper.pdf>
'Slides 2-4 â William Happer is an accomplished physicist, but apart
from the 1982 book chapter he mentions, I am not aware that he has
published any other research on climate change.'
Here's another, even more damning one:
'In the first âBreaking Debunkingâ mini-episode of the Evidence Squared
podcast, John Cook and Peter Jacobs explain how the carbon cycle works
(the CO2 we breath out originally came from the air) and debunk William
Happerâs myth from CNN that breathing adds CO2 to the atmosphere.'
<https://skepticalscience.com/Evidence-Squared-10-Debunking-William-Happer-carbon-cycle-myth.html>
That one shows how little he actually understands the subject.