T Nation

Princeton Physicist: CO2 is Good

Princeton Physicist Tells Congress Earth in ‘CO2 Famine’ – Increase ‘Will Be Good for Mankind’
Dr. Will Happer, once fired by Al Gore, challenges former vice president’s much-published claim that warming debate over.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090225213407.aspx

?The earth was just fine in those times,? Happer said. ?You know, we evolved as a species in those times, when CO2 levels were three or four times what they are now. And, the oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So it?s baffling to me that, you know, we?re so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started.?

That directly conflicts with the line Gore has been telling the media for years. In November 2007, Gore told NBC?s ?Today? that there was ?as strong a consensus as you’ll ever see in science? that global warming was caused by mankind.

The chairwoman of the EPW committee, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., has long supported Gore?s ?global warming battle.? During Wednesday?s hearing, she was skeptical of Happer?s view, stating a lot had changed in the 80 million years. But Happer explained that the laws of science had not changed.

?Well, I don?t think that the laws of nature, physics and chemistry have changed in 80 million year,? Happer said. ?Eighty million years ago, the earth was a very prosperous place and there?s no reason to think it will suddenly become bad now.?

Global warming a crock? Shocking!! Global warming a Leftist power grab? Say it isn’t so!!!

oh yea because the laws of science have not changed in 80million years, the changes in ecosystems over that time and our current ecosystem is completely irrelevant, and we should return to that CO2 level. what a tool.

some people were happy in the dark ages, current happiness is meaningless, RETURN TO THE DARK AGES!

do you even read what you post?

More CO2 means the plants will grow better, which means more O2, which is good for us.

It’s the circle of life.

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
oh yea because the laws of science have not changed in 80million years, the changes in ecosystems over that time and our current ecosystem is completely irrelevant, and we should return to that CO2 level. what a tool.

some people were happy in the dark ages, current happiness is meaningless, RETURN TO THE DARK AGES!

do you even read what you post?[/quote]

If life prospered with much higher CO2, then why would it not prosper with those same levels today?

Do you know how to start a sentence with capital letters? I suppose now you’ll bore me by writing in all capital letters or some other such juvenile stupidities. If you’re going to write drivel, at least write like a man, not a cracked out metrosexual.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
oh yea because the laws of science have not changed in 80million years, the changes in ecosystems over that time and our current ecosystem is completely irrelevant, and we should return to that CO2 level. what a tool.

some people were happy in the dark ages, current happiness is meaningless, RETURN TO THE DARK AGES!

do you even read what you post?

If life prospered with much higher CO2, then why would it not prosper with those same levels today?

Do you know how to start a sentence with capital letters? I suppose now you’ll bore me by writing in all capital letters or some other such juvenile stupidities. If you’re going to write drivel, at least write like a man, not a cracked out metrosexual.

[/quote]

Crack smoking metrosexuals write?

The only thing they have time for is shaving their chests, spraying on their tans, gelling their hair, and, um, smoking crack.

of course the east coast was underwater 80 million years ago, other than little things like that, most of us will be fine.

[quote]100meters wrote:
of course the east coast was underwater 80 million years ago, other than little things like that, most of us will be fine.[/quote]

Exactly. I have read a couple of studies that show that global food production would be up at the projected C02 levels however that will be small comfort to anyone with coastal property.

We are not talking about something that will harm the planet or life on the planet. We are talking about something that would seriously fuck up some major cities though.

…most of Holland will disappear. Check this map out, the blue areas are below sealevel:http://www.ahn.nl/kaart/

Assuming this guy is onto something, can anyone point out to an industrial process which exclusively releases CO2?

b-b-b-but…there is no science behind global warming! Rush says it’s so!

Working Group I Report “The Physical Science Basis”

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
b-b-b-but…there is no science behind global warming! Rush says it’s so!

Working Group I Report “The Physical Science Basis”

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
[/quote]

Yup, there is inconclusive data, from a politicized organization that is stacked by politicians to serve a very specific agenda.

You do not see any problem with that when it comes to interfering with the world economy to the extend of trillions of dollars per year?

Or maybe you or not interested in Bjorn Lomborgs calculations either, that you could save 13000 malaria victims now for every human death that you could prevent due to global warming in few decades.

[quote]orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
b-b-b-but…there is no science behind global warming! Rush says it’s so!

Working Group I Report “The Physical Science Basis”

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

Yup, there is inconclusive data, from a politicized organization that is stacked by politicians to serve a very specific agenda.

You do not see any problem with that when it comes to interfering with the world economy to the extend of trillions of dollars per year?

Or maybe you or not interested in Bjorn Lomborgs calculations either, that you could save 13000 malaria victims now for every human death that you could prevent due to global warming in few decades.[/quote]

No, obviously there is NO debate whatsoever!!! Haven’t you been paying attentionz?!!/?

[quote]orion wrote:

You do not see any problem with that when it comes to interfering with the world economy to the extend of trillions of dollars per year?

Or maybe you or not interested in Bjorn Lomborgs calculations either, that you could save 13000 malaria victims now for every human death that you could prevent due to global warming in few decades.[/quote]

btw, what is his position again? That we shouldn’t “interfere with the world economy?” (hint, nope) or is it that we should interfere, but in a different way than others are suggesting?

[quote]orion wrote:
Or maybe you or not interested in Bjorn Lomborgs calculations either, that you could save 13000 malaria victims now for every human death that you could prevent due to global warming in few decades.[/quote]

Wouldn’t that require people to put the same value on the life of a person in Liberia as a person in Holland? I mean, surely, you must realize that

Regardless, why would anyone care what a person with a political science background says about the topic? I’ll take Nature’s peer-reviewed essays over Lomborg’s writings any day of the week.

[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
Or maybe you or not interested in Bjorn Lomborgs calculations either, that you could save 13000 malaria victims now for every human death that you could prevent due to global warming in few decades.

Wouldn’t that require people to put the same value on the life of a person in Liberia as a person in Holland? I mean, surely, you must realize that

Regardless, why would anyone care what a person with a political science background says about the topic? I’ll take Nature’s peer-reviewed essays over Lomborg’s writings any day of the week.[/quote]

First of all this is a political topic as much as it is a scientific topic.

Then, all that that shows is that you are very prone to fall for the argumentum ad verecundiam, the from authority which is of course a logical fallacy.

Either he is right or wrong, it hardly matters what he has a degree in.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:

You do not see any problem with that when it comes to interfering with the world economy to the extend of trillions of dollars per year?

Or maybe you or not interested in Bjorn Lomborgs calculations either, that you could save 13000 malaria victims now for every human death that you could prevent due to global warming in few decades.

btw, what is his position again? That we shouldn’t “interfere with the world economy?” (hint, nope) or is it that we should interfere, but in a different way than others are suggesting?
[/quote]

I do not have to believe in all of his ideas.

Obviously, if we have to have socialism, I´d be prefer smart socialism over completely wasting a peoples production.

Personally, I think not wasting it at all would be even better.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
b-b-b-but…there is no science behind global warming! Rush says it’s so!

Working Group I Report “The Physical Science Basis”

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

Yup, there is inconclusive data, from a politicized organization that is stacked by politicians to serve a very specific agenda.

You do not see any problem with that when it comes to interfering with the world economy to the extend of trillions of dollars per year?

Or maybe you or not interested in Bjorn Lomborgs calculations either, that you could save 13000 malaria victims now for every human death that you could prevent due to global warming in few decades.

No, obviously there is NO debate whatsoever!!! Haven’t you been paying attentionz?!!/?

[/quote]

Where you found that in my post shall remain your secret.

[quote]orion wrote:
First of all this is a political topic as much as it is a scientific topic. [/quote]

Political, my knee!

Whether man-made gases are contributing to sea levels rising or not is strictly a scientific topic.

Of course.

But when you have a series of peer-reviewed article in the world’s most prestigious scientific journal deconstructing what some political scientist wrote, you jeopardize your credibility by brushing it off as an “argumentum ad verecundiam”.

True. But a topic as complex as global warming requires a lot more scientific background than politics.

And even assuming he is right, the argument you gave falls on its ass since in the eyes of policy-makers, human life in Niamey is just not worth the same as the one in Manhattan.

[quote]lixy wrote:

And even assuming he is right, the argument you gave falls on its ass since in the eyes of policy-makers, human life in Niamey is just not worth the same as the one in Manhattan.[/quote]

And still it remains a political topic.

India, Brazil and China do not give a shit, they think overcoming poverty would be worth risking a few degrees more.

So, given that those countries open a coal plant per week, what are we to do?

Does it really matter if we put a third and fourth filter in our plants or do we simply build higher levees?

Something about all that, “the end is nigh”, “repent, ye sinners” and the plans of total reconstruction of society strikes me as a power grab by ecologic puritans.