Tuesday, February 7, 2023
HomeMiddle ColumnPrinceton Physicist: 'If global warming were any other branch of science it...

Princeton Physicist: ‘If global warming were any other branch of science it would have been abandoned a long time ago’


Published on Dec 3, 2016

MP3: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/3521/glo…
Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/stefan-molyneu…

Despite all the hype around the global warming computer models and climate science predictions – reality has not confirmed the often repeated doomsday claims. Stefan Molyneux speak with William Happer about the flaws in the climate science models, obvious errors which have been overlooked, the demonization of CO2 and the implicit bias within climate science.

William Happer is a professor at Princeton University in the field of atomic physics, optics, and spectroscopy. He is a Director with the CO2 Coalition and served as the Department of Energy’s Office of Science Director under the George H. W. Bush administration. Dr. Happer will be speaking at the “Global-Warming: An Inconvenient Lie” conference in Phoenix, Arizona from December 2-4th, 2016.

An Inconvenient Lie Conference: http://www.inconvenientlie.com

Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate

Get more from Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio including books, podcasts and other info at: http://www.freedomainradio.com


  1. More precisely it would have been debated, (not) verified, derided, and abandoned … in that order. Don’t worry scientists of the world, we won’t judge you poorly based on the so-called ‘climate scientists’ – but don’t ever try that crap again. Let’s just say our BS flags are on high alert.

  2. What is especially ironic is that for years, climatologists were always regarded as clowns and fools by their peers of other science specialties. It took a Gore, politics, and a lot of money for these folks that taunted the climatologists to be shown to be correct.

    • Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj56d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive if you don’t check it
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash56DigitalPagesGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj56d:….,….

    • Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj131d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash131TopForceGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj131d:….,….

    • Science that relies on EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE will always be the most reliable science that is least likely to be corrupted…aka “Hard Science” Science that relies on lesser standards of evidence such as “proxy data” or survey based evidence (such as psychology) will always be more likely to have errors and will require from time-to-time to have its errors “unlearned”…aka “Soft Science” The standards of date for climate science is such that its reliability is closer to the psychology end of the spectrum making climate science a “Soft Science”…

      • If only that were really true. Even physics has its cliques and dogmas, especially astrophysics. A “mostly” good model will always be retained regardless of it problems with empirical evidence, as long as a “better” – more comprehensive – model is not available. Thus in cosmology we are confronted with dark energy, dark matter, inflation, and a whole host of epicyclical tweaks tacked on to a Standard Model that are only there to deal with apparent observational problems. There are numerous alternative ideas but none are any more satisfactory than the Standard Model.

  3. The push back fro real scientists is growing. The name calling and vilification, that is the hallmark of the left, and the AGW alarmists, is becoming less and less effective, as people are starting to wise up to that kind of smear tactic.

    • Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj41d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash41TopGroupGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj41d:….,……

  4. As an applied mathematician (with PhD), I would like to point out that the concept of
    causality may well be inapplicable to climate.

    First of all, as a basis for understanding this, I strongly suggest that everyone read
    this book:


    It discusses the relationships among inputs and outputs of chaotic systems.

    The advocates of human caused climate change talk about the fraction of global
    warming due to carbon dioxide as opposed to solar, tectonic, and orbital
    effects. This notion of fractional causality is based on the concept of
    perturbations. That is a small nudge of an input to a system causes a small
    change of an output to the system. This is commonly true in cases like home
    heating (to use a thermal example). Sealing up the windows properly WILL reduce
    heating bills proportionately to the amount of air infiltration permitted.

    However, this intuitive concept does not apply to chaotic systems. Chaotic systems were
    first formally described by Edward Lorenz, a meteorologist. See:

    One of the characteristics of chaotic behavior is that the smallest possible changes can
    have the largest possible effects. Furthermore, the relationships between inputs and outputs are non-monotonic: That is if small changes are made to inputs, the resulting effects on outputs will be BOTH up and down. A little more X increases Y. Then a further increase in X decreases Y. Then increase, decreases, … chaotically.

    Here is the central fallacy of all current climate models: They assume monotonicity (one way) effects of inputs vis-a-vis outputs. Each time carbon dioxide increases, temperature will increase. Weather is the archetypal chaotic system, the original system in which chaotic behavior was discovered. Hence, there must be grave cautions in making any assumptions of monotonicity.

    In reality, we simply do not know enough about climate to make long term predictions. The perfect example is the ENSO (El Nino – Southern Oscillation) that sporadically causes global shifts in weather patterns, every 3 to 8 years or so. Until we can predict ENSO, we are seriously overreaching ourselves in taking other long term predictions seriously.

      • Venus certainly does not have “runaway” greenhouse gas behavior in its atmosphere because its atmospheric temperature is stable. Its temperature is high because of its closeness to the sun. With no atmosphere at all, it would still be a hot place. That is like exoplanets that rain molten iron seen in infrared studies of some other solar systems and calling iron a greenhouse metal.

      • CO2 reacts with calcium and bicarbonate that is saturated in the world ocean. This reacts to form CaCO3, calcite. The calcite then precipitates as small oolites. This occurs in the Bahia Lagoon, Baja California and two other places to this day. The conundrum to some scientists is why this precipitation does not occur worldwide. It does not because CO2 atmosphere levels are now too low. This means there is an atmospheric upper limit to CO2.

  5. Another example of past “scientific consensus” is that Earth’s climate has not changed very much throughout time and therefore the “skeptic” Louis Agassiz’s (Swiss glaciologist) idea that continental glaciers once covered what are now ice free lands was never published.

  6. this was an interesting video…that said…we are not talking about Billions….a few billion to study the earth…ok…fine

    we are talking 16 Trillion..thats the tax scheme that the UN Climate Panel is discussing to save the earth….

  7. Young PhD recruit talks to a climate research group’s senior computer scientist:

    PhD: How do you arrive at the values you give to the variables in your climate change model?
    Computer scientist: We put in data given to us by the group’s climate scientists.
    PhD: And how do you know the effect of feedbacks between interacting variables?
    C Sc: We model different feedback effects and send the results to the head scientists and they tell us when they’re satisfied.
    PhD: Strange. That sounds as if they have already decided what the results should be.
    C Sc: Careful, son. Don’t ask too many questions if you want to keep your job.

- Advertisment -

Related Articles

Vox: “Anticipatory Cash Transfers” Required to Prevent Climate Disasters

According to Vox, providing "anticipatory" disaster payments to poor countries before the disasters strike is better than helping people survive natural disasters. The post Vox:...

Wind Turbines out Northwest

Kevin Kilty On February first I attended a Wyoming Public Service Commission (PSC) meeting regarding public need and public convenience (PNPC) of a purchase...

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #539

“I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television–words, books, and so on–are unscientific. As...