Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: Man-made global warming is ‘a house of cards’ – A ‘truly a mad issue’


By: - Climate DepotJune 11, 2015 10:08 PM with 32 comments

WASHINGTON DC – Award winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer declared man-made global warming fears to be “a house of cards” and a “truly a mad issue.”

“This is truly a mad issue,” Happer told the crowd of several hundred at the global warming skeptic conference in Washington DC on Thursday night. The event was sponsored by the Heartland Institute. Happer has authored more than 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies.

“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, nor will it cause catastrophic global warming,” Happer explained to the audience at the The Tenth International Conference on Climate Change (#ICCC10).

“This whole climate scare is a house of cards,” Happer said.

“The social cost of carbon is probably negative. There is no social cost of carbon,” he added. Happer has previously testified to the U.S. Congress. See: Flashback 2009: Will Happer Tells Congress: Earth in ‘CO2 Famine’ — ‘The increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind’ — ‘Children should not be force-fed propaganda, masquerading as science’

Earlier in the day, Atmospheric Physicist Dr. Fred Singer told the summit that the effect of CO2 emissions on climate is “negligible, not important” but very beneficial for agriculture.

Also attending the summit was U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee chairman Senator James Inhofe (R-OK). Inhofe advised Pope Francis to stay out of the climate debate.

“Everyone is going to ride the pope now. Isn’t that wonderful,” Inhofe told reporters. “The pope ought to stay with his job, and we’ll stay with ours.”

Related Links:

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer on AGW: ‘Data has been manipulated, honest scientific debate has been stifled, educational institutions have been turned into brain-washing centers for the cause’

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: ‘The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing CO2 will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science’

‘In Defense of Carbon Dioxide’ — Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer & NASA Moonwalker Harrison H. Schmitt: ‘The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing CO2 will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science’


  • Ravenscar

    Yeah CO², a life giving gas…………………..well fancy that, eh?

    Man, his emissions – puts a bit into the atmosphere ± 5% of total and that’s nothing when you calculate the concentration levels of CO² at circa 390 ppm – PARTS PER MILLION – do they understand how small it is? At this concentration – the level is way too low to contribute anything much to the overall energy balance in the Earth’s dynamic system.
    The earth love’s equilibrium and that’s just what it will do, there are no signs of major climate variability other than: NATURAL cycles and at the moment the earth teeters on the cusp of a [possibly major] cooling phase.

    The penultimate ‘last thing’ mankind needs is a global emissions limitation treaty. Plus, the very last thing mankind should be doing is closing perfectly good and operational coal fired generating plant – that’s madness – step forwards Bam Bam and Camoron, meanwhile Merkel allows Germany to build new Lignite coal generating capacity – what a total farce it all is.

    And the IPCC intergovernmental process??????? End it NOW – shut it down.

    • Robert Wagner

      The way I explain the 400 PPM is through an analogy with OSU Stadium of Football Saturday (approx 100,000 fans). If every fan represented 1 molecule of the atmosphere, 40 fans would represent atmospheric CO2. Man is claimed to produce 5% of the atmospheric CO2, so 2 fans represent Anthropogenic CO2. Does is really make sense that 2 fans in OSU can influence the entire crowd? Especially when far more potent green house gasses represent a much greater % of the atmosphere such as water vapor, which has infinitely higher variability? Lastly, CO2 absorbs at 15 micrometers, not the 10 micrometers which the earth emits. 15 micrometers is consistent with -80 degrees C, so if CO2 was going to be causing any real warming it would be over the polar regions, and the polar regions haven’t been showing any warming over the past 50 years.

      • midpath

        the sun being hotter emits in visible spectrum, the earth being cooler emits across the infrared spectrum, it is all well established. Where the hell do you read that the earth emits only at that specific frequency?? CO2 absorbs at three frequencies. As usual u r a nutter posting nonsense mixed with extreme garbage…

        • Robert Wagner

          Maybe you are reading what you want to read. It isn’t what the earth emits that is important, it is what CO2 absorbs that is important. As you mentioned, the energy that reaches the earth and warms it isn’t absorbed by CO2. If it were it wouldn’t make it to the surface now would it? So the heating of the earth has nothing to do with CO2 at all, so all these daytime records have to do with the Sun and transmission of the atmosphere, not the absorption of GHGs. That is your problem #1. Daytime warming has nothing to do with CO2. Now, you are right. The earth has a wide range of temperature zones and each one emits IR at a different peak wavelength. The average global temperature is about room temperature of around 18 degree C. That temperature is consistent with about 10 micrometers wavelength IR. Problem is, CO2 doesn’t really absorb that wavelength. CO2 absorbs at a very sharp peak of 15 micrometers. 15 micrometers is consistent with -80 degree C. The warmer IR simply passes right through CO2. If there was any warming due to CO2 it would be in the polar regions, and the S Pole in particular, and the S Pole hasn’t shown warming for over 50 years. CO2 has had zero impact on the temperatures where it would be most likely to have an impact.

          • midpath

            Of course not at a specific frequency but a range, as defined by black body radiation theory, where the peak of the distribution is according to the temperature. The light from the sun passes through strikes the earth and ocean, it warms the earth, the earth then radiates the heat away at a broad but confined band of IR frequencies. The CO2 then interferes, absorbs, reradiates, acts like a blanket. The earths atmosphere has to rise to a higher temperature in order to get to where the departing IR energy is in balance with incoming energy. It is all well explained in Climate textbooks such as Dessler 2012 chapters 1 through 6.

          • Robert Wagner

            I’m not sure you have the basics down.
            1) CO2 is 400 PPM, H2O can be as high as 4 parts per 100.
            2) CO2 and H2O absorb the same part of the IR distribution to the left ie warming side of the earth’s radiation. Earth Peak = 10 microns CO2 Peak = 15 Microns, H2O and CO2 overlap for the absorption to the left of the 10 micron peak.
            3) With or without CO2 the IR radiation to the left of 10 Microns gets absorbed by the atmosphere.
            4) The warmer the earth gets, ie left shift in the earth’s curve, the lesser the impact CO2 has on temperature.
            5) If CO2 was the cause there would be a relative warming of the colder climate to the warmer climates, that hasn’t been happening.
            6) Warming has tracked H20, ie N Hemi vs S Hemi, not CO2.
            7) CO2 is evenly distribute in the atmosphere, H20 concentrates near the surface, the distribution of heat in the atmosphere almost exactly tracks H2O. If CO2 was the cause the atmosphere would be uniformly warmed. It isn’t. 400PPM doesn’t allow for a gradient, it is uniform, the atmosphere temperature isn’t uniform.
            8) Once again, to warm the earth you must first warm the earth, that is due to incoming radiation. If more radiation is reaching the earth, the earth will warm regardless of CO2. That is what is happening. In fact as more radiation reaches the earth, and the earth does warm, as your source will point out, CO2 traps less heat allowing more heat to leave the earth. That is exactly what your charts prove. CO2 only adds to warming in the cooler climates. And that hasn’t been happening.

          • Robert Wagner

            “The CO2 then interferes, absorbs, reradiates, acts like a blanket.”
            CO2 is 400PPM uniformly, H2O is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Both absorb the same IR. Atmospheric temperatures track H2O almost exactly, they do not track CO2. That point alone rules out CO2.

        • Robert Wagner

          “CO2 absorbs at three frequencies. As usual u r a nutter posting nonsense mixed with extreme garbage”

          Yes, CO2 does absorb at 3 frequencies, 2.7, 4.3 and 15, care to explain how 2.7 and 4.3 matter given they are not in the IR wavelength relevant to the earth? This graphic totally debunks the AGW theory and it is readily found in any physics text book. BTW, those ranges are also absorbed by H2O which is present in much higher concentrations that CO2. No one is running around claiming we need to decrease water vapor.
          http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/Sun2.jpg

          • midpath

            The incoming looks correct, at least it follows the shape of a Boltzman curve, but the outgoing does not follow and cannot be correct. It has to follow a broader range in the shape of that curve. it is an easy matter for me to search google and find that the graph that you are referencing is incorrect rubbish: https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/radiative-physics-yes-co2-does-create-warming/

          • Robert Wagner

            I’m not sure you understand how to read the chart that you posted. It makes my point and refutes your point. Here is the chart that you use as evidence.

            https://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/image0011.gif

            Clearly the Earth emits around 10 micrometers/1000 nanometers.

            Clearly the 2.7 and 4.3 absorption bands of CO2 are irrelevant to AGW.

            Clearly the peak of the outgoing earth radiation of earth is 10 microns, and the majority of the band is to the left, ie Hotter, than the peak absorption of CO2.

            H20, a gas that has an infinitely higher concentration in the atmosphere than CO2 absorbs the same part of the left side ie WARMER side of the earth’s radiation distribution, ie CO2 is irrelevant because with or without it H2O would absorb the IR.

            Mother Nature looks to deliberately made CO2 NOT an important GHG because as the earth warms the absorption of CO2 lessons, ie the curve shifts left away from the absorption range of CO2.

            The warmer the earth gets the less impact CO2 has, CO2 can’t lead to warming, its peak is to the right of the earth. Yes it does trap a fraction of the heat in the range warmer than the earth, but that heat is already being trapped by H20.

            Once again, the area of the earth consistent with the CO2 peak on the chart that you posted is the S Pole, an area where the atmosphere is void of H2O, That area has shown no warming in over 50 years.

            Once again, your chart proves my point. Here are some other things for you to contemplate.

            1) H2O is unbelievably efficient at absorbing IR at the 10 to 15 micron range. IR does not penetrate the oceans, and is in fact absorbed in what is called the micro layer. http://www.isegretidelmare.it/images/spettro.png
            There is no way for IR to warm the oceans. IR absorption at the surface leads to evaporation which COOLS the oceans, and transports that heat away from the surface and into the atmosphere to form clouds.
            2) Clearly visible light penetrates and is responsible for warming the oceans. That means if the oceans are warming more light is reaching the oceans. Visible light warms the oceans, the oceans in turn warms the atmosphere above it. CO2 is not needed, and is irrelevant.
            3) Day time temperatures have been increasing and have nothing to do with CO2, day time temperatures are due to H2O and how much radiation reaches the earth. They have nothing to do with CO2.
            4) If CO2 was the cause, the spread between daytime desert temperature and nighttime desert temperatures, ie areas with little H2O in the air, would show a narrowing. They don’t.
            5) All GHGs are increasing, not just those created by man. Clearly the increase in GHG is a natural phenom.
            6) The direct relation defined between the GHG effect and temperature does not allow for a “pause.”
            7) The only way for CO2 to affect climate change is through warming, how can the “extreme weather” we’ve been having as claimed by the uninformed over the past 18 years be due to warming when there has been none?
            Bottom line, unless you can explain how atmospheric CO2 can warm the oceans, you have no valid theory. It is simply a fraud designed to deceive the uninformed. BTW, the oceans contain 2000x the amount of heat as the atmosphere, so you are going to have a tough time creating energy out of nothing to make your case. CO2 warming the oceans is like claiming a candle can warm a swimming pool.

          • Robert Wagner

            BTW, look again at your Chart: https://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/image0011.gif
            The GHG that is really dangerous, and does trap more heat was we warm is O2, Oxygen. gasp!!! W have to cut down on the production of O2, ie we need to start cutting down trees!!! Gasp. It is all proven by the GHG Theory. Forget CO2, O2 is what is going to kill us. Gasp!!!

          • Robert Wagner

            OMG, I just looked up what 255 degrees K is, it is 0 Degrees F. The Chart that you posted as evidence of your position uses a deliberately fraudulent and misleading temperature to prove its point. Your chart makes my point even stronger because the real chart for global temperature should use the global temperature as the peak of the curve, and that would put the chart even further to the left, away from the band absorbed by CO2.

            This is the misleading chart you posted as evidence: https://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/image0011.gif

            This more accurate chart that I posted and you disagreed with shows multiple curves, each one going further and further away from the CO2 band as the globe warms. http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/Sun2.jpg

            If you have to post misleading charts to make your point, you don’t have much of a point to make. I’m just glad we have your effort at deception to highlight so that everyone can see how deceitful the war mists can really be when left to make their case.

          • midpath

            I doubt anybody is actually reading your messages, because they are nonsense. I’ll answer later when I have time to waste. Read better sources, find a text book.

          • Robert Wagner

            “I doubt anybody is actually reading your messages, because they are nonsense.”
            Really, that is the best you can do? I’m pretty sure you won’t be refuting my nonsense because your efforts have already been exposed as pure sophistry.

    • Gregson14

      Commercial and Retail Growers pump upwards of 1200 ppm into their greenhouses because plants thrive on CO2. But plants begin to shutdown and die whenever CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere approach 150ppm.

  • jumper297

    Strange how this is given ZERO news coverage… this was the turning point for me (or at least when Dr. Happer spoke in 2009.) I was in grad school for aeronautics and I couldn’t find any data other than polar bears sitting on a floating chunk of ice and “Dr.” Mann’s highly dubious graph. When I saw that brilliant scientists like Happer and Curry were being called “tea-bagger scum” in the media for daring to question an unproven theory I began to realize what was actually happening.

    • cleanwater2

      jumper297 I have some info that you should be made aware of especially the recent Kindle book Vapor tiger by Adreian Vance. It gives lots of history and science.

      I have posted this many, many times-
      There is no credible experiment that proves that the Hypotheses of
      the greenhouse gas effect exists. It should be coming obvious that
      there is something wrong with the supposed science of “climatology”
      that they and not one of the “climate scientist ” can come
      up with a test that shows what is the CO2 temperature sensitivity of
      the atmosphere. It keeps changing. This is not science this is
      witchcraft and voodoo.

      There are real scientists out there
      but no one wants to look at the work of people in the list below. and
      many physicists and physical chemists.

      newest
      : The Vapor Tiger by Adrian Vance available from Amazon as Kindle.

      The paper “Falsification of
      the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within
      the frame of physics”
      by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D.
      Tscheuschner is an in-depth
      examination of the subject. Version 4
      2009 Electronic
      version
      of an article published as International
      Journal of Modern
      Physics

      B,
      Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 ,
      DOI No:
      10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World

      Scientific
      Publishing
      Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.

      Report of Alan
      Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not
      cause
      global warming.

      Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates
      Fundamentals
      of Physics”
      by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme

      link
      that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a
      hoax.

      R.W.Wood

      from the London, Edinborough and Dublin
      Philosophical Magazine , 1909,
      vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL
      shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i

      The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
      By Alan
      Siddons

      from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html
      at
      March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST

      The
      below information was
      a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is
      obvious that there was no
      evidence to prove that the ghg effect
      exists.

      “In the
      1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s
      natural
      greenhouse effect and suggested
      that slight changes in
      the atmospheric composition could
      bring about climatic variations.
      He was speaking of water in all phases. He also stated that “trace
      gases were in such small quantities that they could not effect the
      atmosphere.

      In 1896, a seminal paper by
      Swedish
      scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated
      that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could
      substantially alter the surface temperature through the
      greenhouse
      effect.” He did several experiments but could not
      demonstrate the “heating” of the atmosphere by IR absorption by
      CO2.

      After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of
      the greenhouse
      effect was in error and the ghg effect does not
      exist. After Niels
      Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel
      Prize in Physics in 1922.
      The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect
      should have died in 1909 and
      1922. Since then it has been shown by
      several physicists that the
      concept is a Violation of the Second
      Law of Thermodynamics.

      Wood is correct: There is no Greenhouse
      Effect

      Posted on July 19, 2011 by Dr.Ed

      Repeatability
      of Professor Robert W. Wood’s 1909
      experiment on the Theory of
      the Greenhouse (Summary by
      Ed Berry. Full report here or here. &
      PolyMontana.)
      by Nasif S. Nahle, June 12, 2011

      University
      Professor, Scientific Research Director at Biology Cabinet®
      San
      Nicolas de los Garza, N. L., Mexico.

      Obviously the
      politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in
      with
      what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current
      pretend
      president.

      Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing
      of “The Theory of Relativity”
      –one fact out does 1 million
      “scientist, 10 billion politicians
      and 20 billion environmental
      whachos-that don’t know what” The
      Second Law of
      thermodynamics” is.

      University of Pennsylvania Law School
      ILE

      INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS

      A Joint Research
      Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,

      and the
      Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences

      at
      the University of Pennsylvania

      RESEARCH PAPER NO.10-08

      Global
      Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination

      Jason Scott
      Johnston

      UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

      May 2010

      This
      paper can be downloaded without charge from the

      Social Science
      Research Network Electronic Paper
      Collection:

      http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1612851

      Israeli
      Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: ‘There is no direct evidence showing that
      CO2 caused 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any
      warming’
      link to this paper on climate depot.

      Web-site
      references:

      http://www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder

      wwwclimatedepot.com

      icecap.us

      http://www.stratus-sphere.com

      SPPI

      many
      others
      are available.

      The bottom line is that the facts show that
      the greenhouse gas effect is
      a fairy-tale and that Man-made global
      warming is the World larges
      Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be
      charged under the US
      Anti-racketeering act and when convicted –
      they should spend the rest
      of their lives in jail for the Crimes
      they have committed against
      Humanity.

      The only thing more
      dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
      —Albert
      Einstein

      “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding
      what to have for dinner. Liberty is
      a well-armed lamb.”
      Benjamin Franklin

      • Isandhlwana79

        I have seen and read the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper. I admit I don’t understand all of it but the AGW proponents pooh-pooh it and say those two PHD’s are wrong and don’t have a clue. I have yet to see a real scientific rebuttal of their work, just ad homs with no substance.

    • Fry Panny

      What was going on with you before 2009? Was your default an acceptance of lies and participation in the mockery of honest people? Too late, no forgiveness. You lefties will never deserve forgiveness and never get it. Solidly lightheaded bad people.

      • jumper297

        You are an idiot of epic proportions. A truly ignorant individual. You’re missing a lot of information you’d need to start tossing out labels and insults. “Lefty?” So you know how I vote? How old I am? My background? I never said what I believed prior to 2009? All I said was that was the point I started trying to dig into it. My post was quite simple in its statement and certainly wasn’t a cry for “forgiveness” from someone like you.

        • Fry Panny

          No forgiveness, ever.

          • jumper297

            I will give you credit for doubling down on stupid. It’s actually impressive in its own way. Keep on trolling champ…

          • Fry Panny

            You don’t have credit to give. You’re insignificant .

        • bpuryea

          jumper297

          Don’t argue with idiots.

          In 2009 my son was 14 and just starting to pay attention to the lie that is AGW.

          In 2015, now 20, he is fully conversant with the bad “science” the Gorebotts are attempting to utilize to achieve their utopia.

          6 years can be a huge difference depending on many factors, youth being but one of them.

          jumper297 only has a point if you were to continue to support and vote for politicians who champion the AGW hysteria now that you know the truth.

          Sadly, their utopia, if realized, would be the beginning of the worst human suffering in many thousands of years. The world runs on energy. The enormous advances humanity has made in lifting billions out of abject poverty is in large, part if not almost completely due to easier and cheaper access to energy.

          The Gorebotts want to cut our energy consumption by the tanker load without a reasonable replacement. Third world countries that need energy the most will be the first to suffer as the ability to build new power plants in Gorebottutopia is further reduced.

          Here’s a quick question to ask the AGW nazi morons. What kills more people globally every year. Colder temps or hotter temps? (It’s cold by a mile!) So, if as the assholes claim, they care about humanity, they would be in favor of something that will simply return us to temps the planet has experienced dozens of times in past inter-glacial eras.

      • sabretruthtiger

        Fry Manny. Seek psychiatric help, you’re truly fucked in the head.

    • Gregson14

      Check out The Vancouver Sun’s 30-min interview (You-Tube) with another Princeton Physicist, Freeman Dyson as he discusses the “net benefits” of CO2 to Planet Earth and the absurdity that it is classified by the EPA as a pollutant.

  • Rad Matic

    He used to be a wamer and made one of the first alarmist models. I’ve been a denier from day one. Guess I’m smarter. I give him credit tho. He now not only denies significant warming but touts the benefits of increased CO2, warming in general and the dangers of cooling.

  • therealviffer

    Just think about it for a moment from first principles. It’s all about heat flow. In any natural, unaltered system, heat flows only from hot to cold, until there is zero difference in temperature between the objects under consideration. At that point, heat flow is zero, yet both objects are still radiating.

    The part of the atmosphere containing nearly all of the CO2 is much colder than the surface. It is therefore simply impossible for a colder sky to cause an already warmer surface to heat up.

    It’s that simple.

    • Robert Wagner

      Yep,, conservation of energy. There is no way for insulation to warm a room above that of the heating element. GHGs can slow cooling, they can not result in warming.

  • Oliver_K_Manuel

    I have known and admired Dr. Freeman Dyson since 1976, but not his younger colleague, Dr. Will Happer.

    E. M. Smith posted an excellent video summary on the global warming scam, a continuation of the ~500 year effort of “wannabe world tyrants” to avoid admitting total powerless after Copernicus reported in 1543 that Earth is not the center of the universe nor of the solar system, but orbits the Sun, a fountain of energy that supplies heat and light to all planets in the solar system.

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2015/06/14/some-videos-on-the-global-warming-fraud/

    The timing of Smith’s summary was divine: On Friday NPR had reported a study by Alva Noë, a philosopher at UC-Berkeley, concluding we should still trust government science despite recent evidence of cheating and data manipulation,

    http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/06/12/413607947/should-we-trust-science

    and on Sunday the New York Times claimed that the Pope, the UN and climatologists are concerned about the effects of global climate on the poor:

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/world/europe/pope-to-explore-climates-effect-on-worlds-poor.html?referrer=

    AGW proponents ignored precise measurements and observations during the nuclear and space age that showed the fountain of energy Copernicus discovered at the solar system’s center of gravity in 1543 also [1]:

    1. Made the chemical elements in the solar system
    2. Birthed the solar system five billion years (5 Ga) ago
    3. Sustained the origin and evolution of life after 3.5 Ga ago
    4. Still controls every atom, life and planet in the solar system today, and
    5. Cannot be hidden from the public by combined forces of the Catholic Church, the United Nations, federal research agencies and national academies of science (NAS) united into a worldwide Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Scientific (UN)Truths.

    The fountain of energy in the core of the Sun exists on a miniature scale in the cores of all atoms heavier that 150 amu (atomic mass units) [1]. It is powered by NEUTRON REPULSION, the force of creation in the core of the Sun and the force of destruction in the cores of the uranium and plutonium atoms that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 & 9 Aug 1945.

    The late Dr. Paul Kazuo Kuroda, risked his life by secretly taking personal possession of Japan’s atomic bomb design in 1945,

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2170881.stm

    probably to block the sinister use of this source of energy: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Introduction.pdf

    Reference:

    1. Oliver K. Manuel, “Solar Energy,” Adv. Astron. (submitted 1 Sept 2104; published privately 17 Mar 2015)
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf

  • Mike

    I read a comment by another poster elsewhere that when said poster was finishing up his post grad science degree, he was told that the secret to funding for research was to keep the crisis going. I sure we can all agree with that.

  • sabretruthtiger

    I know some intelligent people in the vfx industry who vehemently believe in man made global warming. I’m at a complete loss to understand their thinking. All the evidence supports the skeptics and no matter how much information I give them they refuse to change their view. How can people be so mind numbingly stupid?
    I guess as liberals they have to worship the state therefore government is right about everything.