Question

Elimination of CO2 is a suicide pact
It’s safe to assume no one consciously sets out to challenge a narrative as deeply entrenched and emotionally charged as climate change. Dr William Happer, an American physicist and Professor Emeritus in the Department of Physics at Princeton University, certainly didn’t. It was only in 1991, upon Happer’s appointment by President George W Bush as director of Energy Research in the US Department of Energy, that his interaction with climate change authorities – and their refusal to engage in customary scientific debate on climate change – piqued his interest. Thereafter, Happer was dismissed for his contrarian views and ‘head butting’ with climate change luminary Al Gore, only to be brought back to Washington by former president Donald Trump in 2018. BizNews spoke to Happer (83) about his prodigious career and discovery that the burgeoning climate change hysteria had no scientific basis. Happer meticulously detailed why and how CO2, the “demon gas”, is not a pollutant but is essential to mankind’s prosperity.

#ClimateChange #DonaldTrump #university #scientific #climate #suicide #physics #video

KeVince 8

Answer 1

Science has always been a reductionary interprise. While statistical models are used to deal with systems that can't be reduced or subjected to controlled experiments, such as the complex chaotic system we call climate, they have limitations and the mathematical systems used are still primitive. Science worship is just one of many cults that have popped up in the decay of Western Civilization. The public needs to be reminded that science is just a tool and like all tools the user determines it use. For the most part science has taken a second rate position to politics in the determination of how it should be used recently. Happer can talk all he wants about science but it's the politics that are the problem and in politics the facts don't seem to matter. I think the reaction to climate change hysteria has been almost as ridiculous as the hysteria itself. The elimination of fossil fuel use is a reasonable goal but like everything else there is a better and worse way to go about it. The "right" amount of co2 in the atmosphere is a subjective opinion. Since the elimination of fossil fuel use has become misanthropic the debate should not be over good vs bad science but over good vs bad moral philosophy. The best example of bad moral philosophy is the idea that scientist doing science can be anything but amoral highlights the lack of sophistication in our intellectual classes.


Author	Author:
Type of abuse	I think this violates the community guidelines. Chat or rant, adult content, spam, insulting other members I think this is illegal. Harm to minors, violence or threats, harassment or privacy invasion, impersonation or misrepresentation, fraud or phishing, etc.
Additional Details If Needed

Chat room is open

Post a comment Author doesn't reply Reply Author doesn't reply Add Photo

Be part of the movement!

1 comment

Recent Visitors 10

Photos 11,796 More

Members 9,402Top

Moderators

Related GroupsMore