Fears of man-made global warming are “mistaken,” and far from suffering from too much carbon dioxide, as the daily headlines proclaim, our Earth is actually in the midst of a “CO₂ famine.” So says Will Happer. Who is this heretic who dares to contradict Al Gore, Leonardo DiCapprio, the United Nations, and “scientific consensus”? He certainly can’t have any credibility on this issue if he’s not even a rock star or a Hollywood celebrity, right?

No, Dr. Will Happer is not a celebrity. He is merely a physicist of considerable renown who happens to agree with many of the world’s other leading scientists that the current panic over climate change is a lot of “hysterics about carbon footprints.” Dr. Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton University, testified before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on February 25. He told them:

Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO₂ famine now. Almost never has CO₂ levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) — 280 (parts per million - ppm) — that’s unheard of. Most of the time [CO₂ levels] have been at least 1,000 (ppm) and it’s been quite higher than that,” Happer told the Senate Committee.

“Earth was just fine in those times,” Prof. Happer noted. “The oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So it’s baffling to me that we’re so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started,” Happer explained. Happer also noted that “the number of [skeptical scientists] with the courage to speak out is growing” and he warned “children should not be force-fed propaganda, masquerading as science.”

Global-warming alarmists are pushing for incredibly wasteful and expensive “carbon sequestration” and carbon “cap and trade” schemes that will have virtually no impact on global CO₂ levels or global temperatures. But rising CO₂ levels shouldn’t be worrying us anyway.

“I believe that the increase of CO₂ is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind,” Happer told the committee. He cited the well-known evidence from other researchers that increasing CO₂ levels will greatly benefit crop yields, meaning more food for the world’s people and animals. Dr. Sherwood Idso and other scientists have published extensively on the numerous benefits to be derived from increasing CO₂ levels: more robust forest and vegetation growth, greater plant resistance to stress, greater drought resistance, reclaiming of deserts and barren lands.

“What about the frightening consequences of increasing levels of CO₂ that we keep hearing about?” Dr. Happer asked rhetorically. “In a word, they are wildly exaggerated, just as the purported benefits of prohibition were wildly exaggerated,” he answered. “At least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player,” he explained.  “But the climate is warming and CO₂ is increasing.  Doesn’t this prove that CO₂ is causing global warming through the greenhouse effect? No, the current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO₂.  There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. These earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels. The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide. Over the past ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling. This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC models."

Professor Happer is a former director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy. He has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences. Prof. Happer has joined the more than 650 distinguished scientists from around the globe who have provided statements challenging the alleged “scientific consensus” frequently sited in support of human-caused, or anthropogenic global warming. Those statements are available in a 231-page report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

These scientists represent more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report for policymakers. But the AGW “scientific consensus” fraud becomes even more ludicrous when the results of the Global Warming Petition Project are factored in, since more than 31,000 American scientists have signed onto the document urging “the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”

_{Photo: NASA}

<sub>See the related articles:

Carbon Dioxide a "Pollutant"?

Scientists Challenge Global Warming “Crisis”

Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

Liberty From Global-warming Alarmism</sub>

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (10)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Flu-Bird said:

	CO2 isnt bad All this poppycock bull kaka about what CO2 is cuasing this GLOBAL WARMING POPPYCOCK is crazy i mean CO2 is nessacary for the enviroment in general we just have a bunch of unscruplous political hacks and green nazis wanting to control our lives and AL GORE is their high preist
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 28, 2009
Votes: +2

Porcus Wallabee said:

Really? FTA:"The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.” Soooo, let me just get this straight: reducing the amount of c02 emissions being pumped into the air=bad for the environment. And pumping c02 into the atmosphere=good for the environment? I wish I knew what the hell was going on here. I wish people would stop lying to me.

report abuse vote down vote up

February 28, 2009 | url
Votes: +1

Dobb's Head said:

Irrelevant points are irrelevant. Falsehoods are False In terms of us being in a CO2 famine in geologic history is irrelevant to the discussion of global warming. No scientist is saying that global warming, not longer theoretical but a real observable, is going to destroy all life on this planet. We are pointing out that humans have evolved to survive in this environment, and so have most of the species we depend on to survive. If we change the climate, which is demonstrably happening right now, at the very least there will be a transition period while we adapt where capital needs to be transfered and developed. At the most so many species will go extinct that our very survival will be threatened. What most scientists are saying is that if we transfer some of our funds now to adapting to the new climate, our economy will experience more growth and less pain later. Denying that the climate is changing is like claiming that the sun will rise in the west tomorrow.

report abuse vote down vote up

March 01, 2009
Votes: -2

Flu-Bird said:

	PLANTS NEED co2 Plants need CO2 to survive if we allow green fanatics like AL GORE to eliminate the internal combustion engine in his own mindless rediclous plans to prevent whats not happening then look for polution to return with horse manure everywhere, we cant allow a bunch of politcal hacks control our future DEEP ECOLOGY MUST BE STAMED OUT
	report abuse vote down vote up

March 02, 2009
Votes: -1

what?!, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Mr. Mark said:

Climate isn't changing? Dobb's Head, I don't think the author was refuting the fact that the climate is changing, he's just addressing a side to the issue that is all too disregarded in this argument. Global warming is not a set in stone, undeniable fact. There is, believe it or not, significant dissent to the gospel according to Al Gore. Also, please give us an example of it being "real and observable". I think if one could live for thousands of years, one could say that it's observable. The earth has been around for billions of years and our measly 2000 years of records can't be enough to draw the extraordinary conclusions that we're destroying everything. A little pretentious, wouldn't you think?

report abuse vote down vote up

March 02, 2009 | url
Votes: +2

Stephen said:

geological perspective??? As a geologist, I can assure you that yes, the earth's climate does vary, and it always has. Any pretense from folks that this is somehow a new phenomenon that is anthropogenically induced is simply a political fad; thirty years ago these same types were clamoring that another Ice Age was coming! The climate of our planet has much more to do with sunspot activity and the earth's rotation around the sun. Sea level changes of literally hundreds of feet, plus and minus, are clear as day in the geologic record. I think cleaner air is good for us all (ever been to El Paso?), but I also think folks are rather conceited if they think humans affect the climate of our planet in any significant amount.

report abuse vote down vote up

March 02, 2009
Votes: +1

Dan said:

So Al Gore is wrong about a lot huh? As we all must have heard by now when Al Gore was brainwashing our children at a seminar in which the media was not invited nor the parents, and was teaching the children that we as parents do not know what we are doing or talking about and that they are smarter than we are, Nazi I say nazi!!! call it like it is!! He even had me fooled for a lil while till I studied the facts myself, we need carbon dioxide co2 ect... or we will starve the world.... makes me wish there was another palnet to live on without these kind of radical idiots anywhere around.

report abuse vote down vote up

March 03, 2009
Votes: +0

Geoff said:

Sr. Research Scientist As a university geology professor who has co-taught seminars on this subject (climate change and man's role)the last year, I was stunned to find out there is, at best, little evidence to support anthropogenic (man-made) climate change. Stephen is absolutely correct about the geologic record. My question now is: why are so many promoting the CCS agenda when it's so questionable? And if you can't follow all the science, just read Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg. At least he's making sense.

report abuse vote down vote up

March 04, 2009
Votes: +1

tomthumb said:

	Penance Since all the experts are weighing-in I think I should too. The Gore family fortune was made by-????? COAL! I think Mr. Potato-head in his own wierd way is doing penance for becoming rich through mining the most carbon dioxide rich fuel around! Well at least he did one great thing for us- He invented the Internet!
	report abuse vote down vote up

March 05, 2009
Votes: +0