'CO2 Emissions, Good For Mankind'; Real Problem Is A 'CO2 Famine'
Testimony of Princeton University Atomic Physicist, Dr. Wm. Happer, before the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, Feb. 25, 2009.
Video via:Business & Media Institute.
Atomic physicists would know about how more CO2 emissions are good for us - because they so well understand ecosystems. At Congressional hearings yesterday, according to Reuters, "One day after President Barack Obama asked Congress to craft a law to cap carbon emissions, battle lines were drawn in Congress on Wednesday over how to deal with human-spurred climate change." Battle lines indeed. Princeton physicist William Happer testified that we are having a 'CO2 Famine:' check out the video for yourself.
...Princeton physicist William Happer, ... said increased carbon dioxide emissions "will be good for mankind."Somehow it always comes back to this:
Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who heads the committee, said after Happer's testimony that he is affiliated with an institute that received hundreds of thousands of dollars from ExxonMobil over the past decade.What institute would that be?
Per Sourcewatch, Mr Happer is Chairman of the Board of Directors of the George C. Marshall Institute; and also Eugene Higgens Professor of Physics, Princeton University. What's that about the Marshall Institute?
According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest: "The Marshall Institute investigates facts concerning global climate change. The Institute also studies the implications of the Kyoto Protocol upon national security. The Institute is partially supported by the Exxon Education Foundation and American Standard Companies."More CO2, please. Because, it's good for mankind.
What an embarrassment for Princeton which last year sponsored a Lecture series [that] explores ethics and climate change, and which has the AAAS Center for Science, Technology and Congress, and which hosts the annual Carbon Mitigation Initiative..
Are we not yet past the point where the "A List" of climate change experts parading before Congress includes people with such fantastic ideas and foolish outlooks? Apparently not. And that's a good thing.
Get that fellow up on the Hill a bunch more times. Play him on prime time news, over and over. Get him on the David Letterman Show talking about how lovely things were back in the Pleistocene. (I'm pretty sure he said "Pleistocene;" even thought that does not match up at all with the 80 million years ago answer he provided to Senator Boxer regarding the time to which he referred. Is that what you heard?)
Pleistocene climate was characterized by repeated glacial cycles where continental glaciers pushed to the 40th parallel in some places. It is estimated that, at maximum glacial extent, 30% of the Earth's surface was covered by ice. In addition, a zone of permafrost stretched southward from the edge of the glacial sheet, a few hundred kilometres in North America, and several hundred in Eurasia. The mean annual temperature at the edge of the ice was −6 °C; at the edge of the permafrost, 0 °C.
Each glacial advance tied up huge volumes of water in continental ice sheets 1500–3000 m thick, resulting in temporary sea level drops of 100 m or more over the entire surface of the Earth. During interglacial times, such as at present, drowned coastlines were common, mitigated by isostatic or other emergent motion of some regions.
The effects of glaciation were global. Antarctica was ice-bound throughout the Pleistocene as well as the preceding Pliocene. The Andes were covered in the south by the Patagonian ice cap. There were glaciers in New Zealand and Tasmania. The current decaying glaciers of Mount Kenya, Mount Kilimanjaro, and the Ruwenzori Range in east and central Africa were larger. Glaciers existed in the mountains of Ethiopia and to the west in the Atlas mountains.
Mr, Happer, you are exactly what the Dr. ordered as the cure for an earlier climate policy disaster. Keep up the good work.