Happer versus Karoly

12 Sep 2018

At https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2018/09/06/the-great-climate-debate-re... ... which provides a link to https://andymaypetrophysicist.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/the-great-deba... ... Happer versus Karoly: a climate debate. Actual debates on the greenhouse theory are very rare so this is potentially a gem. Biographies of the two participants can be found at https://thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/ ... this is a science debate on the subject of co2 and what it can or can't do (from two different positions). Both scientists argue temperatures have gone up recently - and co2 levels have also gone up. The argument is over the effects of that warming - good or bad (and what the future might hold). Of course, the CAGW alarmism is driven by politics - and fueled by politics (as the recent shindig in Bangkok has shown, a jolly for all the delegates and a reluctant paymaster, Mr Trump). As long as the elite are making lots of money out of CAGW the alarmism will continue unabated and moderate views on global warming will be steam rollered. It pays dividends to keep the alarmism ticking over - but full throated alarmism has slowed a bit of lately. It is not about the science as both sides pick and choose what they consider is reliable science - and which scientists are satan incarnate or rooting for the cause. This debate is therefore irrelevant to the alarmist agenda and will be ignored. The fact it involves science is by the way - and of no consequence. Politics and bankrolling the agenda play first fiddle. Money, as they say, is the root of all evil.

On the last site, which held the debate, the final word is given to Glen Tamblyn of Melbourne University. In true alarmist fashion he attacks the man rather than the science - which he fails to acknowledge. The nature of the difference in opinion can be seen by the several comments at the end of Tamblyn's piece. Some support Tamblyn and others oppose his approach. In other words, if you believe in global warming you take him at face value and accept Happer fails to do the debate justice. In contrast if you are a sceptic you can see where Happer is coming from. Tamblyn accuses Happer of being right wing - but fails to mention he is himself died in the wool left wing. Politics. Can't get away from it.

This division has recently led to the idea of a sceptics climate conference - in competition with the likes of Bangkok. It is purportedly more about the science than the politics (but the latter isn't far away). This year it is at Oporto in Portugal - see https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/09/12/claus-reith-the-porto-climate...