The Happerning

Hillsdale College – National Leadership Symposium.
Address by William Happer,
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus – Princeton
How to Think About Climate Change
56 minutes (1.25 speed works)

That link is to Watt’s Up With That? because the YouTube version has a “Climate Change” “fact check” disclaimer from WikiTedia appended, and I cannot find the lecture on Hillsdale’s site. WUWT deserves a hat tip, in any case.

On the off chance that you won’t autonomically watch the whole thing based on my recommendation, at least check this 2 minutes out.

It’s the next to last question of the Q&A. It’s a core question. Any catastrophist who watches this, if they have half a clue about their own position, will bring it up. If they don’t have that clue, they’re likely to make some ad hominem objection. You’ve been warned.

Happer set the stage for how one must think about CO2 “forcing” to design climate models politically acceptable to the IPCC, but did not address it in his lecture.

I noted the rigor of those IPCC models, and the quality of the data, in December 2009: Prometheus unbound

All the models admit that CO2 alone CANNOT cause the predicted apocalypse. So, CO2 must have secondary catastrophic consequences. All the models take this as given.

It’s the “forcing” assumption: A little bit of warming from CO2 will cause increases in water vapor (by orders of magnitude the most important greenhouse gas). Atmospheric carbon dioxide iteratively “forces” more and more water vapor – creating a feedback loop that fries the planet.

Clouds are part of that “water cycle.” But they aren’t part of the modeling. The modeling that depends on a particular prediction about the water cycle: NASA: We Can’t Model Clouds, So Climate Model Projections Are 100x Less Accurate [than is required for policy decisions]

“Because the uncertainties are so pervasive, NASA concludes that “today’s models must be improved by about a hundredfold in accuracy” if we wish to make climate projections.”

Clouds. They cannot say within 1% certainty that the models’ “forcing” policies of immiseration upon us can be used to support those policies.

TOC noted this 15 years ago.
Science tempers fears on climate change
Posted on September 4, 2006
The link in that has rotted, but I’m sure a copy of the Kyoto ‘Treaty’ is out there on the InterTubes.

I’ve looked at clouds from no sides now…
Posted on June 30, 2007
The first link in that has rotted, but the second one has not. Note “water cycle” – of which clouds are but one phenomenon unknown to IPCC “science.” That’s where the title of the post came from.

Bloody handed little weasel

Nice short summary of Fauci Fraud.
Fauci In 2012: Gain-Of-Function Research ‘Worth Risk Of Lab Accident Sparking Pandemic’ | ZeroHedge

In which he is quoted in response to questions from Rand Paul:

“We have not funded gain of function research on this virus in the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” he added. No matter how many times you say it, it didn’t happen.”

This kind of word play is best left to Bill Clinton. He knew succinct misdirection ‘is’ better.

I mean, “this virus?” Makes you wonder which ones he did fund. It may have been unnecessary embellishment.

Fauci knew he had to phrase his response carefully, since he is on record saying gain of function research is more important than the risk of a pandemic, and he’s about to insist vehemently that Senator Paul is a liar. Let’s just unpack that one reply to Senator Paul:

“At one time my agency did fund gain of function research in the US. But, we had to stop because of unsciency moral objections from the Obama administration. They did not understand the precautionary principle only applies to fossil fuel.

To continue GoF research we were forced to fund a third party NGO. This gave us plausible deniability, since the funding destination was almost certain to be a lab in Wuhan, China.

Since US dollars are fungible, this may or may not have probably funded GoF research at a Chinese lab specializing in coronavirus, headed by a woman nicknamed “batwoman,” who wrote a paper in 2015 about adding a spike protein to bat coronavirus enabling its attachment to human ACE2 receptors. She had long “openly participated in gain-of-function research in partnership with U.S. universities and institutions”.

Her lab was widely considered to have substandard safety protocols, in a country well known to care little for civilized norms and whose military is known to have speculated about coronavirus biological warfare. Which country obfuscated and obstructed the WHO investigation whitewash of the CCP virus origins, having earlier blamed the US Army for it, and after having delayed providing information to the world public health community at the beginning of the outbreak. In Wuhan. China.

Finally, the person who transferred US taxpayer dollars to the Chinese lab on behalf of my NIH was one of the WHO investigators. He anonymously authored a letter denying it was possible the virus was man made prior to the conclusion of WHO’s investigation. The letter, to which he adduced 27 actual signatures, concluded by stating: “We declare no competing interests.” That, of course, is not the same as not having any. I should know.”

In Fauci’s case the “it” that ‘didn’t happen’ is a matter more important than Bill’s torturing of the word “is.”

References & further reading:
The doctor who denied COVID-19 was leaked from a lab had this major bias

Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19

EXCLUSIVE: COVID-19 ‘has NO credible natural ancestor’ and WAS created by Chinese scientists who then tried to cover their tracks with ‘retro-engineering’ to make it seem like it naturally arose from bats, explosive new study claims

The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?

The content of CDC’s character

I shared this article regarding CDC vaccine distribution decisions with some friends:
Why I’m Losing Trust in the Institutions – Persuasion

RTWT, but here’s the key:

[There are] some bedrock principles on which virtually all moral philosophers have long agreed.

The first is that we should avoid “leveling down” everyone’s quality of life for the purpose of achieving equality… The second is that we should not use ascriptive characteristics like race or ethnicity to allocate medical resources… The Centers for Disease Control have just thrown both of these principles overboard in the name of social justice.

In one of the most shocking moral misjudgments by a public body I have ever seen, the CDC invoked considerations of “social justice” to recommend providing vaccinations to essential workers before older Americans even though this would, according to its own models, lead to a much greater death toll. After a massive public outcry, the agency has adopted revised recommendations. But though these are a clear improvement, they still violate the two bedrock principles of allocative justice—and are likely to cause unnecessary suffering on a significant scale…

On November 23rd, Kathleen Dooling, a public health official at the CDC, gave a presentation to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices … on who should first get access to the vaccine against Covid… Dooling recommended that 87 million essential workers—a very broad category including bankers and movie crews as well as teachers or supermarket cashiers—should get the vaccine before older Americans, even though the elderly are much more likely to die from the disease. The committee unanimously accepted the recommendations.

Dooling’s presentation laid out three different metrics for evaluating whether 87 million “essential workers” or Americans over the age of 65 should be next in line: feasibility, science, and ethics…

According to the CDC’s model, prioritizing essential workers over the elderly would … likely result in the preventable deaths of thousands of Americans.

And yet, the presentation concluded that science does not provide a reason to prioritize the elderly. For, as Kathleen Dooling wrote in one of the most jaw-dropping sentences I have ever seen in a document written by a public official, differences in expected consequences that could amount to thousands of additional deaths are “minimal.”

This allowed Dooling to focus on “ethical” principles in selecting the best course of action. Highlighting the most important consideration in red, Dooling emphasized that “racial and ethnic minority groups are underrepresented among adults > 65.” In other words, America’s elderly are too white to be considered a top priority for the distribution of the vaccine against Covid.

My emailed comment was:
Whatever your opinion of the politicization of CCP virus treatments, Hydroxychloroquine for example, the CDC decision outlined in the link is an example of callous disregard for human life in the service of Critical Race Theory. Unlike HCQ, where reasonable people could a raise cautionary hand, this was a conscious decision to increase the death toll from the CCP virus. A decision based on skin color and, probably, pressure from unions – especially the American Federation of Teachers. It is disgusting that institutions we set up and pay for have so little regard for anything beyond woke virtue signaling.

The policy undoubtedly led to more black deaths, more elderly deaths, and more black elderly deaths.

One of the email recipients asked this:
Is murder too strong a word? Worse, perhaps, than Benghazi.

To which I replied:
Benghazi was amoral indifference followed by cynical coverup. You could argue that bold faced lies told over the caskets of the people she put in harm’s way was merely another demonstration of Hillary’s horrible character. What did they expect, after all? But she had left the deaths to chance. The deaths were possible, a vile betrayal, would be embarrassing, but were not assured. A reasonable gamble for the soulless if you can get away with it.

On the other hand, CDC’s decision to withhold vaccines from the most vulnerable on the basis of race was contrary to their charter, a moral perversion of their own knowledge, but also premeditated. Excess deaths were what they approved. They thought wokeness would not only let them get away with it, but that it was a praiseworthy moral principle.

Worse than Benghazi.

Murder is not too strong a word. More specifically, geronticide.

A league of their own?

You know those very annoying CAPTCHAs – nine blurry images arranged in a 3×3 square that ask you to click on all the fire hydrants, or buses, or crosswalks, etc., etc. – to prove you’re “not a robot”?

CAPTCHA is a lame acronym, iteratively cross-dressed into: “Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart.”

Well, today I’m giving you the first look at the “Other Club Turing test to Unautomatedly separate the Guys from the Gals,” or OCTUGG. TOC doesn’t employ a team of highly paid acronym inventors.

OCTUGG has only 4 choices instead of 9, and hi-res images so the yellow fire hydrant isn’t camouflaged by the school bus in the background. You might think it’s simpler and clearer than CAPTCHA.

We’ll see. Your job is is to think about which images below you’d click given the instruction: “Click on all the males.”

The correct answer is click all of them.

Upper left to lower right, they are Laurel Hubbard, Hanna Mouncey, Kataluna Enriquez, and Fallon Fox. All transwomen. Three of them claim to be female athletes. Three of them are narcissistic bullies. One is a paler, slimmer rendition of RuPaul.

Laurel Hubbard is a Kiwi weight lifter, who set womens’ world records – keeping an XX chromosome female off the medals podium. Hanna Mouncey is an Aussie rugby player (6’2″/220) who has significantly injured more than a few women. Kataluna Enriquez is a Nevada beauty pageant winner (Miss Silver State), about to compete for Miss Nevada. And Fallon Fox is an American MMA fighter who broke an XX chromosome opponent’s eye socket in a fight even Liz Warren would not have called fair.

So. It’s not as easy to identify who should be allowed to play on your collegiate women’s sports teams as the South Dakota legislature assumed.

I mean, Miss Silver State isn’t going to be recruited to the wrestling team even by some woke athletic director. If they had a female wrestling team. Only the males capable of crushing females would be of interest. Fleeting interest, once all the marginal males figure out they can be stars in strength and speed competition with females.

Let them compete, I say. With each other. Out and proud, right?

Emphasis mine in the following. Parker citation link omitted. The science is settled in the case of human sexual dimorphism. There are two sexes. The scientific definition of this is that human:

[f]emale gametes are larger than male gametes. This is not an empirical observation, but a definition: in a system with two markedly different gamete sizes, we define females to be the sex that produces the larger gametes and vice-versa for males (Parker et al. 1972), and the same definition applies to the female and male functions in hermaphrodites.

There is a longer discussion of this here: Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes

Why are there girls and why are there boys? We review theoretical work which suggests that divergence into just two sexes is an almost inevitable consequence of sexual reproduction in complex multicellular organisms, and is likely to be driven largely by gamete competition. In this context we prefer to use the term gamete competition instead of sperm competition, as sperm only exist after the sexes have already diverged (Lessells et al., 2009). To see this, we must be clear about how the two sexes are defined in a broad sense: males are those individuals that produce the smaller gametes (e.g. sperm), while females are defined as those that produce the larger gametes (e.g. Parker et al., 1972; Bell, 1982; Lessells et al., 2009; Togashi and Cox, 2011). Of course, in many species a whole suite of secondary sexual traits exists, but the fundamental definition is rooted in this difference in gametes, and the question of the origin of the two sexes is then equal to the question of why do gametes come in two different sizes.

The secondary sexual characteristics, of course, are where we get into errors like those of the South Dakota legislature. It isn’t always obvious who is male and who is female. They might as well have tried to set height and weight limits, akin to the strictures we place on youth sport by banding the competitors in age groups.

Or they could try a routine genetic test. No more intrusive than vaccine passports.


This is a book recommendation. Sadly, it’s out of print, and I can find none in any of the used book sites I have used. The good news is it’s cheap on Kindle.

I found out about it here if you want a short opinion second to the one that follows.

I can’t believe I’d never heard of the book, either.

The flying car topic of the title is used to weave a sort of ‘back to the future’ look at at technology, American ingenuity/entrepreneurialism, and government regulation. There is a strong science fiction presence used to ask “Why did, or did not, the predictions of 1930-1960 SF come to pass?” It’s a good summary of my contention that much of that literature should have been required reading.

Appearances, among many others, by H. G. Wells, Issac Asimov, and Arthur C. Clarke.

The brilliant Dr. Richard Feynman also takes a bow in a discussion of Heinlein’s novellas Waldo and Magic Inc..

I cut my teeth on SF with Tom Swift, and my strong technological optimism arguably started with that series. (I wonder if there is anything comparable now for 10 year olds?)

The author, J Storrs Hall, is a techno-optimist, too, and he suggests that after the 1960’s America became a much less “can do” polity than we had any reason to expect. We went from the Wright brothers to 747s in 50 years, from Goddard (1926) to the moon in 43. Now we’re mired in CAFE standards and cronyism.

Hall does spend a fair bit of time discussing the history of ‘flying cars’ and that alone is fascinating. There’s much more. He also makes very intriguing points about nanotech, nuclear power, AI, cybernetics, economics, city planning, and other topics.

One major consideration is envirostatism (my term), where he contends that the GREEN point isn’t CO2, pollution, or any of the other excuses offered. It is essentially anti-human nihilism.

For example,

“Green ideas have become inextricably intertwined with a perfectly reasonable desire to live in a clean, healthy environment and enjoy the natural world. The difference is of course that in the latter case, the human enjoying the natural world is a good thing, but to the fundamentalist Green he and all his works are a bad thing.”

Lest you think this is hyperbole, he supplies some words from the mouths of the horses-asses:

The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.
-Jeremy Rifkin

Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.
-Paul Ehrlich

It would be little short of disastrous for us for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it.
-Amory Lovins

The title of this piece is Cassandra backwards. I closely paraphrase J Storrs Hall,

“There seems to be a bizarre reverse-Cassandra effect operating in the universe: whereas the mythical Cassandra spoke the awful truth and was not believed, these days “experts” speak awful falsehoods, and they are believed. Repeatedly being wrong actually seems to be an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker.”

We hear California wildfires are caused by global warming climate change, when it’s actually envirostatist mismanagement, and the conscious intent to build windmills rather than maintain power lines. The California satraps agree with Rifkin, Ehrlich, and Lovins. In order to cripple the supply of energy, what have their like told us that wasn’t true?

California wildfires are caused by climate change. Gavin Newsom – yesterday
Four billion people will die between 1980 and 1989 from climate change. Paul Ehrlich – 1970
The polar ice cap will disappear by 2014. Al Gore – 2007
The planet will warm by 3 full degrees (0.1, actually). James Hansen – 1988
We will see the ‘end of snow.’ Untrue, no matter how many times it’s been predicted. various – 2000, 2015, 2017, 2020
Air pollution will reduce the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half. – Various – 1970

Amusingly, we also didn’t see an ice age by the year 2000. Kenneth Watt – 1970

Meanwhile, we see the very people who want zero CO2 emissions steadfastly oppose nuclear energy. Which is zero emission, safe, and causes immensely less environmental damage than windmills or solar panels. They are not protecting the environment, they are attacking the very idea of human well-being. This antipathy is in the spirit of Rifkin, Ehrlich, and Lovins. It is about authoritarian power in the way Critical Theorists describe it: There are no objective truths. Human history and culture are merely examples of a struggle in relative political power dynamics.

They don’t mean power as in horsepower, they mean justifying the political power of Antifa and BLM riots.

And don’t get me started on Critical Theorists’ “science” on “individuals with a cervix,” or what 2+2 equals.

Anyway. I recommend the book.