Climate change is real but it is natural. The alarms have no scientific basis. The fears that are woven around are comparable to the fear that was induced in the time of witches in the Middle Ages.
Scientist William Happer, a physicist at Princeton University (where Einstein and Oppenheimer worked), argues in this interview that ignorance and political manipulation play a key role in the global campaign on climate warming.
Happer encourages Paraguay to continue investing in hydroelectric plants.
NUCLEAR PHYSICIST WILLIAM HAPPER, PRINCETON PROFESSOR:
— Robin Monotti (@robinmonotti) July 16, 2024
"Alarms about climate change are delusions. Climate change is real but it is natural. The alarms have no scientific basis. The fears that are woven around are comparable to the fear that was induced in the time of witches in… pic.twitter.com/TsxqR1rhLf
Transcript:
– Your presence in Paraguay?
– I came for a week, invited by friends like Alfred (Fast) from Fecoprod (president of the Federation of Production Cooperatives)…
– Physicist from Princeton, the University of (Albert) Einstein and (Robert) Opennheimer…
– Yes. I am a physicist, a nuclear physicist. I am also an expert in atmospheric physics. I am an emeritus professor. I still work. I have an office in the Department of Physics, the same place where Einstein was. Oppenheimer was also there. I knew Oppenheimer. My invention is something very well known, sodium guide stars, which were used in the Star Wars. This invention was very important because it allowed one of the layers of the atmosphere to create a guide, a reference through sodium atoms. It is used today in all observatories.
– Travels a lot?
– Quite. I was in Australia a few days ago, also invited by friends like Alfred who invited me to come to Paraguay. I loved it. I was there five days. I gave a series of conferences where I explained why there is no emergency in climate change, as they say.
– What is its foundation?
– The rising levels of carbon dioxide (carbon dioxide) have in some way even helped plants grow better today. The higher the carbon dioxide is, this actually has a beneficial effect. Now, even the world is greener, including Paraguay.
– Yours is a 180 degree different position…
– Climate change is real. It has always existed since the world existed. This particular change, this warming, already began in the 1800s long before the rise of greenhouse gases. The scientific evidence is very clear.
– What is your theory then? Climate change is attributed to human activity.
– Only now it is attributed to humans. This however began more than 150 years ago.
– How can you refute a (scientific) consensus of countries on climate change?
– The first thing we have to understand is that scientific truth can never be a matter of consensus. It is the empirical evidence. In the 1930s, for example, there was great opposition to the ideas of Einstein’s theory of relativity. There was even a book supported by a hundred scientists that proved, in quotes, that he was wrong. With great humor, Einstein responded to that book by asking “why did 100 get together if one that refuted with evidence what I said was already enough…”
– Isn’t it true then that global warming in the last 50 years is attributed to humans?
– Of course, because it is actually a natural process that already exists prior to industrialization, long before human activity. Therefore, this is not a cause of human activity.
– What is it then, mass hysteria?
– It’s true. This can be compared to the time of the witch hunts. At that time, when there was a very bad harvest, a bad year, people looked for someone to blame and that’s why they invented witches, women who were even led to die at the stake. There is a very famous book called “Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of the masses” by Charles Mackay (1814-1889), a book of great impact.
– What era is the book from?
– From 1842.
– What is it about?
– The book mentions how the masses are susceptible to lies and delusions that come from political power. When reading the history of nations we discover that, like individuals, they have their whims and their peculiarities, their seasons of excitement and recklessness in which they do not care what their leaders do. They impress with deception. The masses believe and follow until the madness ends or a new one captivates them. It is a fragility of human beings when they act collectively…
– What is global warming attributed to then…
– Since the beginning of time the earth’s temperature always rises and falls. There are other factors to consider. A thousand years ago, for example, the earth was so hot, much hotter than now when Greenland was green. It was not a mass of ice as it is today. In South America, the glaciers that one sees in the Andes were much further removed than now. The cooling was so great that the Thames River (in London) froze, the canals of Amsterdam too… In reality, there are many factors involved in warming and cooling.
– What is attributable to man then?
– One of the main reasons is ignorance. A common thing in politics is the use of fear as something useful. Manipulation is a resource of political power. One gains economic advantages through fear. It is a political technique.
– Why do they say that carbon dioxide is a danger?
– Carbon dioxide (or carbon dioxide) is not a pollutant. On the contrary, each of us is exhaling approximately one kilo of (carbon) dioxide per day. At night, plants release carbon dioxide. During the day they use them for photosynthesis. It is something totally natural. And now we don’t have enough. We should have more…
– What data do you have to prove that warming is not caused by man?
– I do not believe that men are exempt from responsibility. What I am saying is that human intervention is minimal in global warming.
– Why do countries demand reduction?
– It makes no sense to ask countries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. There are other greenhouse gases.
The effect of these gases is much greater in areas that are very remote, that are very cold: northern Russia, in Patagonia. The effect of the gases at the level of the Equator is almost zero. The intervention of its greenhouse effect is much greater at night than during the day. Countries should not reduce their emissions. It’s crazy.
-Those summits, the one in Copenhagen, the one in Paris, the one coming up now in Bombay, what are they then: tourist outings? Why do countries give it so much importance?
– I insist: it doesn’t make sense. My country, the United States, banned alcohol in the 1920s with Prohibition. This allowed the growth of organized crime to traffic alcohol clandestinely. It was wrong. Many of the drug problems we have today already began at that time, because of state actions that make no sense. Pollution is real. For example, if you have a coal plant and you do not have your cleaning system properly, that will produce real pollution. In large cities it is solved by restricting the circulation of vehicles that emit real pollutants. Their energy sources are not clean.
– Are you a denier?
– I am against hysterical legends. Climate change is real. Dioxide is not the reason. Carbon dioxide is invisible. That’s not what warms up the atmosphere.
– But are human beings in danger or not?
– No. We are not in danger: famines and floods exist and will continue to exist but it is not because of climate change. If man actually wants to contribute to the elimination of hunger, the best thing is to increase carbon dioxide. In the United States, the increase in this period caused wheat yield to rise 40%. It is thanks to that small elevation of carbon dioxide.
– It’s natural?
– It’s natural.
– So, who should we attribute this global consensus on global warming? The new president of Argentina, Javier Milei, says that it is an invention of socialism, the Marxism that “dominates” global culture…
-There is a principle known as “Hanlon’s razor”. It is a rule of thumb that states: “never attribute to evil what is adequately explained by stupidity.” It is a human characteristic. Much was written about that.
– Does it have to do with a campaign of global domination?
– I worked for the United States Government. In the George Bush Sr. Administration I was in the Department of Energy. I was in charge of 1,000 officials when I only needed 300. That is the problem of governments. They hire many officials and those officials look for what to do. Sometimes they invent charges and give themselves (fictitious) causes to fight for those causes. That could be it.
– Are you a Republican?
– Yes, but don’t worry, Republicans are just as bad at those weaknesses as Democrats. Politicians often have to somehow reward the people who put them in that place.
– It is political clientelism as we know in Paraguay.
– Exactly. There are people who access public positions on a supernumerary basis because political clientelism – which also exists in my country – makes them look for causes that justify their presence in the State. Maybe that’s it.
– There are rulers who fully support and do politics with the climate of global warming: Lula, López Obrador, Biden, Petro in Colombia, Maduro, Boric in Chile, Arce in Bolivia, to name some socialist governments…
-Angela Merkel too, and she is right-wing. It is not a right or left issue. What we have to see here is whether the data that is put on the table is real or not. That is the point. It’s not so much the politics but the science behind it.
– Why do they say that your point of view is anti-scientific, obscurantist, reactionary? They say it is the expression of “decadent capitalist” politics…
– It’s typical as always. It is the ad hominem argument, that since one has no way to refute the facts then one targets the people. What I transmit are not ideas, they are facts.
– What do you think about investing in the so-called green economy?
– Most of it is a waste of money. The result of this policy is that energy prices are suffering enormously and produces capital flight. Companies do not want to be where the price of energy is expensive. In green conversion, so much money is being spent and so many opportunities are being lost that in the end there is no investment.
-How do you see Paraguay in the global context? Sell clean and cheap energy…
– Its energy is clean and renewable. That’s the advantage. There is no need to do any type of energy conversion.
– Does Paraguay have to continue investing in hydroelectric plants?
– If you have abundant hydroelectric energy, go in that direction. I assume they will continue to develop this energy in the future.
– And the Chaco? It is far from power generation sources.
– Looking to the future, in-depth geological studies must be carried out to see what resources the Chaco has in all terms: if there are hydrocarbons, if there is gas. You must have all the information about your energy riches.
– Solar energy?
– Solar energy is probably the least convenient because it is very expensive. It doesn’t work at night. On cloudy days it does not produce, in winter it produces less, even in sunny countries like Paraguay. In the Chaco, solar energy is not a bad idea as long as it is for something specific. Outside of that it is not very useful.
– Is it better to carry hydroelectric energy despite the distance? It’s like 500 km at least from Itaipu or Yacyretá.
– Hydroelectric energy is a good investment. In the United States, energy is normally transported 1,000 km inclusive…
