Sean Plunket chats to Dr William Happer on The Platform about the climate change hoax.
Wednesday, December 3, 2025
Dr William Happer Previews His Trip To NZ To Talk Climate Change Truth
Labels: Climate change, Dr William Happer, Emissions, Global greening, Groundswell, Ice Age, Ice sheets, Methane, Net Zero, Sean PlunketSean Plunket chats to Dr William Happer on The Platform about the climate change hoax.
34 comments:
It is imperative that PM Luxon meets Dr Happer and learns and understands that Paris Accord and Net Zero are just fantasies of the mindless.
https://skepticalscience.com/William_Happer_arg.htm
Happer is NO climate scientist.
Happer's a weasel-word wizard, peddling half-truths like CO2 "saturation" magically neuters warming—ignoring it's negligible for global impacts while cherry-picking his own fringe papers to dodge IPCC consensus on sensitivity.
He bleats about greening plants from CO2 boosts, but conveniently skips how heat, droughts, and floods wreck those gains, with studies he twists rebutting his own citations as "distorted facts" where climate harms dwarf any fertilizer fantasy.
Claims sea levels aren't accelerating? Straight lie—2.1mm/yr in the '90s to 4.5mm/yr now, twice as fast, yet this fossil-funded hack pretends it's all "Little Ice Age" leftovers, no human fingerprint.
Models "falsified"? Bull— he slams their sea level projections (admittedly tricky) but hides their spot-on hindcasts for temps and trends, plus exploding extremes beyond hurricanes.
Pushing fossil paradises for Trump, Happer ignores methane multipliers, tipping points, and paleoclimate screaming unnatural rates—pure denialist grift from a physicist playacting climatologist.
The scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is overwhelming and well-established, supported by decades of rigorous research and thousands of independent studies. Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists agree that the rapid warming observed since the Industrial Revolution is primarily due to increased greenhouse gas emissions from human activities like burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial processes. Surveys of the scientific literature show that over 99% of climate-related peer-reviewed papers endorse this conclusion, and every major national and international science body supports it as "unequivocal" and "incontrovertible" evidence of anthropogenic climate change.
This consensus is not based on opinion but on multiple lines of empirical evidence, including rising surface and ocean temperatures, melting glaciers, sea-level rise, and shifting weather patterns. Isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 confirms that the increase is caused by fossil fuel combustion, not natural sources. Climate models, tested against historical data, accurately replicate past trends and project future changes, reinforcing the human role. No alternative natural explanation has been found that can account for the observed global warming and its rapid pace.
Climate change deniers often twist the meaning of the word "consensus" to undermine public trust in climate science. In the scientific context, consensus does not mean blind agreement or a vote but rather the collective judgment reached by a broad spectrum of experts through rigorous evaluation of all available evidence. It represents the foundational understanding—that humans are causing global warming—on which ongoing research builds and refines. This consensus emerges from countless peer-reviewed studies scrutinized by independent scientists worldwide, not from opinion polls or political debate.
Deniers mislead by treating consensus as if it were mere opinion or a point of contention, ignoring that it is the cornerstone of scientific progress. The consensus reflects a synthesis of evidence validated repeatedly over decades, maintained by transparent processes involving thousands of experts, such as the IPCC assessments. It is both robust and dynamic, adapting when new evidence emerges but requiring extraordinary proof to overturn its core conclusions. Misrepresenting this consensus fuels confusion and delays necessary action.
Luxon can find time to attend an event on Dec 5 at 11 am, put on by Federated Farmers, but cannot find time to meet Dr Happer.
All dates in December
Thu 4 - Auckland
Otau Ridge. Metlifecare, 2 Kumekume Way, Clevedon
4.00pm
Fri 5 – Waikato
Hamilton Jetpark Conference Centre, Airport
7:00pm
Sat 6 – Taupo
Suncourt Hotel, 14 Northcroft Street
3:30pm
Sun 7 – Hawke’s Bay
Havelock North, St Georges Restaurant
2:30pm
Mon 8 – Masterton
Masterton, Keinzley Agvets, 131 Te Ore Ore Rd
12:00pm
Wed 10 – Christchurch
Sudima Hotel, 550 Memorial Ave
1:30pm
Wed 10 – Timaru
Pharlap Raceway, Greyway Lounge
7.30pm
Fri 12 – Balclutha
Balclutha Town & Country Club, Yarmouth St
1:30pm
Fri 12 – Gore
Gore, RSA - Bowler Avenue
7.30pm
Sat 13 – Wanaka
Wanaka Community Hub, 34 McDougall St
1:00pm
Sadly, I do not think that the PM is anymore interested in learning the inconvenient truth about these matters than he he is about listening to those warning of the dangers involved in Maorification and and co-governance.
Given the hysterical commentary from Anon 6.35, 6.38 and 6.40 I suspect they are all written by the same person possibly making money from climate-related scare topics and peddling junk science. There are sufficient data to show that temperature fluctuations PRECEDE any increase in CO2 levels and CO2 levels are lower now than they have ever been. The climate record also shows perturbations that occurred millennia before humans started burning fossil fuels. Why ignore them? The only thing I can conclude from this cluster of anonymous nonsense purveyors is that he/she/it has an inordinate fondness for climate- catastrophist Kool-aid.
Allen your comment is off the mark in a few common ways, which is not uncommon for blog comment sections but nonetheless is invalid. Let’s break it down:
1. Ad hominem attack: Calling critics "hysterical" or "scare peddlers" avoids evidence; real science relies on data, not insults.
2. Temp precedes CO₂? In ice ages, orbital changes released CO₂ from oceans, amplifying warming; today, human CO₂ (rising 250x faster than natural) drives temp up first—unequivocal per IPCC.
3. CO₂ "lowest ever"? Wrong—now >420 ppm, highest in 3 million years for human-relevant eras; past highs had vastly different conditions like weaker sun.
4. Pre-human changes? Climate varied naturally, but current rate is 10x faster than post-ice-age recovery, with human fingerprint in tropospheric warming and isotopes—no natural explanation fits.
I hope this helps keep things on topic.
Happer was accused of weasel words, so how ad hominem is that? Naturally I do not agree with your assertions and have read widely on climate science in articles that help me formulate my views and disregard yours. If you want to keep on topic move away from the climate catastrophe echo chamber you inhabit.
No, thank any convenient Deity that he is not! He is physicist. That is, he is a scientist who specializes in the field of physics, which encompasses the interactions of matter and energy at all length and time scales in the physical universe. Physicists generally are interested in the root or ultimate causes of phenomena, and usually frame their understanding in mathematical terms. As an electrical/electronic systems engineer who has worked with several really excellent physicists, I would put them up against any "climate scientist" as I have always maintained that those who have a grasp of physics have a far better grasp of reality than those who do not.
'Weasel words' are defined as "words or statements that are intentionally ambiguous or misleading". The focus is on the words so this is not really an instance of ad hominem.
For me this iclimate change is a cult and to prove it is not a cult would be for the government to listen. A cult will not tolerate any alternative views or discussion.. The truth does not feel threatened by alternatve theories.. That is how science works. Meteorology is a sub branch of Physics . Not vice versa.
OK Barend; who spoke them? Accusing someone of speaking mustelid is ad hominem. They are not a human-free abstraction.
Let’s have another try Allen.
Ad hominem both ways: As Barend said, accusing Happer of "weasel words" critiques his claims, not him personally—unlike "hysterical Kool-aid drinker." Science debates arguments, not motives.
Happer's credentials: He's a physicist, not a climate scientist; rejects consensus (97%+ agreement on human causation) despite IPCC evidence. His Trump NSC role pushed skeptic views, but plans to challenge core findings failed.
"Wide reading" vs. evidence: Selective articles (e.g., Heartland Inst.) aren't peer-reviewed science. NASA/IPCC data shows CO₂ at 420+ ppm (3M-year high), driving 10x faster warming than natural.
Stay on topic: Natural variation is known; human fingerprint (isotopes, stratosphere cooling) is unequivocal. Dismissing this as "catastrophe echo chamber" ignores data.
Let's discuss specifics.
Anon immediately above beat me to the answer to your question, Allen.
In a nutshell..........
"Commentator X is a dumbo" - ad hominem
"Commentator X puts forward dumbo arguments" - not ad hominem
Dr Will Happer is one of many world leading scientists that spends an inordinate amount of time disarming the diatribe from excessively funded climate alarmists with fact.
Welcome to NZ Doc, we are in dire need of your wisdom.
I disagree, Barend. Calling someone a "weasel-word wizard" is a long way from addressing a fact and more ad hominen in my book. Yes, Anon goes on to address some facts, but I'm sure Dr Happer, along with Richard Lindzen, Willie Soon, Steve Koonin, Ian Plimer, Nir Shaviv et al, have heard these all before and yet maintain their views that the science is not settled. I'm inclined to believe those that have the knowledge and experience like the aforementioned and are not paid to make certain findings, especially over some Anon who is just reciting others. Allen makes a good point, that throughout history, temperature rises always precede the rises in CO2. And I haven't seen anyone prove Dr Happer's numbers, about the influence of CO2, wrong? Frankly, the climate-doomsday rhetoric feels quite secondary when compared with the real-time atrocities people are committing against each other across the globe. Before we commit economic hara-kiri, I believe we need to get the latter settled first. Meantime, I'm delighted Dr Happer is coming and I do hope he gets accurately reported and that it will make people reflect on what he has to say.
All the experts and all of academia can be wrong .This is what occurred with the Whole Language reading method for over 40 years .This effectively destroyed the schooling of multi-millions of children. Hence putting trust in the consensus view is not reliable. Same with the helio- centric universe view.
Always consider a minority view could be right. The number of believers is not proof in science.
"Weasel-word wizard" gets brownie points for alliteration at least. Let's keep our sense of humour alive during these exchanges........
The furrowed brow of the zealot always cracks me up.
Peter, temperate rises have preceded CO₂ increases in past ice age cycles due to orbital triggers releasing ocean CO₂, which then amplified warming—but today, human CO₂ emissions lead temperature rise by decades, at 250x natural rates. Happer's claims (e.g., low CO₂ sensitivity) are refuted by peer-reviewed models and data showing ~3°C warming per CO₂ doubling, matching observed trends. We’ve heard what he has to say and are comparing it with evidence that suggests otherwise. Facts over appeal to authority every time, my man!
Bloody brilliant brief, Barend. And after all, Xmas is coming, and we ought to be in good cheer!
(That's, of course, despite our 'representatives', and all that's happening to our detriment in our neck of the woods.)
A good interview with Leighton Smith: https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/podcasts/the-leighton-smith-podcast/leighton-smith-podcast-313-december-3rd-2025-dr-william-happer/
Whoops, deleted that last one by accident, apologies to Anon 615. It read "How about getting back on topic".
How about getting back on topic, which is about climate change - not the definition of ad hominen.
If you can point to a model that matches reality and can be validated then I might listen to you. Up to this point models have been a waste of computing time and misleading in the extreme. Further, 'peer review' just means you nominate peers that agree with you. I have been in science for over 50 years and I know how that system works; so if you want facts don't rely on models, and if you refute authority, then don't rely on peer review.
Peer review has to be double-blind to be credible. This is the standard procedure for top academic journals. I have published more than 60 papers in academic journals and nobody ever asked me to nominate reviewers!
Succinctly put, Allen. Anon@4.59 are you prepared to identify your source and also your credentials, or is Chatgpt (and the like) doing your bidding? Given you're so knowledgeable, Dr Happer's future whereabouts has been posted - I look forward to your encounter. As I remain skeptical - the science appears far from settled, and those 'models', less than reliable. But then, what would the likes of Steve Koonin know about them?
I have published 128 peer-reviewed papers and have always been asked to suggest reviewers, so I suggest 4 or 5 who know something of my speciality. There is nothing unusual there.
@Anon 4.59pm - Peer review is valuable, but it also has real limitations.
Peer review is meant to:
1. Filter out obvious errors — factual mistakes, bad methodology, unsupported claims..
2. Ensure minimum academic standards — clear argumentation, correct citations, enough evidence.
3.Provide expert scrutiny — people familiar with the field can spot issues outsiders cannot.
But here are the problems:
1. Peers” often share the same worldview
2. Peer review enforces conformity, not truth
3. It’s vulnerable to academic groupthink
4. Many major scientific scandals passed peer review
Peer review is useful — but not a truth standard
It’s a quality filter, not a credibility certificate.
It protects the discipline’s norms, not necessarily objective truth.
You are quite right, Anon 424. I stand corrected.
The ultimate proof of how peer review can actually promote utter balderdash would have to be the Sokal Hoax. Interested readers are invited to look up the Wikipedia entry under 'The Sokal Affair'.
I have just listen to a posting on u-tube titled 'Academia's most disturbing open secrets everyone just accepts ' by a nano-scientist Andy Stapleton. Dirty secrets most lay people would never know about. This I think is part of the issue -science research being used less for establishing truth and more about many unscrupulous academics wanting to further their careers and gaining funds for their projects. Very revealing, and as William Happer says -follow the money . The same with covid, promotion of CRT and Maori matters, And of interest for me how Marie Clay deceived the entire English -speaking world for almost a half -century using crooked research, cronyism and overlooking unreproducible results and more.
Scientific research can be pure junk.
Science is incorruptible. Scientists are not.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.