Trump’s inane rejection of climate science (and, well, fundamental statement that he is clueless about the most basic concepts of science and the scientific method) are well known, provide a comedic statement about what has become core Republican dogma, and sadly occupy the Oval Office.
In all seriousness, it seemed on 5 November 2016 that there was a crowd of PMS (pale, male, and stale) somewhat irrational outliers on climate science who were truly about to be relegated to the ash heap of history — instead, thank you to Putin, horrible media practices, GOP voter suppression (among other reasons), these deluded people have the demi-G-d in control of the Federal government and are in positions of power. With Trump about to announce a “Presidential Committee On Climate Security”, it’s those irrational outliers who are going to be in charge of the game.
Among the PMS crowd, there are a few credentialed scientists (though very few climate scientists) who rate in the ‘climate science confuser’ (if not denier) space. One of those is William Happer, formerly a professor at Princeton University, a specialist on lasers (not climate science) and now a senior director in the Trump National Security Council staff. Happer is to be in charge of that Presidential Committee.
A decade ago, Happer provided one of most painfully comedic moments of Congressional testimony history. Happer has a shtick in asserting that carbon dioxide brings benefits and, well, anyway carbon dioxide levels have been higher in the past than today … millions of years before human civilization. From his exchange with Senator Barbara Boxer.
Boxer: This is a weird kind of place you’ve taken us to. You’re taking us back how many years to when we were fine.
Happer. About 80 million year
Boxer. I don’t know how to say this. A lot has happened since then in terms of where people are living and working. We have a society now. So, to say go back to those days, … either I’m missing something or you just don’t seem to think times have changed.
Happer: While I don’t think that the laws of nature or physics have changed. [Said snidely …] or chemistry have changed in 80 million years. 80 million years ago the Earth was a prosperous place. There is no reason to think that it will suddenly become bad now …
Hmmm … well before human civilization, in the … period, CO2 levels were higher and sea levels were only about 400 feet (120 meters) higher than today. Thus, according to Happer, evidently losing every piece of land less than 400 feet above sea level today would be “bad”.
Happer’s irrational outlier views on climate change science don’t stop there.
It’s important to note the person behind this attempt to chill our defense agencies from understanding and managing climate risk is Dr. Will Happer. Dr. Happer testified before Congress in December 2015 that the world has too little Carbon Dioxide and is too cold – an extreme, fringe view even for the tiny number of scientists who call themselves climate skeptics. This is a clumsy attempt to force the entire federal government to conform to a bizarre view thoroughly rejected by the vast majority of scientists.” – Rear Admiral David Titley, US Navy (Ret), former Oceanographer of the Navy and now a Professor at Penn State. [Note: Titley gave a truly excellent TED talk about his journey from climate science skepticism to understanding its reality and importance. See it at the end of this post.)
And, it is that irrationality — framed as run by a “Princeton Professor” — that will head a Presidential Committee on Climate Security.
Now, why this Committee? Why now? Because the National Security community has, yet again, come out with additional analysis showing climate change as a threat to the nation.
The assessment Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats submitted on Jan. 29 to the Senate Intelligence Committee, for example, states, “Global environmental and ecological degradation, as well as climate change, are likely to fuel competition for resources, economic distress, and social discontent through 2019 and beyond.”
There are strong rumors going around that Trump hates (and is likely to fire) Coats for telling him like it is, rather than the #alternativefacts he desires to hear. How dare Coats hint at acknowledgment of basic climate science?
The Defense Department said in a report submitted to Congress in mid-January that several dozen military installations around the nation already are experiencing climate impacts. The assessment, which called climate change “a national security issue,” said rising seas, wildfires and other such disasters are likely to create more severe problems for the military in the coming years.
In the face of these reports, CO2 promoter and climate change risks dismisser Happer will head a “Presidential Committee” created to put the White House seal on the rejection of science and a refutation of the national security community’s assessment that climate change is “a national security issue”.
Experts are, well, aghast.
From the Center for Climate and Security’s statement.
“This is the equivalent of setting up a committee on nuclear weapons proliferation and having someone lead it who doesn’t think nuclear weapons exist,” said Francesco Femia, Chief Executive Officer of the Council on Strategic Risks and Co-Founder of the Center for Climate and Security “It’s honestly a blunt force political tool designed to shut the national security community up on climate change.”
“Looks like someone at the White House doesn’t like the fact that our defense and intelligence agencies are concerned about the security implications of climate change,” said John Conger, Director of the Center for Climate and Security and former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment. “So they want to set up a politically-led panel to undermine the credibility of military and security experts. They don’t seem to understand that to the military and to the broader security community, this is an issue of risk, readiness, and resilience, not politics. The military doesn’t have the luxury of deciding to ignore certain threats because a politician doesn’t find them convenient.”
“For over 7 decades, our Nation has been the instrument of change in establishing world order in the face of fascism, communism and terrorism. The human toll from these “isms” has been catastrophic and those of us who have served in public office and in uniform can be rightfully proud for taking decisive action to right those wrongs. But to deny the trajectory of the global climate defies America’s bias for action as a catalyst for change among world leaders.” – Admiral Paul Zukunft, U.S. Coast Guard (Ret), Senior Member of the Advisory Board at the Center for Climate and Security and former Commandant of the Coast Guard
“Our intelligence, defense and science agencies stretching back across many Administrations, both Republican and Democrat – including the Trump Administration itself are closely aligned. The science and facts on climate change are well-established and do not need an administration influenced review by an NSC headed panel. What we do need are practical and pragmatic policy choices today to fix the problem. Americans are affected everyday by climate change and will see through any thinly-veiled political attempt to say they are not. An NSC-headed panel to address solutions is what we need.” – General Ron Keys, US Air Force (Ret), Senior Member of the Advisory Board at the Center for Climate and Security and former Commander of Air Combat Command.“This is not a real peer review committee – it’s a political review committee,” said Rear Admiral David Titley, US Navy (Ret), Senior Member of the Advisory Board at the Center for Climate and Security and former Oceanographer of the Navy. “It’s designed to try to scare our intelligence, defense and science professionals into doing and saying nothing about this pressing threat. I don’t think it will succeed. In fact, I think it would be an embarrassment, like other panels before it.”
“It’s hard to stop good people from doing good work – especially those in the defense, intelligence and science agencies of our government,” said Sherri Goodman, Senior Strategist with the Center for Climate and Security and former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Environmental Security). “One way to try to stop them is through bullying. This proposed ‘adversarial’ committee is a bully committee. And whether it succeeds or not, it will hurt our national security. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail.”
UPDATE: From an excellent Graham Redfearn DeSmogBlog post:
Princeton colleague and climate scientist Professor Michael Oppenheimer has said of Happer that “with respect to climate science and scientists, he is not only unknowledgeable but appears to have become unmoored.”
One of the few genuine climate scientists to have engaged with Happer in detail about his interpretation of climate science is Dr. David Karoly, currently leader of the Earth Systems and Climate Change Hub at the Australian government’s CSIRO science agency. In 2016, while at the University of Melbourne, Karoly engaged with Happer in a so-called “focused civil dialogue” on climate science.
Karoly told DeSmog he disengaged from the process after having reservations about the way it was being moderated. “But in the end, I realised that no matter what I said — all based on the peer reviewed science — he was not going to change his view, so I gave up,” said Karoly.
Commenting on Happer’s suitability for the White House position, Karoly said: “Usually you would select a scientist with a strong peer-reviewed publication record in the area of interest. But he has not published a single peer-reviewed article on climate change in his career. That would suggest he does not have the credentials. I would argue that he does not have the appropriate experience, or the demonstrated capabilities, to be engaged in this sort of position.”