The green justice warriors are attempting to applying Saul Alinsky’s 13th rule to Will Happer: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
Back in 2017, government officials were considering the creation of a “Red Team” to encourage debate about the scientific interpretations of studies related to the climate.
Now, the White House appears to be going forward with plans to create a team of select federal scientists to review and potentially re-evaluate recent government assertions related to climate science, according to three administration officials.
The National Security Council initiative would include scientists who question the severity of climate impacts and the extent to which humans contribute to the problem, according to these individuals, who asked for anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The group would not be subject to the same level of public disclosure as a formal advisory committee.
The move would represent the Trump administration’s most forceful effort to date to challenge the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions are helping drive global warming and that the world could face dire consequences unless countries curb their carbon output over the next few decades.
The idea of a new working group, which top administration officials discussed Friday in the White House Situation Room, represents a modified version of an earlier plan to establish a federal advisory panel on climate and national security. That plan — championed by William Happer, NSC’s senior director and a physicist who has challenged the idea that carbon dioxide could damage the planet — would have created an independent federal advisory committee.
The fact that the new “Red Team” is a threat to those currently in power within the Establishment is clear as they focus in on Dr. Happer, an exceedingly seasoned, savvy, and smart physicist who has been a leading figure in unveiling the weaknesses in climate models and reminding everyone that carbon dioxide is a life-essential, naturally-occurring gas. The green justice warriors are attempting to applying Saul Alinsky’s 13th rule to Happer: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
For example, take The New York Times coverage of this development: White House Climate Panel to Include a Climate Denialist.
…Critics focused on the appointment of Dr. Happer to the panel given his public history of denying established climate science.
In 2015, Dr. Happer was called to testify before a Senate committee after the environmental group Greenpeace revealed that he had agreed to write a scientific paper at the request of representatives of an unnamed oil company in the Middle East, who were actually Greenpeace employees conducting a sting operation.
In his email exchanges with Greenpeace, Dr. Happer wrote: “More CO2 will benefit the world. The only way to limit CO2 would be to stop using fossil fuels, which I think would be a profoundly immoral and irrational policy.”…
The terminology used by most media covering this story is straight out of Orwell, and endeavors to paint Happer as a “fringe” mad-scientist character. After having attended several of Happer’s lectures, I can assure you that he doesn’t deny there is a “climate.” However, he doesn’t believe in the dogma that mankind is impacting the climate so dramatically that we have to spend trillions of dollars and enact draconian controls on the world population to prevent a global environmental disaster.
Norman Rogers, a contributor to American Thinker, offers a wonderful review of Happer’s credentials. Rogers also makes a sharp point about the evolution of politically-based science.