William Happer

William Happer


  • Ph.D, physics, Princeton (1964). [1]
  • Bachelor’s degree in physics from University of North Carolina (1960). [1]


William Happer is the emeritus Eugene Higgens professor of physics and Cyrus Fogg Brackett professor of physics at Princeton University. Happer is a director of the CO2 Coalition, a group formed in 2015 out of the former George C. Marshall Institute where Happer was also previously chairman of the board. [2], [3]

Happer is also on the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and a member of Climate Exit (Clexit), a group formed shortly after the UK’s decision to leave the EU and based on the premise that “The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade.” [4], [5][6]

In 2018, Happer joined the Trump administration’s National Security Council (NSC) as a senior director for emerging technologies, according to NSC officials. In 2019, documents obtained by The Washington Post revealed he would spearhead a proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Security to advise President Trump on climate issues. E&E News reported in September 2019 that Happer would leave the administration after failing to convince the president to review mainstream research on climate change. [107][110], [125]

According to Will Happer’s profile at the Cato Institute where he is adjunct scholar, his specialty at Princeton University was modern optics, optical and radiofrequency spectroscopy of atoms and molecules, radiation propagation in the atmosphere, and spin-polarized atoms and nuclei. From 1991-1993, Happer was the Director of Energy Research at the U.S. Department of Energy. [7]

Fossil Fuel Funding

William Happer has accepted funding from the fossil fuel industry in the past. For example, in an email chain revealed as part of a undercover investigation by Greenpeace, Happer admitted he had been paid $8,000 by Peabody Energy for a 2015 Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide. The funds were routed through the CO2 Coalition[8]

“My fee for this kind of work is $250 per hour. The testimony required four 8-hour days of work, so the total cost was $8,000,” Happer wrote in the email. [114]

As part of a 2018 case where he provided supporting testimony for the side of fossil fuel companies against cities suing for damages related to climate change, Happer was required to disclose any funding he had received in the past. In these disclosures, Happer estimated the amount he received for the 2015 Minnesota testimony as “$10,000 to $15,000, though he does not recall the precise number.” [100], [101]

Happer also noted he had received $1,000 for a speech on climate change at the Heritage Foundation in 2017. [101]

Stance on Climate Change


“I know the difference between real and phony science. My sodium guide stars work. Climate models do not,” Happer wrote in the summer 2018 edition of Range magazine. [112]

March 2016

Happer wrote an article at Asbury Park Press in 2016 where he argued that man’s role in climate change was minimal:

“Since the year 1800, the Earth has warmed by about 1 degree Celsius. Some fraction of the warming is due to more atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels, but most of the warming is probably due to the same natural forces that have always controlled the Earth’s changeable climate.” [9]

May 2010

In Happer’s written statement on “Climate Science in the Political Arena” (PDF), which he delivered to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming U.S. House of Representatives in 2010, he declared:

“I, and many other scientists, think the warming will be small compared the natural fluctuations in the earth’s temperature, and that the warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind.” [10]

Key Quotes

November 5, 2019

Alleging climate change was invented by “paranoid” scientists, Happer told the Washington Examiner that it was a “completely imaginary threat that doesn’t exist. People are afraid to stand up and say that.” [126]

He also said:

I feel bad about the younger generation. They have been brainwashed. The people who think this is a winning election issue are wrong.” [126]

January 2018

“The public in general doesn’t realize that from the point of view of geological history, we are in a CO2 famine,” Happer said in an interview with E&E News. [109]

November 30, 2017

Below are some quotes from Happer’s talk at the “At the Crossroads IV: Energy & Climate Policy Summit” co-hosted by The Heritage Foundation and Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF)[94]

It’s not as though if you double CO2 you make a big difference. You make a barely detectable difference […]” [94]

“The 97% consensus is phony.” [94]

March 2017

Jezebel reported that Happer had responded to a reader of the magazine, arguing that the “demonization of CO2” “really differs little from the Nazi persecution of the Jews, the Soviet extermination of class enemies or ISIL slaughter of infidels.” [86]

In his emails to a Jezebel reader, Happer also made a number of claims regarding CO2, temperatures, and sea level rise, to which climate scientist Gavin Schmidt responded, noting that “sea level was ‘typically’ 100’s of feet higher during the Phanerozoic,” and CO2 levels are “nowhere near ‘famine levels’ for many plants.” [86]

December 8, 2016

We’re doing our best to try and counter this myth that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. It’s not a pollutant at all.” [69]

“We should be telling the scientific truth that more CO2 is actually a benefit to the earth. [… ]There are very good reasons to think that.” [69]

Let me point out that if you have a well-designed coal plant, what comes out of the stack of the plant is almost the same thing that comes out of a person’s breath.”  [69]

The main thing is that people don’t realize we’re in a CO2 famine right now. […] We’re way down. We’re down by a factor of 4 or 5 over the levels that plants would really like.” [69]

We know that the scary things about CO2 you keep hearing about — sea level rise, we’re all going to boil—that’s all based on models that don’t work. They’re not even close to working. […] So why are we basing these ruinous regulations on models that don’t work?” [69]

May 2016

“Burning all the economically available fossil fuel is unlikely to increase the current atmospheric CO2 levels by even a factor of 2. This is much less than the levels that the Earth has already tested. And a doubled level of CO2 would get us away from the near-famine levels for plants that have prevailed for the past tens of millions of years.” [11]

March 2016

Happer was interviewed by Asbury Park Press regarding his views on climate change. Some excerpts below:

“I would like history to remember me as an honest scientist. Along with many like me, I am trying to explain to my fellow Americans the serious damage that will be done to us, and indeed to the whole world, by cockamamie policies to ‘save the planet’ from CO2.” [9]

“We have no more ability to prevent climate change than King Canute had to stop the tide from rising. All the observational evidence is that CO2 has a relatively small effect on temperature. Changes in the Earth’s temperature will continue to be dominated by natural causes, whether we increase CO2 concentrations, by continuing to burn fossil fuels, or whether we permit a nightmarish police state to stop emissions CO2,and punish ‘deniers’ as some in the alarmist camp demand.” [9]

“I can’t think of any benefits for reducing CO2 emissions. CO2 is not a pollutant. […] Almost all plants grow better and are more drought resistant with two to four times more CO2 than now.” [9]

“There is no “overwhelming consensus.” In spite of decades of propaganda, and even threats to their jobs, about half of meteorologists remain unconcerned about global warming.” [9]

February 2016

“The war on fossil fuels isn’t based on science but on unreliable climate models. Rather than trying to correct the models, Team Obama is trying to ‘dispute the science’ by trying to manufacture scary warming trends.” — Will Happer and Rod Nichols. [12]

November 2015

“Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?” [13]

“If plants could vote, they would vote for coal.” [13]

“97% of scientists have often been wrong on many things.” [13]

“Coal, formed from ancient CO2, is a benefit to the world. Coal is CO2 from ancient atmospheres. We are simply returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it came when you burn coal. And it’s a good thing since it is at very low levels in the atmosphere. We are in a CO2 famine. It is very, very low.” [13] 

“Our breath is not that different from a power plant.” [13]


“There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. These earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels. The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide. Over the past ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling.  This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC models.” [14]

“I am not a climatologist, but I don’t think any of the other witnesses are either. I do work in the related field of atomic, molecular and optical physics. I have spent my professional life studying the interactions of visible and infrared radiation with gases – one of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect. I have published over 200 papers in peer reviewed scientific journals.” [14]

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken … Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” [15]

December 2008

“We know that carbon dioxide has been a much larger fraction of the earth’s atmosphere than it is today, and the geological record shows that life flourished on land and in the oceans during those times. The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.” [16]

Key Actions

April 6, 2021

Will Happer co-authored an article with Richard Lindzen at the National Review titled “Climate ‘Emergency’? Not So Fast.[129]

The authors wrote, “the frenzy over climate resembles the medieval crusades against foreign infidels and home-grown heretics.” They added, “There is even a children’s climate crusade.” [129]

“We are both scientists who can attest that the research literature does not support the claim of a climate emergency. Nor will there be one. None of the lurid predictions — dangerously accelerating sea-level rise, increasingly extreme weather, more deadly forest fires, unprecedented warming, etc. — are any more accurate than the fire-and-brimstone sermons used to stoke fanaticism in medieval crusaders,” Happer and Linden wrote.

They added, erroneously: “No scientist familiar with radiation transfer denies that more carbon dioxide is likely to cause some surface warming. But the warming would be small and benign. In fact, history shows that warmings of a few degrees Celsius — which extended growing seasons — have been good for humanity.” [129]

They repeat other common arguments like the idea that increased CO2 will increase plant yields without considering any other factors and that climate models “have already been falsified” (they have not). [129]

March 31, 2020

Will happer was included in a list by Rolling Stone  in an article titled “Climate Enemies: The Men Who Sold the World.” According to the magazine, “bad actors are not only failing to address the crisis, they’re actively exacerbating it” and the list includes “America’s worst offenders, from fossil-fuel industry magnates, to investment gurus, to the president himself.” [128]

“In 2018, he joined Trump’s National Security Council, but his plans to discredit the government’s own climate reports were so extreme the White House rejected them for fear they might hurt Trump’s ability to get re-elected,” the article notes. “Happer resigned from the administration in 2019, but the man who once compared the demonization of CO2 to the ‘demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler’ hasn’t quit pushing climate denial. He appeared at a Heartland Institute forum to counter the U.N.’s climate conference last December, where he called the climate movement ‘a bizarre environmental cult.’” [128]

December 3, 2019

Happer attended a rebuttal to the United Nations’ COP25 climate summit in Madrid. [127]

The event, titled “Rebutting the United Nations’ Climate Delusion,” was co-sponsored by the Heartland Institute, the CO2 Coalition, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), and the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE). Deniers of consensus climate science in attendance included EIKE’s Wolfgang Müller, Anthony Watts, Tom Harris, Stanley Goldenberg, and Christopher Monckton[127]

Happer opened his presentation with:

We are here under false pretenses, wasting our time talking about a non-existent climate emergency. And It’s hard to understand how much further the shrillness can go, as this started out as global warming, then it was climate change or global weirding, now it is climate crisis and climate emergency, what next, but stick around, it will happen. I hope sooner or later enough people recognize the phoniness of this bizarre environmental cult and bring it to an end.” [127]

Heartland’s James Taylor described the event as a “climate reality forum,” and said: [127]

Good news isn’t bad news. […] The evidence for a climate crisis simply doesn’t hold up. And that is not about attacking science, as many people would lead you to believe. It’s performing science, it’s advancing science. And again the news is good news, and that’s excellent for humanity, it’s excellent for people around the world, who would like to escape poverty and not be held down by energy restrictions imposed by the United Nations and national governments.” [127]

August 7, 2019

Happer, according to sources, proposed editing the congressional testimony of a senior State Department official to cast doubt on the observed effects of climate change on the Florida Reef system. [124]

Language added by the National Security Council and attributed to Happer read: [124]

There is no evidence that coral bleaching is intensifying now or will in the future. Coral reefs have bleached and usually recovered throughout their evolutionary history.” [124]

An official from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which estimates that 90-95% of Florida coastal reefs have been damaged, responded: [124]

Clearly this is someone who either is not aware of the scientific literature that overwhelmingly shows that coral bleaching has increased – and most certainly will continue to increase as the climate warms – or they’re ignoring that literature. Normally, documents of this sort require vetting by experts within the administration, and those experts usually include people who are knowledgeable in the subject. We don’t know what was done in this case.” [124]

July 2019

Happer’s plan to conduct a “red team, blue team” critical review of climate science prior to the 2020 election has “stalled indefinitely” following negative publicity and pushback from within the administration. [123]

Originally devised within the National Security Council, of which Happer is a member, the proposed “Presidential Committee on National Security” was intended to challenge the findings of the National Climate Assessment that climate change posed a threat to national security. [123]

Other iterations of Happer’s plan included requiring government scientists to debate skeptics of climate change on the record, as well as the publication of official white papers to present opposing views on consensus science. [123]

Proponents of climate science denialism enlisted to participate in these now-shelved efforts included John Christy (University of Alabama), Judith Curry (Georgia Tech), and Brooke Rollins (former president of the Texas Public Policy Foundation). [123]

June 14, 2019

Emails obtained by the Environmental Defense Fund under the federal Freedom of Information Act and provided to The Associated Press revealed Happer had consulted advisers from the Heartland Institute while working in the Trump administration requesting help. [122]

“That request was made this past March to policy advisers with the Heartland Institute, one of the most vocal challengers of mainstream scientific findings that emissions from burning coal, oil and gas are damaging the Earth’s atmosphere,” Time reported[122]

That included a March 3 email exchange between Happer and Hal Doiron, a Heartland adviser, to discuss how to make one of Happer’s papers on climate change “more useful to a wider readership.” The email noted that Happer had already discussed the work with Thomas Wysmuller, another advisor of Heartland. [122]

Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann commented on Happer’s continued involvement with climate change denial think tanks: “These people are endangering all of us by promoting anti-science in service of fossil fuel interests over the American interests,” Mann said. [122]

“It’s the equivalent to formulating anti-terrorism policy by consulting with groups that deny terrorism exists,” said Matthew Nisbet, a professor of environmental communication and public policy at Northeastern University. [122]

In the emails, Happer also reportedly expressed surprise in NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine’s move to accept mainstream climate science, describing his change as “a puzzle.” The emails described establish science around sea level rise as “part of the nonsense” and encourages Bridenstine, copied on the email, to “systematically sidestep it.” [122]

Members of the scientific community commented on the Happer emails: [122]

We have concerns that there appear to be attempts by a member of the National Security Council to influence and interfere with the ability of NASA, a federal science agency, to communicate accurately about research findings on climate science,” said Rush Holt, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advance of Science. [122]

Describing scientific assessments on climate change over the past several decades, Keith Seitter, executive director of the American Meteorological Society said the evidence has been “extremely credible and routinely withstand intense scrutiny,” adding “Efforts to dismiss or discredit these rigorous scientific assessments in public venues does an incredible disservice to the public.” [122]

June 6, 2019

Happer’s earlier proposals for “red-team, blue-team” debates pitting climate scientists against deniers reportedly “hit a snag,” as E&E News reported, because mainstream scientists would unlikely participate. [121]

Without a credible team of researchers who accept established climate science, the idea would fall flat, according to two people involved in the discussions,” E&E News reported. “ To get around that challenge, top officials planning the ‘red team’ debate have floated the idea of requiring scientists at NASA or NOAA to participate, the sources said.” [121]

Sources noted that while such an exercise may begin within weeks, the current state of discussion was still fluid. [121]

Happer’s prior proposals included a rapid response team that would question conclusions of IPCC reports, and also the proposed use of an executive order to “Presidential Committee on Climate Security.” [121]

Happer conducted at least two briefings with Trump regarding his views on climate change, sources said. He additionally briefed Jared Kushner, who was reportedly supportive of the plan. [121]

Former Texas Public Policy Foundation head Brooke Rollins, who has served in the Office of American Innovation, also reportedly supported Happer’s plan. [121]

E&E reported:

The scaled-back goal of the current plan is to provide a back-and-forth examination of climate science in which researchers who question mainstream conclusions about warming would perform equivalently with scientists representing the vast majority of experts who accept that human activity is raising temperatures. The exercise could produce a series of white papers from both sides, essentially establishing a formal record of climate contrarianism.

The papers could act as a ‘correction’ or addendum to the National Climate Assessment released last year, according to one source.

The National Climate Assessment has been peer-reviewed and is based on the work of hundreds of studies.” [121]

Those involved in talks about the initiative included John Christy and Judith Curry. Also, Paul Robinson—who E&E notes “oversaw talks about nuclear weapons tests with the Soviet Union during the Cold War but who is not trained in climate science”—would possibly lead the initiative. [121]

June 5, 2019

Happer, in his position on the National Security Council, may have been involved in preventing a State Department analyst’s climate change testimony from being entered into the permanent Congressional Record, the New York Times reported. [119]

Internal documents and emails reviewed by the Times revealed the White House may have tried to suppress testimony by Dr. Rod Schoonover, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University and Senior Analyst at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. While Schoonover successfully testified, in what the NYT described as a “highly unusual move,” the White House refused to accept his written testimony into the permanent Congressional Record. According to a June 4 email, the reasoning was that the science did not match the Trump administration’s views. [119]

A White House official said that the testimony “doesn’t reflect the coordinated IC [intelligence community] position, or the administration’s position.” [119]

Schoonover’s testimony, while not entered into the official record, was obtained by the Times. According to sources familiar with the document, numerous comments from the National Security Council (NSC) were attributable to Happer. Those comments included common climate change denial talking points and frequently referenced “climate alarm.” [119][120]

This is not objective testimony at all. It includes lots of climate alarm propaganda that is not science at all. I am embarrassed to have this go out on behalf of the executive branch of the Federal Government,” one NSC comment reads. [120]

No, there is nothing exceptional about current climate and it is profoundly incorrect to say that ‘characteristics of global climate are moving outside the bounds experienced in human history.” [120]

Falling under the category of a common climate change myth, another NSC comment claims: “There is nothing unusually rapid about the very modest warming that has occurred in the past century. The Medieval warming mentioned above was more extreme.” [120] 

Happer/NSC also dismisses the scientific consensus: “A consensus of peer reviewed literature has nothing to do with the truth.” [120]

Dismissing a chart that shows negative impacts of climate change, Happer/NSC comments sarcastically:

Wow, climate change must be the first example in human history of ‘an ill wind that blows no good.’” [120]

He further claims there has been “global greening due to the relatively modest increases of CO2 that have occurred over the past fifty years.” [120]

”Figure 4 is junk science. More of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is substantially increasing food production, forestry production, and land vegetation in general,” the comment claims. Learn more about the CO2 is plant food” argument via Skeptical Science. [120]

The White House Office of Legislative Affairs recommended five pages of the statement that included scientific facts be removed altogether. [119]

Norman J. Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, described this wholesale removal of facts as unheard of. “I have never heard of basic facts being deleted from or blocked from testimony,” he said. [119]

May 2019

Acting as senior director for emerging technologies at the National Security Council, Happer briefed president Trump on a plan designed to challenge the consensus viewpoint on climate change. [118]

The shape of the plan is unclear, though it’s expected to question scientific elements of the National Climate Assessment,” sources told E&E News[118]

Sources also said there was a push to implement the plan “sooner rather than later” and that it may be implemented by executive order and run through the National Security Council, with the blessing of National Security Advisor John Bolton[118]

Happer reportedly briefed members of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the CO2 Coalition on the plan, which is expected to include the participation of John Christy (University of Alabama) and Judith Curry (Georgia Institute of Technology), both of whom have publicly downplayed the role of human activity in driving climate change. [118]

Former Obama-era DOE official Steve Koonin was also tapped to lead the initiative. Koonin previously participated in former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s critical review of climate science. [118]

February 20, 2019

Documents obtained by The Washington Post revealed Will Happer would lead a proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Security, which would be established by executive order. [110]

“The initiative represents the Trump administration’s most recent attempt to question the findings of federal scientists and experts on climate change and comes less than three weeks after Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats delivered a worldwide threat assessment that identified it as a significant security risk,” The Washington Post reported. [110]

The committee would be created “to advise the President on scientific understanding of today’s climate, how the climate might change in the future under natural and human influences, and how a changing climate could affect the security of the United States,” according to the NSC discussion paper. [110]

The paper also claims that prior government-issued reports finding climate change to be a serious threat “have not undergone a rigorous independent and adversarial scientific peer review to examine the certainties and uncertainties of climate science, as well as implications for national security.” [110]

In an interview, Francesco Femia, chief executive officer of the Council on Strategic Risks and co-founder of the Center for Climate and Security, described the committee as a political tool: [110]

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,” he said. “It’s honestly a blunt force political tool designed to shut the national security community up on climate change.” [110]

Since the article in The Washington Post, a group of military and national security leaders voiced their united opposition to the “Climate Security Committee.” Some statements reproduced below (view more at The Center for Climate and Security): [111]

This is not a real peer review committee – it’s a political review committee. 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” – 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 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), Senior Member of the Advisory Board at the Center for Climate and Security and former Oceanographer of the Navy.

It’s hard to stop good people from doing good work – especially those in the defense, intelligence and science agencies of our government. 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” – Sherri Goodman, Senior Strategist with the Center for Climate and Security and former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Environmental Security).

The proposed committee appears to be a politically-motivated attempt to discourage our intelligence, defense and science agencies from doing their jobs. If realized, this committee could force a blind spot onto those whose job it is to defend this country, and that could have dangerous national security repercussions. I hope the White House reconsiders, and dumps this bad idea.” — Captain Steve Brock, USN (Ret), Senior Advisor, the Council on Strategic Risks and the Center for Climate and Security.

This effort meets the definition of insanity—doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. No matter who is the President, our national security agencies have uniformly recognized the security threat from climate change. That question has been answered. Now is the time for action to address the risks.” – Alice Hill, Senior Member of the Advisory Board at the Center for Climate and Security and former Senior Director for Resilience Policy on the National Security Council.

Even if this committee is successful for a year or two suppressing the acknowledgment of a changing climate as a security risk, the risks will continue to accelerate.  The climate does not care what the White House thinks or what Executive Orders are signed – it only responds to the laws of physics.  The temperatures will continue to warm, the ice will continue to melt and the seas will continue to rise.  And our county will be less secure if we prevent our very own federal agencies from responding to this threat.” – 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.

September 4, 2018

CNN first reported that Will happer began serving on the National Security Council as the senior director for emerging technologies. [107]

Happer said he would do his best to ensure that federal policy decisions “are based on sound science and technology,” E&E News noted. In an earlier interview with E&E News in january, Happer had praised Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Climate agreement and said “the public in general doesn’t realize that from the point of view of geological history, we are in a CO2 famine.” [108]

“There is no problem from CO2,” Happer said. “The world has lots and lots of problems, but increasing CO2 is not one of the problems. So [the accord] dignifies it by getting all these yahoos who don’t know a damn thing about climate saying, ‘This is a problem, and we’re going to solve it.’ All this virtue signaling. You can read about it in the Bible: Pharisees and hypocrites and phonies. [108]


Happer wrote an article entitled “Climate Science Fiction” in Range, a magazine with the tagline “The Cowboy Spirit on America’s Outback.” [112], [113]

“I want to discuss computer models that paint frightening scenarios of climate change,” Happer wrote. “These models don’t work. They predict far more warming than has been observed over the past few decades. Other model predictions have also failed. The rates of sea-level rise have not accelerated. The weather has not become more extreme.” [112]

According to Happer, “Poorly informed proponents of climate alarmist like to claim that the science of climate change is well understood” and that any policies to mitigate it would be “a minor inconvenience for the privileged saviors of planet” but “the policies will hurt the rest of humanity and probably damage the environment as well.” [112]

Other claims by happer include that “life flourished even more abundantly” with higher CO2 in the past, while current increasing CO2 levels are causing “a greening of the Earth.”

SkepticalScience, which debunks common climate change myths, has pages outlining many of the arguments Happer uses in his article:

May 18, 2018

Happer has pushed back agains the term “denier” with regards to climate change. Dino Grandoni of The Washington Post reached out to Happer for an article on terminology. He was among those mentioned in the article who were involved in Prutt’s “red team-blue team” exercise at the EPA. [106]

In an email, Happer said the term “denier” was “designed to cast me and others like me as a Nazi apologist.”  [106]

“Any honest scientist should be a skeptic, most of all, a skeptic of his (or her) own scientific work, and the work of others,” Happer wrote to Grandoni. “If you insist on categorizing me as anything other than an honest scientist (and somewhat immodestly, a very good one),” he added, “you might call me a scientist who is persuaded that doubling or tripling CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere will be a major benefit to life on Earth.”  [106]

The Yale Program on Climate Change Communication started a 2009 study that broke Americans down into six categories regarding concern about climate change.   [106]

“We struggled with this, too,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale center. But, Leiserowitz added, “skeptic is a word that really is better kept for scientists because that’s the very heart of science. One should always maintain a skeptical attitude, even about one’s own work. Maybe even especially about one’s own work.”  [106]

April 24, 2018

Happer posed for a photo with Marc Morano and CFACT‘s Craig Rucker at the Environmental Protection Agency’s headquarters the afternoon Scott Pruitt announced the “secret science” initiative that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using any studies that do not make the raw data public. [104]

A range of Pruitt’s conservative allies attended the event at EPA headquarters, however press was not invited. Among those present was Lamar Smith, who tried to create a similar rule through legislation, but it failed to pass. Senator Mike Rounds, who authored a similar bill in the Senate, also attended. Emails released under a Freedom of Information Act request revealed Lamar Smith coordinated with Pruitt on the rule, E&E News reported[104]

Critics have noted that the rule would prevent the EPA from using all available data, with examples including data from patients that needs to be kept private and data subject to industry confidentiality.

 “Administrator Pruitt is very clearly trying to exclude and ignore longstanding pollution and medical science that is peer-reviewed, embraced by the National Academy of Sciences among others, and also based on health data that people were promised would be kept confidential,” John Walke, the clean air director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Washington Examiner. [105]

March 2018

Happer was one of several prominent climate change deniers who offered “friend of the court” briefs as part of a case in which San Francisco and Oakland are suing fossil fuel companies over the costs their cities face due to climate change. [94]

As of March 19, U.S. District Judge William Alsup said he had received two of the briefs. One group included Soon, Christopher Monckton, David Legates, William M. Briggs, and Michael Limburg among others submitted by Heartland Institute’s Peter J. Ferrara. The other group included Richard Lindzen, Will Happer, and Steven Koonin. Kooning has advocated for a “red team, blue team” approach to debating climate science. [94]

Authors also included David Legates, who has received funding by various industry groups such as the American Petroleum InstituteCharles G. Koch Caritable FoundationSouthern Company, and ExxonmobilWilliam M. Briggs, a statistician; Michael Limburg, vice president of the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) that has co-hosted climate change denial events with the Heartland Institute; Dietrich Jeschke from  the University of Applied Sciences in Flensburg, Germany; and James Morrison, whose only listing is as an undergraduate in Environmental Scienes at the University of West Anglia. “It’s unusual to list an undergraduate student as a scientific expert, particularly in a brief related specifically to a tutorial on the scientific evidence underpinning a case,” Climate Liability News noted[97]

ICN described the case—which included a “climate tutorial”—as an “an unusual arrangement, seemingly borrowed from patent litigation, where judges commonly hear initial testimony from both sides on pertinent scientific details,” would take place in a mock classroom and included a set of basic preliminary questions about climate to start the discussion. [93][95]

The other group, including Monckton and Soon, had their brief submitted by a Heartland Institute lawyer:

There is no agreement among climatologists as to the relative contributions of Man and Nature” to observed planetary warming, they claimed. As for the consensus view, it “says nothing about whether anthropogenic global warming was, is or will be catastrophic.”  [94]

InsideClimateNews noted that the judge requested that the groups of climate change deniers each file a statement by the end of the day on Tuesday declaring who paid for their research, whether they received support from anyone “on either side of the climate debate,” and whether any of them were “affiliated in any way (directly or indirectly)” with parties to the litigation.  [94]

And why, he asked, did they wait so long to present their documents, limiting the time for others to respond to them?” ICNadded.  [94]

The case is one of several in which cities have filed lawsuits against fossil fuel companies regarding knowledge about climate change, and damages related to to their products due to the addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. [96]

February 4, 2018

In January 2018, more than 200 scientists endorsed an open letter calling on the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) to remove climate change denier Rebekah Mercer from its board and to “end ties to anti-science propagandists and funders of climate science misinformation.” The New York Times reported that those among the AMNH letter calling for Mercer to step down were Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, and Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University. [95]

Happer was among a group of climate change deniers who responded with their own open letter, calling for the AMNH “not to cave in to this pressure.” The letter was signed by numerous individuals with ties to groups funded by the Mercer Family Foundation such as Happer‘s CO2 CoalitionRichard Lindzen, a fellow at the Cato InstituteCraig Idso, the chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. There are a number of signatories affiliated with the Heartland Institute, which has received over $5.78 million from the Mercer Family Foundation since 2008. [96]

The letter reads: [97]

The Earth has supported abundant life many times in the geological past when there were much higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is quite likely that future generations will benefit from the enrichment of Earth’s atmosphere with more carbon dioxide.

Make no mistake, the agitators are not defending science from quackery — quite the contrary!”

November 30, 2017

Happer spoke at the “At the Crossroads IV: Energy & Climate Policy Summit” co-hosted by The Heritage Foundation and Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF)[94]

According to Happer, claims like increases in extreme weather are “mythology”:

Let me re-emphasize what we just heard from Roy Spencer that climate models don’t work. They’re predicting much more warming than has being observed. I’m repeating, but it’s worth repeating, and I hope other people repeat it too,” Happer said. [94]

Other claims like extreme weather, they’re not true either. So there’s a lot of mythology out there about horrible things that are supposedly happening which are not happening at all.“ [94]

On the scientific consensus, Happer said:

I want to stress that when you hear that there’s all this consensus, everyone agrees you know, that there’s a catastrophe coming, consensus is — even if they’re there, which I very much doubt in this case, are often wrong.” [94]

Happer’s later expanded on his views about extreme weather, emphasizing that “nothing is changing”:

“I mentioned that extreme events are simply not increasing. You can look out the window and see everything’s getting worse; this is what you actually see if you pull up the data: Nothing is changing. Tornado rates are the same as they’ve always been. I think John Christy was the first to to put this up for everyone to see. 

Snow cover, drought years, wet years, hurricanes … there is no trend.   And yet you continually hear politicians say you can look out the window, you know, it’s obvious you know… the wheels are falling of the climate, but it’s not true. It’s simply a lie.” [94]

Happer summarized:

Policies on CO2 emissions are based on flawed computer models […] and we’re supposed to squander trillions of dollars for these flawed models. And secondly, CO2 is an overall benefit […]” [94]

November 13, 2017

Will Happer spoke at a “Physical Chemistry” seminar at UCLA titled “Some Thoughts on Climate.”  The event description read as follows: [92]

“Expenditures on sound science to better understand climate are a good investment. Some research is providing extremely useful data on climate-related phenomena, with instrumentation in space, on land and in the oceans. Unfortunately, substantial resources are also being diverted into a cult of climate alarmism. There is an inordinate focus on ominous predictions of computer models that clearly do not work. Carbon dioxide, a gas essential for life, has been demonized as a “pollutant,” and any mention of its benefits has been suppressed. Harmful policies are being based on this pseudo science” […]

The Santa Monica Observer suggested that two Conservative chemistry professors “had to do it under the radar.” Video of the Q&A session following his talk was posted on YouTube: [93]

September 12, 2017

Will Happer spoke on “The Real Story of Climate Change” at Chapel Hill, C as part of the ICON (Issues Confronting Our Nation) Lecture Series. According to the event description[90]

“Some of the topics which are likely to be covered in this talk include the history of atmospheric CO2 since life on earth began, failure of computer models to predict changes in temperature, that past changes in temperature were not associated with changes in CO2, the history of changes in temperatures on earth, ocean acidification, sea level rises, sun spots and solar physics, and the beneficial effects of CO2 on plant life and growth.  Global warming, climate change, extreme weather, globalization, carbon credits and taxes, and the sources and beneficiaries of the funding streams that support the advocacy of these concepts and policies will be considered.” [90]

Happer provided a speech of the same name the following day, with video published by the ICON Lecture Series below: [91]

Some notable quotes below: 

“No one should be ashamed of emitting CO2, and we all do.”  [91]

“It really is immoral what we’re doing to the third world, you know, with climate policies. I mean we should be ashamed of ourselves in America and in Europe of what’s happening there all in the name of saving the planet. It’s just silly virtue signaling, it’s not saving anything, and it’s hurting a lot of people.” [91]

Happer’s first message is that “we’re using models that don’t work”

“So we’re making stupid policy decisions on CO2

Happer points to a graph from John R. Christy to claim that observed temperatures do not match those of climate models. [91]

“You can see practically nothing is happening here, basically a little bit of warming, but it’s much much less than the models predict. […] So, models don’t work. Why are we taking them seriously?” 

Happer’s second message is that “There’s no way we can stop climate change. Climate’s going to continue to change. It’s always changed, from the beginning of the world it will continue.” [91]

His third message is that “CO2 is not a pollutant.” 

See SkepticalScience myth #42.

Happer goes on to compare the emissions from power plant to human breath. “It’s simply steam, like Alice’s breath here,” Happer said. “It’s very similar to a human’s breath.”

Dr. Jason West, an organizer of Carolina Climate Change Scientists, a faculty group on climate change, responded in depth to refute claims in Happer’s Chapel Hill presentation. West pointed out that Happer had been giving many similar lectures to that he made at Chapel Hill, and so West was compelled to respond. [102]

West wrote in his synopsis:

“Happer argues that the current concern over human-caused greenhouse gases is overblown. Although he clearly understands basic climate science, his presentation includes claims that are exaggerated, misleading, or incorrect regarding human-caused climate change. His presentation is entertaining, but he argues in many places against claims that climate scientists do not make. He acknowledges that CO2 has an influence on climate, but emphasizes that the influence is small. Yet he gives no physical reason to conclude that the current scientific understanding on the response of climate system to CO2 (the “climate sensitivity”) is wrong, other than to say that he does not trust climate models. His claims that climate models do not work are exaggerated and misleading. He also claims that increased CO2 will be beneficial by increasing plant growth – it is true that plant growth will increase by the CO2 increase alone, but he does not show that it will be beneficial, especially when climate is changing at the same time as CO2. His presentation ignores the large number of studies available that show that through climate change, CO2 will be detrimental to agricultural productivity as well as to human well-being generally.  [103]

Slides 2-4: West noted that, while Happer is accomplished as physicist, “ I am not aware that he has published any other research on climate change.” [103]

Slides 6-7 (4:00) – With regards to climate models, West said that Happer exaggerated claims that models don’t work. “Most
people understand that while weather forecasts do not predict perfectly, the information they provide is very important and those forecasts are getting much better,” West wrote. [103]

Looking at Happer’s selective use of time scales, west wrote “ the time scale for these two comparisons is shorter than what is really relevant for climate change. Climate is weather over a long period, typically taken as at least 30 years. To evaluate the models for their performance in reproducing climate change, we should look over longer periods of time. ” [103]

Slides 8-10 (6:15) With regards to Happer’s claims that the climate changes naturally and we shouldn’t try to stop it, West wrote: [103]

“Nobody is arguing that we can or should stop all climate change, so in slide 9 Happer is again arguing against a claim that is not made. Today’s discussion is about lessening the influence of human activities on the climate of today and the next several centuries, not about stopping climate change. Even more than lessening the influence of human activities, the discussion today is about keeping human-caused climate change from getting out of control. “ [103]

Slides 11-12 (8:00) Discussing Happer’s claim that “CO2 is not a pollutant,” West wrote:

“Happer is once again arguing against a claim that nobody is making. There have been very few suggestions that increased CO2 is harmful to human health, and it is generally treated as not being harmful to health when inhaled directly. […] In legal terms, the EPA in 2009 systematically reviewed the evidence and concluded that CO2 and other greenhouse gases ‘threaten public health and welfare of current and future generations’. This has given EPA the legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.” [103]

Slide 13 (9:55) Again on air pollution, West wrote: “again, nobody is claiming that the air pollution he is discussing here is a result of CO2.” [103]

Slide 14 (11:10) – Happer downplays pollution from power plants by focusing on how it is largely invisible. “Although you cannot
see the pollutants as they are emitted, NOx and SO2 react in the atmosphere to form air pollutants hundreds of miles downwind, where they affect health and visibility, and cause acid rain,” West noted, adding “ Power plants remain one of the most important sources of air pollutant emissions in the US. But this discussion is not directly relevant for climate change.” [103]

Slides 15-17 (12:10) – Happer has regularly asserted that CO2 will increase plant growth. West noted that while CO2 does improve plant growth, Happer ignores many other factors that would curtail these benefits:

“Happer implies (without much evidence) that a world in which plants grow faster (because of increased CO2) would be beneficial for humans. Even if we considered the CO2 increase alone, that would not only promote plant growth but would do so differentially among plants, with some plants growing much faster than other plants – resulting in changing competition within the ecosystem that would be difficult to predict. Now compound that stress on ecosystems by considering changes in climate at the same time, as well as changes in land use such as deforestation, and we see that ecosystems are experiencing several stresses at the same time.” [103]

Slides (18-20) (15:15) Where Happer suggested it is “immoral” to reduce CO2 emissions because how it would affect the world’s poor, West noted that Happer “ is leaving out the adverse effects of climate change affecting the poor –and it is the poor who are the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change” including hot temperatures,f loods, and drought.

Slides 28-30 (27:20) While West agreed with Happerthat water vapor (H2O) is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2, he clarified that Happer’s claim that water vapor is “the main control” of the greenhouse effect is misleading: “Even though H2O is more important as a greenhouse gas than CO2, H2O does not vary on climate timescales of its own accord. Rather it is CO2 that drives changes in H2O that amplify climate change. “

Slide 32 (33:00) Happer suggested that CO2 was higher in the geologic past, which is correct, however leaves out other important points:

“When CO2 has been higher, temperature has also been higher, such as when the dinosaurs existed, showing the relationship between CO2 and temperature historically. He says that the Earth was verdant in the past, implying that shifting to a warmer climate would be beneficial. In saying that he leaves out important details. For example, Florida was entirely under water.”

Slide 33 (34:00) Happer emphasized that only “tenths of a degree” of climate change have been observed. “I consider it worthy of attention that the world’s average temperature warmed by 1.3°F in less than 40 years,” West wrote. “Happer focuses on the effects of El Nino to cause the two large spikes, but he does not acknowledge the underlying upward trend that you can see even if you remove the two El Ninos, and which is more apparent over the longer record […]”

“He also limits his view of temperature change to the period over which satellites record temperature (since 1979), when longer records of temperature are also available. Most mainstream scientists would show the more reliable and longer temperature record based on weather stations […]”

Slides 37-39 (39:10) “Happer is right that the number of hurricanes does not seem to have changed over the past several decades. But the frequency and intensity of the strongest hurricanes has been observed to have increased since the 1970, and he does not mention that. “

Slides 40-44 (42:30) “”It is remarkable how much Happer is pandering to his conservative audience. I think it would be hard to find examples of mainstream climate scientists being so overtly political.” West wrote that while Happer compares climate researchers to “pigs in pursuit of money,” Happer himself led a scientific career that was also funded by tax dollars (I presume, since most scientific research is government-supported), except for the few years he spent working as a Washington bureaucrat. 

May 8, 2017

Will Happer, representing The CO2 Coalition, is a signatory to an open letter to President Donald J. Trump urging him “to withdraw fully from the Paris Climate Treaty and to stop all taxpayer funding of UN global warming programs.” [87]

DeSmog reported that the 40 groups represented in the letter, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), The Heartland Institute, and the Heritage Foundation, have received a combined total of millions of dollars from the Koch Brothers, ExxonMobil, and other industry groups. [88]

Analysis also showed that the groups accepted about $80 million through Donors Capital Fund and Donors Trust, two groups that have been confirmed is a key financial source for key U.S-based cliamate change denial groups. [89]

March 24, 2017

Happer spoke at the Heartland Institute‘s 12th International Conference on Climate Change, speaking alongside Becky Norton Dunlop in a lunch keynote presentation. [82]

February 23, 2017

Will Happer was a signatory of a petition (PDF) organized by Richard Lindzen of the Cato Institute urging President Donald Trump to pull the United States out of the United Nations international convention on climate change (UNFCCC). [80]

In just a few weeks, more than 300 eminent scientists and other qualified individuals from around the world have signed the petition below,” Lindzen wrote in the letter. [80]

DeSmog investigated the list, and found that only a small handful of the signatories could be considered “even remotely ‘qualified’ or ‘eminent’ — but not in the field of climate science.” The list included individuals “interested in climate,” and one signatory who only identified as an “emailer who wished to sign the petition” while some signers provided no affiliation or address whatsoever. [81]

February 2017

Describing climate scientists, Happer told The Guardian: [75]

There’s a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult. It’s like Hare Krishna or something like that. They’re glassy-eyed and they chant. It will potentially harm the image of all science.” [75]

John Holdren, Barack Obama’s science adviser, noted that Happer’s opinions would be a “substantial handicap” if he were to obtain the job of science adviser under Donald Trump. [75]

Every national academy of science agrees that the science is solid, that climate change is real,” he said. “To call this a cult is absurd and […] an insult to the people who have done this work,” Holdren said. [75]

January 13, 2017

William Happer reportedly met with president-elect Donald Trump at Trump Tower. Happer did not respond to questions by reporters, or to later requests for comment by The Washington PostE&E News reported that it was “unclear” whether Happer was under consideration for a position in the administration. [70], [71]

“The meeting may be most noteworthy as an example of how Trump plans to get scientific advice — through meetings with people whose views are not necessarily part of the mainstream,” Chris Mooney writes at The Washington Post. “It’s not a model that most scientists will approve of.” [70]

January 5, 2017

Will Happer was a signatory to a Cornwall Alliance open letter supporting Scott Pruitt for EPA Administrator under the Trump administration. [72]

Mr. Pruitt has also demonstrated understanding of and open-mindedness toward scientific insights crucial to the formulation and implementation of environmental regulation. He is prepared to hear all sides in debates over the risks and benefits of various activities that come under the purview of the EPA,” reads the letter.

On January 12, 2017, Senate Democrats raised conflict of interest concerns regarding Scott Prutt’s fossil fuel ties. Pruitt had spent years working to combat the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan. [73]

In an open letter to the Office of Government Ethics, members of the Senate’s environmental panel commented:

During his tenure as Attorney General of Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt has blurred the distinction between official and political actions, often at the behest of corporations he will regulate if confirmed to lead EPA,” the letter said. “Public reporting based on documents produced by Freedom of Information Act requests illustrate how Mr. Pruitt and members of his staff have worked closely with fossil fuel lobbyists to craft his office’s official positions.”

Pruitt was further grilled on his fossil fuel ties at his confirmation hearing on January 18[74]

Some notable signatories of the Cornwall Alliance letter, as of January 5, 2017, included:

December 8, 2016

William Happer was a speaker at the “At the Crossroads III Energy and Climate Summit,” an event co-hosted by the Heritage Foundation and the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF). The event was billed as “the premier energy-and-climate policy event in America,” and attracted a range of prominent climate change deniers as well as a range of names connected to Donald Trump and his transition team. [67]

Doug Domenech, director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s “Fueling Freedom” project, wrote about the proceedings at The HillDomenech outlined the common climate change denial message shared among the speakers: “Is climate change real? Yes, it has happened in the past and will happen in the future. Is man making an impact on the climate? Perhaps but in very small ways. But the overarching consensus remains the climate change we are experiencing is by no means catastrophic.” [68]

Speaking about the CO2 Coalition, “I like to call this the Co2 anti-defamation league. Because there’s the CO2 molecule, and it’s undergone just decade after decade of abuse for no reason.“ [00:32]

We’re doing our best to try and counter this myth that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. It’s not a pollutant at all.” [2:06]

I think we’ve been much too much on the defensive for a long time now. You know, ‘well, warming’s not going to be so bad. CO2’s a necessary evil, we have to have fossil fuels, look how great fossil fuels are’—I agree with all of that—but it isn’t working terribly well.  […] There is no way to satisfy green fanatics.”  [2:47]

“We should be telling the scientific truth that more CO2 is actually a benefit to the earth. [… ]There are very good reasons to think that.” [3:32]

We’re not in favour of pollution,” using pollution in Shanghai as an example. “Most of it is not from CO2. It’s not CO2 at all; you can’t see the CO2. It’s not from coal or oil either. About half of this is the Gobi desert.” [3:50]

Let me point out that if you have a well-designed coal plant, what comes out of the stack of the plant is almost the same thing that comes out of a person’s breath.” [5:00]

Referring to a slide, “This is the Turk plant that Kathleen Hartnett-White and I and a few others visited a few weeks ago […]  It’s actually running, but nothing comes out of the stack. These plants are completely benign, you know. […] So what comes out of here is fine. It’s not a lot different from your own breath.” [5:43]

Referring to a slide of Roy Spencer’s satellite data data, “Pat already mentioned that the models don’t work. […] The predicted warming is way more than the actual warming. And this is not getting any better, as Pat mentioned. We’ve come through the El Nino. It’s cooling down again. We know that thanks to Roy Spencer who will be talking in a minute here.” [6:42]

The main thing is that people don’t realize we’re in a CO2 famine right now. […] We’re way down. We’re down by a factor of 4 or 5 over the levels that plants would really like.” [7:22]

We know that the scary things about CO2 you keep hearing about — sea level rise, we’re all going to boil—that’s all based on models that don’t work. They’re not even close to working. […] So why are we basing these ruinous regulations on models that don’t work? So we hope that we can convince you that actually CO2 is a benefit, not a pollutant.” [8:29]

Speakers included:

December 3, 2016

William Happer is listed as a speaker at Freedom Force International’s “3rd Congress” event titled “Global-Warming; an Inconvenient Lie.” Freedom Force International describes the event as “a gathering of the world’s top experts on this subject who will put an end, once-and-for-all, to the myth of anthropogenic (man-caused) global-warming.” [66]

Happer’s speech is titled “The Real Inconvenient Truth; More CO2 Benefits the Earth.” Freedom Force describes Happer as “a strong voice against the myth of anthropogenic global warming and says there is no reason to believe that CO2 levels are a major factor in climate change.”

“Warming will be very beneficial,” Happer said in his talk. “You can actually already see the planet greening from space.”

“I certainly wouldn’t mind a few degrees of warming,” Happer joked. “Most Scotts would love to have a little warmer climate.”

Happer put up a slide of a powerplant and compared its emissions to human breath:

A coal power plant and a person are emitting essentially the same thing. Mostly water vapor and CO2. […] So CO2 is not a pollutant,” he said.

In conclusion, Happer said he though increasing emissions was a good thing:

“I think emissions are good, but it doesn’t matter what we do because emissions are going to be dominated in the future by China […] and by India. So, Europe can do what it likes. I hope the US will be sensible, but it can do what it likes. CO2 levels are going to continue to increase, and I think that’s good.”

The complete speaker list is below: [66]

  • Lord Christopher Monckton – Global Warming Is A Monstrous Hoax
  • William Happer  – The Real Inconvenient Truth; More CO2 Benefits the Earth
  • Tim Ball – Global Warming Is the Biggest Deception in History 
  • G. Edward Griffin – Why Do They Deceive?
  • Holly Swanson – They Call It Education; Global Warming and Political Indoctrination
  • Dan Happel  – They Call It Green; Global Warming and Agenda-21
  • Patrick Wood – They Call it Science; Global Warming and Technocracy
  • Alex Newman – They Call It News; Global Warming and Propaganda
  • Debbie Bacigalupi – They Call It Smart Growth: Global Warming and The Depopulation of Rural America
  • Elaine Willman – Native Americans – Pawns in the Agenda-21 game
  • Jim Lee – Geoengineering, Weather Modification, and the Weaponization of Nature
  • Michael Shaw – Agenda-21; Bringing the Soviet System to America
  • Willie Soon Man vs. Sun; Put Your Money on the Sun
  • Istvan MarkoCO2 Is Not Pollution. It is Our Friend.

December 3, 2016

Will Happer was interviewed by Stefan Molyneux, an individual who has faced accusations that he is running a cult-like group through his FreeDomainRadio enterprise, DeSmog reported. [76], [77], [78]

In the interview, Happer repeated a number of often-debunked talking points on climate change. He talks about a geological period known as the Phanerozoic eon which started about 540 million years ago and stretches to the present. [78]

Happer said that over this period CO2 has been much higher, suggesting that everything was all fine and, by implication, it would be fine again if levels of carbon dioxide in the air got up to 1,000 parts per million or more. [78]

Happer also tells Molyneux: “There was no danger from ocean acidification […] all of the other scare stories you read about. They just didn’t happen.” [78]

Research published in the journal Science in 2015 found that ocean acidification from massive injections of carbon into the atmosphere was the cause of a “mass dying” about 250 million years ago which, according to Happer, “just didn’t happen.” [79]

Paper also claimed that water vapor feedback, “does not seem to work” and that this means future warming might not be so bad.  [78]

There’s time enough [gone by] to see if it works and it doesn’t seem to work,” said Happer. [78]

August 2016

Will Happer is a member of a group titled Climate Exit (Clexit) founded in the summer of 2016. According to Clexit’s founding statement (PDF), “The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade. Man does not and cannot control the climate.” [5][6]

As Desmog reports, another key member of Clexit’s “60 well-informed science, business and economic leaders” is Hugh Morgan, a former board member of the Reserve Bank of Australia and former CEO of Western Mining Corporation with close ties to Australia’s Liberal party. [17][18]

According to Clexit’s founding statement

If the Paris climate accord is ratified, or enforced locally by compliant governments, it will strangle the leading economies of the world with pointless carbon taxes and costly climate and energy policies, all with no sound basis in evidence or science […]” [6]

May 2, 2016

Will Happer was listed among “Key Scientists” appearing in Marc Morano‘s movie, Climate Hustle. The full list included the following: [19]

Marc Morano’s Climate Hustle was released in U.S. theatres on May 2, 2016. Bill Nye described it as  “not in our national interest and the world’s interest.” [20]

The film was produced by the Committee for Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and CDRCommunications. As noted at Desmog’s project, ClimateHustler.org,  CFACT has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon ScaifeCFACT has also received at least $7.8 million in “dark money” through DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund.  [21][22]

CDR Communications was behind the 2010 video by the Cornwall Alliance titled Resisting the Green Dragon, which claimed environmentalism was a “false religion” and a “global government” power grab. Chris Rogers of CDR Communictions is also chairman of The James Partnership, the umbrella arm that includes the Cornwall Alliance as one of its projects and pays the salary of Calvin Beisner, Cornwall’s founder and spokesperson. [23]

Climate Hustle initially premiered on December 7, 2015 in Paris, France during the COP21 United Nations summit on climate change. [24][25]

We are putting together what I think is the most comprehensive, unique, entertaining and humorous climate documentary that has ever been done or attempted,” Morano had said before the film was released. [26]

The reason that this is a unique film,” Morano has said, “is that we are going for a pop culture-friendly… sarcastic approach and we actually give both sides in this movie.” 

In an interview with Ezra Levant, Morano said:

I am not interviewing a lot of the main climate sceptical scientists because I feel like they have been interviewed by many other people and their stories have been told. I am trying to find another layer of scientist whose stories have not been out there yet. You will see a lot of new names in this.” [26]

See a preview of the film below:

At the Paris premier of the film, reporters from Desmog and the Irish Times were denied entrance after having their RSVPs accepted days earlier. [27]

May 18, 2016

William Happer was a signatory to a full page color advertisement in The New York Times titled “Abuse of Power” (PDF) sponsored by The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).  The ad serves as an open letter from 43 signatories including organizations and individuals in response to  New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker, and the coalition of Attorneys General investigating groups denying man-made climate change[28][29]

Attempts to intimidate CEI and our allies and silence our policy research are unconstitutional,” said CEI president Kent Lassman. “The First Amendment protects us and everyone has a duty to respect it – even state attorneys general.  CEI will continue to fight for all Americans to support the causes in which they believe.”[28]

The Competitive Enterprise Institute received a subpoena from AG Walker on April 7, 2016. On April 20, CEI filed an objection to the subpoena calling it “offensive,” “un-American,” and “unlawful,” and are contending that AG Walker is “violating CEI’s First Amendment rights.” [28]

The “freedom of speech” argument was echoed by ExxonMobil’s legal team, as well as numerous other conservative groups including the Pacific Legal Foundation, and Heritage Foundation and the recently-formed Free Speech in Science Project, a group created by the same lawyers who defended the Competitive Enterprise Institute in the past. [30]

The CEI letter lists the following signatories:

April 2016

William Happer was one of several witnesses sponsored by Peabody Energy, fighting a legal case on Minnesota’s Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). Peabody Energy’s list of skeptical scientists included the following: [31]

DeSmog reviewed the case findings, and reported how the arguments presented by Peabody were rejected by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Some of Peabody’s central “scientific” arguments, as commented on by The ALJ in findings documents, were as follows: [32]

p.18 “Peabody asserted that significant climate change is not occurring or, to the extent climate change is occurring, it is not due to anthropogenic causes. Furthermore, Peabody insisted that any current warming and increased CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere are beneficial. Based on its position on climate change, Peabody maintained that the externality value of CO2 would most accurately be set at or below zero.…”

p.31 “The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Peabody Energy has failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that climate change is not occurring or, to the extent climate change is occurring, the warming and increased CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere are beneficial.” 

Happer’s contribution included a citation of a piece by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts, written at the SPPI blog (but striken):

The Judge ruled unambiguously against Peabody, as reported Bloomberg BNA. [33] 

The Guardian also suggested a number of reasons that Peabody Energy lost the case, including Richard Lindzen‘s own admission that the case hinged on ignoring the IPCC expert consensus, and instead listening to contrarian science: [34]

“All of this [opposition] testimony is flawed to the extent it simply relies on … predictions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change […] today the best evidence indicates that … a much lower climate sensitivity value of 1°C or 1.5°C is correct […]”

“Peabody’s scientists made errors that were easy to identify and point out to the Judge. Furthermore, the Judge was smart, quickly able to see through nonsense non-science,” The Guardian reports. “For those of you that read the report, you’ll notice that the Peabody side made claims about the natural variability of Earth’s climate, about Earth temperature changes, and about extreme weather events.” [35]

Some notable judicial conclusions were as follows, reports The Guardian[35]

“22. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Peabody failed to demonstrate that an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1 or 1.5°C is correct.”

“23. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the climate sensitivity is reasonably considered to be in the 2-4.5°C range.”

“47. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Peabody failed to demonstrate that the relied upon process is neither peer-reviewed nor transparent.”

March 29, 2016

Will Happer was a featured speaker at a conference titled “The Climate Surprise: Why CO2 Is Good for the Earth” hosted by the CO2 Coalition and The New Criterion in New York City. [36]

According to the event description, “Members of the CO2 Coalition and  many other experts argue that carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere provides manifold benefits for humanity. And observed surface warmings are much smaller than predicted by climate models.   Economic models that fail to include the benefits  of CO2 and the serious exaggerations of climate models  and are being used to advocate “cures” that are much worse than the non-existent disease.” [36]

Videos of the conference are available at The New Criterion’s YouTube pageFeatured speakers listed at the event included the following: [36]

February 15, 2016

Will Happer co-authored an article in the New York Post with fellow climate change deniers Rodney Nichols titled “The Supreme Court sided with science against Obama.” EcoWatch reported on Happer‘s piece, describing it as “a bigger win than usual for the deniers” given the Post’s willingness to publish it. [12], [37]

In the piece, Happer promotes a study by his own CO2 Coalition, where he claims that plants are coping with a “CO2 Famine”:

“First, carbon dioxide, CO2, is emphatically NOT a ‘pollutant.’ All living things are built of carbon that comes from CO2. An increase in essential CO2 in the atmosphere will be a huge benefit to plants and agriculture. Satellite measurements show that the increase of CO2 over the last few decades has already caused a pronounced greening of the planet — especially in arid regions.

For tens of millions of years, plants have been coping with a ‘CO2 famine.’ Current CO2 concentrations of a few hundred parts per million (ppm) are close to starvation levels compared to the several thousand ppm that prevailed over most of history.

We support the cost-effective control of real pollutants associated with the use of fossil fuels — for example, fly ash, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur or smog-forming volatile hydrocarbons. But CO2 isn’t a pollutant, and there’s no reason to control it.

Second, the “warming” from CO2 — and yes, CO2 is a ‘greenhouse gas’ — has been much less than predicted by the climate models Obama bases his policies on. For 20 years, the temperature has been virtually unchanged, in stark contrast to model predictions.”

According to EcoWatch, “The piece itself touts a few classic denier myths, from CO2 being good, to the existence of a global warming pause, to the letter penned by “300 experts” accusing National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of cooking the books on climate change.” [37]

December, 2015

In an undercover investigation by Greenpeace UK, William Happer agreed to write a report for a (fictional) Middle Eastern oil company on the benefits of CO2 while keeping the sources of the funding secret. In the investigation, Greenpeace reporters posed as representatives from fictional coal and oil companies and approached academics from Princeton and Penn State to ask for papers that would promote the benefits of CO2 while requesting that they conceal funding sources. [8]

Happer told the Greenpeace reporters that he would be willing to produce research promoting the benefits of carbon dioxide for $250 per hour, while the funding sources could be concealed by routing them through the CO2 Coalition, of which he is a board member. Happer also admitted that a similar method had been used to fund his testimony for a Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide, for which Peabody Energy paid him $8,000 which was also routed through the CO2 Coalition.  [8]

When reporters asked if the fossil fuel company’s role in the paper could remain hidden, Happer replied:

If I write the paper alone, I don’t think there would be any problem stating that ‘the author received no financial compensation for this essay.’”  [8]

To ensure that the commissioning of the report would not be traced back to the (fictional) oil company, Happer contacted fellow CO2 Coalition board member Bill O’Keefe, saying “I am trying get [sic] another mysterious client to donate funds to the CO2 Coalition instead of compensating me for my writing something for them.”  [8]

O’Keefe’s suggestion was to channel the funds through DonorsTrust, a group that his been called the “Dark Money ATM” of the US Conservative movement for its ability to conceal the original sources of funding.  [8]

Greenpeace investigators then asked Peter Lipsett of DonorsTrust whether they would be willing to accept the funds from a foreign oil company. Lipsett responded, saying that while the funds would need to come from a U.S. bank account, “we can take it from a foreign body, it’s just we have to be extra cautious with that.” [8]

During the investigation, William Happer also outlined details of the unofficial peer review process run by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a UK climate sceptic think tank. Happer said he could ask to put the oil-funded report through a similar review process, admitting that it would struggle to be published in a traditional academic journal.

When undercover reporters asked Happer if he could put the industry funded report through the same peer review process as previous GWPF reports they claimed to have been “thoroughly peer reviewed,” Happer explained that the process consisted of members of the Advisory Council and other selected scientists reviewing the work, rather than presenting it to an academic journal.  [8]

Happer added: “I would be glad to ask for a similar review for the first drafts of anything I write for your client. Unless we decide to submit the piece to a regular journal, with all the complications of delay, possibly quixotic editors and reviewers that is the best we can do, and I think it would be fine to call it a peer review.”   [8]

Read the complete email chain including William Happer and DonorsTrust here. Happer responded to the Greenpeace article, saying that “I don’t think I have anything to be embarrassed about.” [38] 

When asked whether there should be full disclosure on industry influence over science, he said, “Yes, I believe in full disclosure.” But, he added, “I don’t think that full disclosure was the point of the Greenpeace article at all. The aim was simply to smear their enemies.” [38]

December 8, 2015

Set to coincide with the Paris COP21 (Conference of the Parties), Will Happer will testified at a hearing of the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness convened by U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) titled “Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate.” [39] 

At the hearing, , asking whether Happer had received funding from Peabody Energy. 

A Greenpeace investigation (See details above) revealed that Happer had in fact received $8,000 from Peabody Energy to write about the benefits of Carbon Dioxide – working out to a rate of $250 per hour. When Greenpeace investigator Jesse Coleman asked Happer about his Peabody energy funding at the December 8 hearing, Happer tells, “you son of a b*tch, I haven’t taken a dime” (see video footage below)

During the rest of the hearing, Happer spent his time arguing that rising carbon dioxide levels are beneficial for the planet, claiming there is “not much dispute” that there is too little CO2 and too much oxygen for plants. He also suggested that climate change skeptics should be getting more funding: [40]

“I would like to argue very strongly that we set aside some fraction of funding for climate research that is designed to be for the other side,” Happer said. [40]

Happer provided two parts to his testimony, including a white paper prepared by the CO2 Coalition:

According to the event description, the hearing focused on “the ongoing debate over climate science, the impact of federal funding on the objectivity of climate research, and the ways in which political pressure can suppress opposing viewpoints in the field of climate science.” [39]

Other listed witnesses include:

December 4, 2015

The CO2 Coalition’s white paper, entitled “Carbon Dioxide Benefits the World: See for Yourself” was cited in Breitbart News as evidence of increases in atmospheric CO2 as being beneficial as oppose to harmful. The paper would shortly be used in testimony on December 8. [84], [85]

“It is undeniably true that global temperature increases have been far, far less than doomsday computer models predicted – about three times smaller, and there are good reasons to suspect the increases from further human CO2 emissions would be smaller still, without imposing draconian regulations. Not only has this warming been small, but there is no real reason to think it’s harmful,” John Hayward writes at Breitbart[85]

November 19, 2015

William Happer spoke at a “climate summit” arranged by the Texas Public Policy Foundation shortly before the UN climate summit in Paris (COP21), along with other prominent skeptics including Richard Lindzen and Patrick Moore.  [13]

Moore focused on the previously debunked theory that global warming would be beneficial to plant growth without any negative effects: [41]

CO2 will be beneficial and crop yields will increase,” Happer said.  “More CO2 will be a very significant benefit to agriculture. ” [13]

The “At the Crossroads Energy & Climate Policy Summit” featured a long list of prominent climate change deniers: [42]

Robert E. MurrayFounder, Chairman, President, and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation, the nation’s largest underground coal mining commpany.
H. Leighton StewardMember, TheRightClimateStuff.com
Dr. Don EasterbrookProfessor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University
Dr. Will HapperCyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Princeton University
Dr. Richard LindzenAlfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT
Dr. Patrick MooreAuthor and founding member of Greenpeace
Dr. E. Calvin BeisnerSpokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
Horace CooperAdjunct Fellow, National Center for Public Policy Research
Dr. Caleb RossiterAdjunct Professor, School of International Service and Adjunct Professor, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, College of Arts and Sciences at American University
Mark P. MillsSenior Fellow, Manhattan Institute and founder andCEO, Digital Power Group
Dr. Hal DoironFormer NASA Engineer and Chairman, The Right Climate Stuff Research Team
Walter CunninghamFighter Pilot, Col. USMCR-Ret.; Physicist; Apollo 7 Astronaut
Dr. George L. StegemeierPresident, GLS Engineering, Inc.
Stephen MooreDistinguished Visiting Fellow on the Project for Economic Growth at the Heritage Foundation
Robert L. Bradley Jr.CEO, Institute for Energy Research
Mike NasPartner, Environmental and Legislative Affairs Practice Group, Jackson Walker L.L.P.
Marc MoranoFounder, ClimateDepot.com
Ray GiffordPartner, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP
Brian LloydExecutive Director, Public Utility Commission of Texas
John CornynU.S. Senator and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn

June, 2015

Will Happer was a guest on Episode 38 of “Conversations that Matter.” Video and choice quotes below. [83]

“Of course, the climate changes all the time. It always has. And it’s warmed a little bit in the last 100 years, apparently. […] Nobody knows if that’s got a human component or not.” [3:10]

“There is very little evidence that humans are making much impact.” [5:00]

June 11–12, 2015

William Happer was a speaker at the Heartland Institute’s Tenth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC10) in Washington, D.C. [43]

View William Happer’s Dinner Keynote presentation at the Heartland Institute’s ICCC10, below: [44]

May 12, 2015

William Happer is a signatory to an open letter to Pope Francis on climate change. The letter invites the Pope to reconsider his views on climate change before his upcoming encyclical letter on the environment, which is widely expected to call for measures to prevent climate change in the interests of the world’s poor. [45]

The open letter was coordinated and signed by Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance. According to the letter, “Good climate policy must recognize human exceptionalism, the God-given call for human persons to ‘have dominion’ in the natural world (Genesis 1:28), and the need to protect the poor from harm, including actions that hinder their ascent out of poverty.” [45]

The letter suggests that increasing wealth is the best way to protect the poor:

“The risks of poverty and misguided energy policies that would prolong it far outweigh the risks of climate change. Adequate wealth enables human persons to thrive in a wide array of climates, hot or cold, wet or dry. Poverty undermines human thriving even in the very best of climates. It follows that reducing fossil fuel use means reducing economic development, condemning poor societies to remain poor, and requiring poor people of today to sacrifice for the sake of richer people of the future—a clear injustice.” [45]

Another excerpt below:

”[…] the [climate] models are wrong. They therefore provide no rational basis to forecast dangerous human-induced global warming, and therefore no rational basis for efforts to reduce warming by restricting the use of fossil fuels or any other means.” [45]

Judith Curry comments on her blog Climate Etcthat “Arguably the most effective ‘pushback’ comes from Cal Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance, who coordinated An Open Letter to Pope Francis on Climate Change.” [46] 

March 2015

William Happer is one of several climate change skeptics cc’d on an email from S. Fred Singer in hopes of countering the documentary film “Merchants of Doubt,” which exposes the network of climate change skeptics and deniers trying to delay legislative action on climate change.  [47]

The October, 2014 email was leaked to journalists before the documentary was released. “Can I sue for damages?” Singer asked in the email. “Can we get an injunction against the documentary?” [47]

InsideClimate News reports in their article “Leaked Email Reveals Who’s Who List of Climate Denialists,” how “Many of those copied on the email thread, such as Singer and communications specialist Steven Milloy, have financial ties to the tobacco, chemical, and oil and gas industries and have worked to defend them since the 1990s.” [47]

InsideClimate News also documented all those who were cc’d on the email, including the following skeptics and groups:

DeSmog covered the emails here: “Merchants of Doubt Film Debuts, Textbook Denial Attack Campaign Led By Fred Singer Ensues” and DeSmog also archived a full copy of the Singer email thread (PDF).

March 1, 2015

Happer was listed as a writer/endorser of a Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPFbriefing paper titled “The Small Print: What the Royal Society Left Out“ that accused the Royal Society of “presenting a misleading picture of climate science.” [98][99]

As an example, the Royal Society addresses the question of why Antarctic sea ice is growing,” said Prof Ross McKitrick, the chairman of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council, “but in doing so they present a recently proposed hypothesis as if it were settled science. Failing to admit when the answer to an important question is simply not known does a disservice to the public. We believe that this new paper does a much better job of presenting the whole picture to the public.” [98]

The paper was written/endorsed by the following “experts”: [98]

July 15, 2014

William Happer is introduced as an “industry expert” on climate change and interviewed live on CNBC. During his interview, Happer states the “demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler,” which is not the first time Happer has said this. [48], [49]

View William Happer’s interview below, “CNBC Guest William Happer: Carbon Dioxide Demonized Just Like Jews Were Under Hitler”:

May 8, 2013

William Happer and Harrison H. Schmitt co-author a paper published in the Wall Street Journal entitled, “In Defense of Carbon Dioxide.” [16

The authors submit that no chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the “single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production.”[16

The conclusion of the article states that, “The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.” [16

January 27, 2012

Will Happer signed a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that claims there is no need to panic about global warming. [50]

Other “scientists” who signed the article include Claude Allègre, J. Scott Armstrong, Roger CohenWilliam Kininmonth, Jan Breslow, Richard Lindzen, James McGrath, Rodney Nichols, Burt Rutan, Harrison H. Schmitt, Nir Shaviv, Edward David, Michael Kelly, Henk Tennekes, and Antonino Zichichi.

Media Transparency reported on the Op-Ed, concluding that most of the scientists have never published articles in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate change. They also contacted economist William Nordhaus who had been cited by the article, and he said that the WSJ was guilty of a “Complete Mischaracterization Of My Work.” [51]

Skeptical Science also looked into the signatories, and summarize how the list “only includes four scientists who have actually published climate research in peer-reviewed journals, and only two who have published climate research in the past three decades.” Also, almost half have received funding from oil companies and big industry. [52]


Happer published an article entitled “The Truth About Greenhouse Gases” in the June/July 2011 issue of First Things, a 501(c)(3) organization that describes itself as “America’s most influential journal of religion and public life.” [115], [117]

In a September 2011 response to Happer’s article, Michael C. MacCracken—Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs at the Climate Institute—debunked Happer’s article on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. [116]

“In offering these comments, my intent is to present the findings and perspectives of the national and international science community, illuminated with insights gained over more than four decades of seeking to improve understanding of how the Earth system works and is affected by natural and human events. In contrast to Dr. Happer’s view that the science of climate change is like a house of cards (i.e., find one flaw and the whole sense of understanding will fall), I have tried to give a sense of why, as Professor Henry Pollack of the University of Michigan has put it, the science of climate change is like a rope hammock (i.e., with lots of interconnections and linkages, such that weaknesses or failure of any particular detailed finding does not weaken the overall strength of scientific understanding),” MacCracken wrote in his introduction.

May 27, 2011

William Happer was one of fourteen Amici, described as “well-qualified climate scientists,” who claimed that the “EPA‘s endangerment finding is not ‘rational’ and therefore arbitrary and capricious.” [53]

According to the petitioners, representing the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc.:  [53]

“[T]he Earth’s climate is not changing in an unusual or anomalous fashion. The EPA relied on instrumental data that were adjusted to exaggerate the increase in global temperatures.” [53]

Petitioners listed were:

May 20, 2010

William Happer testified ( before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, U.S. House of Representatives on “Climate Science in the Political Arena” (PDF). [10]

February 25, 2009

William Happer testified before the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee where he describes how the dangers of CO2 are “Wildly Exaggerated” and “why I and many scientists like me are not alarmed by increasing levels of CO2.” [14]

Happer said that the earth is in a “CO2 famine,” and more atmospheric carbon dioxide would be beneficial. [54]

The Committee was formerly chaired by climate skeptic Senator James Inhofe who is Senate Majority Committee Member for the Committee on Environment & Public Works. [55]

November 9, 2008

Will Happer’s name appears on an ad funded by the CATO institute addressed to then President-Elect Barack Obama, responding to his statement that “Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear” by saying, “With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.” [56]

1998 – 2008

Will Happer is listed as a signatory to the Oregon Petition. [57]

According to the Associated Press article, the Oregon petition included names that were intentionally placed to prove the invalid name collection process. The Oregon Petition has been used by climate change skeptics as proof that there is no scientific consensus. [58], [59], [60]


*The Richard Loundsbery Foundation has funded (PDF) Fred Singer‘s Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and the Marshall Institute’s Environmental Literacy Council. [63]


William Happer appears to have only published one paper on climate change, titled “Climate Science and Policy: Making the Connection” (PDF).  Upon further investigation, this paper was published by the George C. Marshall Institute and not by any peer-reviewed journal. [64]

Another article by Happer, ”The Truth About Greenhouse Gases,” was published in the June/July 2011 issue of First Things, a 501(c)(3) organization that describes itself as “America’s most influential journal of religion and public life.” [115], [117]

In a September 2011 response to Happer’s article, Michael C. MacCracken—Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs at the Climate Institute—debunked Happer’s article on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. [116]

Happer has also published an article on “Energy basics” in the “Forum” section of  Issues in Science and Technology. [65]


  1. Board of Trustees: Dr. William Happer,” MITRE Corporation. Archived March 20, 2011. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/RqKSE
  2. About,” Co2Coalition. Archived September 4, 2015. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/Xo0M9
  3. Board Members,” George C. Marshall Institute. Archived September 9, 2015. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/cAIaS
  4. Academic Advisory Council,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation. Archived September 9, 2015. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/Cd2Ae
  5. The Clexit Committee comprises” (PDF), Clexit.net. Archived.pdf on file at Desmog.
  6. “After Brexit, Clexit” (PDF), Clexit.net. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog.
  7. William Happer: Adjunct Scholar,” Cato Institute. Archived September 9, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/ksGnu
  8. Lawrence Carter and Maeve McClenaghan. “Exposed: Academics-for-hire agree not to disclose fossil fuel funding,” GreenPeace EnergyDesk, December 8, 2015. Archived April 6, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/EirtF
  9. William Happer. “HAPPER: Man’s role in climate change minimal,” app.com, March 17, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/eKaw6
  10. “Climate Science in the Political Arena” (PDF), Statement of William Happer before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming U.S. House of Representatives (May 20, 2010). Archived January 16, 2011.
  11. Willie Soon and Istvan Marko. “Bill Nye and Scientism,” Breitbart, May 24, 2016. Archived September 9, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/OInWB
  12. The Supreme Court sided with science against Obama,” New York Post, February 15, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/SGu0y
  13. Marc Morano. “Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit ‘Irrational’ – ‘Based On Nonsense’ – ‘Leading us down a false path’,” Climate Depot, November 19, 2015.  Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/MFFBR
  14. Statement of William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University (PDF), Science & Public Policy Insitute, February 25, 2009.
  15. U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk ‘Consensus’ in 2008” (PDF), U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, December 11, 2008. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.
  16. In Defense of Carbon Dioxide,” The Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2013. Archived September 9, 2015. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/f1qhj
  17. Graham Readfearn. “After Brexit, Climate Science Denialists Form New Group to Call for a Clexit,” Desmog, August 3, 2016.
  18. Hugh Morgan AO,” Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Archived February 22, 2002. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/1ObOB
  19. “Background on Key Scientists Appearing in Climate Hustle” (PDF), ClimateHustle.org. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog.
  20. ‘Climate Hustle’ debuts as skeptics take on global-warming ‘consensus’,” The Washington Times, May 1, 2016. Archived August 26, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/XtLXp
  21. Background on Climate Hustle Host and Producers,” ClimateHustle.org. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog.
  22. Homepage, climatehustler.org. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/NB9qn
  23. Graham Readfearn. “The Evangelical Christian Climate Deniers Behind Marc Morano’s Climate Hustle Documentary,” Desmog, November 19, 2015.
  24. Matthew Kasper, “Climate Hustle, Latest Global Warming Denial Documentary, Set For World Premiere In Paris During COP21,” Republic Report, November 13, 2015. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/s7OHs
  25. Climate Hustle,” SourceWatch, accessed November 14, 2015. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/bOG35
  26. Graham Readfearn. “Marc Morano’s Climate Hustle Film Set For Paris Premiere With Same Old Denial Myths,” Desmog, November 12, 2015.
  27. Graham Readfearn. “The Fakery of the Paris ‘Red Carpet’ Premiere of Marc Morano’s Climate Hustle Film,” Desmog, December 30, 2015.
  28. CEI Runs “Abuse of Power” Ad In New York Times,” Competitive Enterprise Institute, May 18, 2016. Archived May 31, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/DF7gW
  29. “Abuse of Power: All Americans have the right to support causes they believe in” (PDF), Competitive Enterprise Institute. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.
  30. Steve Horn. “Exxon’s Lawyer in Climate Science Probe Has History Helping Big Tobacco and NFL Defend Against Health Claims,” DeSmogBlog, May 10, 2016.
  31. John Mashey. “Peabody’s Outlier Gang Couldn’t Shoot Straight In Minnesota Carbon Case, Judge Rebuffs Happer, Lindzen, Spencer, Mendelsohn, Bezdek,” Desmog, June 7, 2016.
  32. “Re: In the Matter of the Further Investigation into Environmental and Socioeconomic Costs Under Minn. Stat. § 216B.2422, Subd. 3” (PDF), April 12, 2016. PDF archived at DeSmog.
  33. ALJ: Minnesota Should Use Federal Costs of Carbon in Decisions,” Bloomberg BNA, April 20, 2016. Archived June 27, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/IHASX
  34. Coal made its best case against climate change, and lost,” The Guardian, May 11, 2016. Archived June 27, 2016.  Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/Vwf5D
  35. Peabody coal’s contrarian scientist witnesses lose their court case,” The Guardian, May 2, 2016. Archived June 27, 2016.  Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/8kVij
  36. The Climate Surprise: Why CO2 is Good for the Earth,” CO2 Coalition, April 25, 2016. Archived May 7, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/BWkqz
  37. Why Would the New York Post Plug Climate Denier Profiteers?“ EcoWatch, February 19, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/SGyuc
  38. John Schwartz. “Greenpeace Subterfuge Tests Climate Research,” The New York Times, December 9, 2015. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/eF2cg
  39. Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate,” U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation, December 8, 2015. Archived December 13, 2016.  Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/9SbTE#selection-1447.0-1447.105
  40. Scott K. Johnson. “Senate Science Committee hearing challenges ‘dogma’ of climate science,” Ars Technica, December 9, 2015. Archived December 10, 2015. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/X6bHF
  41. CO2 is plant food,” SkepticalScience. Accessed November 30, 2015. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/lr9Sa
  42. At The CrossRoads Energy & Climate Policy Summit,” Crossroads-Summit.com. Archived July 4, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DesmogBlog. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/oSTWM
  43. Speakers,” Heartland Institute. Archived June 30, 2015. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/lpiqu
  44. Dinner Keynote with William Happer, Ph.D.,”Heartland Institute, June 11, 2015. Archived July 14, 2015.
  45. An Open Letter to Pope Francis on Climate Change,” Cornwall Alliance For The Stewardship of Creation. April 27, 2015. Archived September 9, 2015. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/tSKuG
  46. Judith Curry. “Pope Francis, climate change, and morality,” JudithCurry.com, April 29, 2015. Archived May 27, 2015. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/GHpHm
  47. Katherine Bagley. “Leaked Email Reveals Who’s Who List of Climate Denialists,” InsideClimate News. March 12, 2015. Archived September 9, 2015. Archive.is URL:  https://archive.is/h6KiH
  48. CNBC‘s Climate “Expert”: “Demonization Of Carbon Dioxide Is Just Like” Demonization Of “Jews Under Hitler,” Media Matters For America, July 15, 2014. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/6kJ6I
  49. CNBC Again? Marshall Institute Chairman Brings Hitler Into Climate Conversation,” DeSmogBlog, July 15, 2014.
  50. No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” The Wall Street Journal, January 27, 2012. Archived September 9, 2015.  Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/UyJUJ
  51. The Journal Hires Dentists To Do Heart Surgery,” Media Transparency, January 30, 2012. Archived September 9, 2015. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/vX4v4
  52. The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction,” Skeptical Science, January 31, 2012. Archived September 9, 2015. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/7no7p
  53. COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE REGULATION, INC., ET AL. (Petitioners) v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND LISA P. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, Respondents (PDF). Retrieved from World Climate Report. Archived.pdf on file at Desmog.
  54. Kennedy Maize. “Will Happer: We need more CO2,” Power, February 25, 2009. Archived March 3, 2009. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/WD3V7
  55. Members,” U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. Archived January 25, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/leJkM
  56. With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.” Cato.org. Archived July 1, 2009. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/mholt
  57. List of Signers By Name,” Global Warming Petition Project. Archived September 9, 2015. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/Bbnzx
  58. H. Josef Hebert. “Jokers Add Fake Names To Warming Petition,” The Seattle Times, May 1, 1998. Archived September 9, 2015. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/JV63Y
  59. (Majority Press Release). “INHOFE QUESTIONS SCIENCE BEHIND ARCTIC REPORT,” U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, November 16, 2004. Archived September 9, 2015. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/z8IyQ
  60. (Press Release). “More Than 15,000 Scientists Protest Kyoto Accord; Speak Out Against Global Warming Myth,” SEPP.org. April 21, 1998. Archived September 28, 2006. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/YJnXv
  61. “The MITRE Corporation: Annual Report 2011” (PDF), Mitre.org. Archived September 9, 2015.
  62. Board of Directors & Staff,” Richard Lounsbery Foundation. Archived September 9, 2015.  Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/O2HMU
  63. Richard Loundsberry Foundation 2004-2009 Annual Report.
  64. Climate Science and Policy: Making the Connection” (PDF), George C. Marshall Institute, 2001. Archived. pdf on file at Desmog.
  65. “Energy Basics” (PDF), Issues in Science and Technology 29.2 (Winter 2013): 5-22. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
  66. The 3rd Congress of Freedom Force,” Freedom Force International. Archived December 2, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/xuWxA
  67. At the Crossroads III: Energy and Climate Policy Summit,” Heritage Foundation, December 8, 2016. Archived December 22, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/AKaKq
  68. Doug Domenech. “Climate change: Speaking truth to power,” The Hill, December 13, 2016. Archived December 21, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/zAEH5
  69. Part 5 – At the Crossroads III: Energy and Climate Policy Summit,” YouTube video uploaded by user The Heritage Foundation, December 9, 2016. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
  70. Chris Mooney. “Trump meets with Princeton physicist who says global warming is good for us,” The Washington Post, January 13, 2017. Archived January 13, 2017. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/5mXgr
  71. Robin Bravender. “Ex-Bush adviser, CO2 enthusiast meets with Trump,” Greenwire (Sub. Required), January 13, 2017. 
  72. Open Letter Supporting Scott Pruitt for EPA Administrator,” Cornwall Alliance, January 5, 2017. Archived January 19, 2017. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/xMash
  73. Ben Jervey. “Mapping EPA Nominee Scott Pruitt’s Many Fossil Fuel Ties,” DeSmog, January 13, 2017.
  74. Ben Jervey and Steve Horn. “EPA Nominee Scott Pruitt Gets Grilled on Fossil Fuel Ties at Confirmation Hearing,” DeSmog, January 18, 2017.
  75. Hannah Devlin. “Trump’s likely science adviser calls climate scientists ‘glassy-eyed cult’,” The Guardian, February 15, 2017. Archived February 21, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/dADmb
  76. Global Warming Debunked | William Happer and Stefan Molyneux,” YouTube video uploaded by user Stefan Molyneux, December 3, 2016. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
  77. Ben Collins. “Meet the ‘Cult’ Leader Stumping for Donald Trump,” The Daily Beast, February 4, 2016. Archived November 3, 2017. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/hdrdv
  78. Trump’s Potential Science Adviser Will Happer: Carbon Dioxide Demonized Just Like ‘Poor Jews Under Hitler’,” DeSmog, February 25, 2017.
  79. Ocean acidification and the Permo-Triassic mass extinction,” Science, Vol. 348, Issue 6231, pp. 229-232 (April 10 2015). Abstract archived February 27, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/OhSvl 
  80. “PETITION” (PDF), February 23, 2017. Richard Lindzen. PDF Archived at DeSmog.
  81. Graham Readfearn. “Climate Science Denier Richard Lindzen’s List of 300 “Scientists” Sent to Trump Is the Usual Parade of Non-Experts,” DeSmog, February 27, 2017.
  82. WILLIAM HAPPER,” Climateconferences.heartland.org. Archived April 5, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/azpUV
  83. Conversations That Matter – Episode 38 – William Happer,” YouTube video uploaded by user Conversations That Matter, June 22, 2015. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
  84. “Carbon Dioxide Benefits the World: See for Yourself” (PDF), CO2 Coalition, December, 2015. Retrieved from Commerce.senate.gov.
  85. John Hayward. “Carbon Dioxide Is Not Our Enemy,” Breitbart News, December 4, 2015. Archived April 11, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/pytlz
  86. Ellie Shechet. “Possible Trump Science Advisor Compares Climate Science to ISIS, Tells Us Jezebel ‘Is Well Named’,” Jezebel, March 28, 2017. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/Ui7jo
  87. “Dear Mr. President” (PDF), retrieved from Competitive Enterprise Institute. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
  88. Graham Readfearn. “Conservative Groups Pushing Trump To Exit Paris Climate Deal Have Taken Millions From Koch Brothers, Exxon,” DeSmog, May 10, 2017.
  89. Susanne Goldberg. “Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change,” The Guardian, December 20, 2013. Archived May 12, 2017. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/TB2yy
  90. William Happer PhD: The Real Story on Climate Change.” Evenbrite. Archived August 18, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/wyom3
  91. William Happer, PhD.: The Real Story on Climate Change,” YouTube, September 30, 2017. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
  92. “Physical Chemistry Seminar” (PDF), UCLA Chemistry & Biochemistry. PDF created February 22, 2017.
  93. Despite the Social Justice Warriors, a Climate Change Skeptic Spoke at UCLA,” Santa Monica Observer, December 4, 2017. Archived December 4, 2017. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/aBLVg
  94. At the Crossroads IV: Energy & Climate Policy Summit,” The Heritage Foundation, November 30, 2017. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/jmAfj
  95. Robin Pogrebin and Somini Sengupta. “A Science Denier at the Natural History Museum? Scientists Rebel,” The New York Times, January 25, 2018. Archived February 13, 2018. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/tAIv4
  96. Graham Readfearn. “Climate Science Deniers Defend New York’s American Museum of Natural History From Calls to Drop Trustee Rebekah Mercer,” DeSmog, February 6, 2018.
  97. mnh18-feb4-petitionletter (PDF – Untitled). Retrieved from Watts Up With That.
  98. “THE SMALL PRINT: What the Royal Society Left Out” (PDF)Global Warming Policy Foundation, 2015.
  99. (Press Release). “Royal Society Misrepresents Climate Science,” Global Warming Policy Foundation, January 3, 2015. Archived August 17, 2014. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/BvDj3
  100. John H. Cushman Jr. “Climate Contrarians Try to Slip Their Views into U.S. Court’s Science Tutorial,” InsideClimate News, March 20, 2018. Archived March 20, 2018. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/9SVL6
  101. RESPONSE OF WILLIAM HAPPER, STEVEN E. KOONIN, AND RICHARD S. LINDZEN TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION RE AMICUS CURIAE MATERIALS” (PDF), United States District Court: Northern District of California: San Francisco Division. Retrieved from DocumentCloud.
  102. Global Climate Change,” Jason West, March 20, 2018. Archived April 14, 2018. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.li/JwUqb
  103. Response to Climate Skeptic William Happer’s Sept. 12, 2017 Presentation from a Mainstream Climate Scientist” (PDF), Jason West. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog.
  104. Pruitt to unveil ‘secret science’ effort today — sources,” E&E News, April 24, 2018. Archived April 24, 2018. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.li/6eQLq
  105. Josh Siegel. “Scott Pruitt announces new EPA rule to combat ‘secret science’,” Washington Examiner, April 24, 2018. Archived April 24, 2018. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.li/d7avT
  106. The Energy 202: Why climate scientists want to be thought of as the real ‘climate skeptics’,” The Washington Post, May 18, 2018. Archived June 4, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.li/82Upp
  107. Jenna McLaughlin. “Trump to name climate change skeptic as adviser on emerging technologies,” CNN, September 4, 2018. Archived September 5, 2018. Archive URL: https://archive.fo/gzlSG
  108. Hannah Northey. “Trump taps critic of climate science as top adviser,” E&E News, September 5, 2018.
  109. Niina Heikkinen. “Trump wanted to know how U.S. stacks up to Russia on science,” E&E News, January 25, 2018. Archived September 5, 2018. Archive.is URL: https://archive.fo/HcJmP
  110. White House prepares to scrutinize intelligence agencies’ finding that climate change threatens national security,” The Washington Post, February 20, 2019. Archived February 20, 2019. Archive.fo URL: https://archive.fo/lX2E8
  111. Release: Military and National Security Leaders Strongly Criticize Politicized ‘Presidential Climate Security Committee’,” The Center for Climate & Security, February 20, 2019. Archived February 20, 2019. Archive.fo URL: https://archive.fo/f2ASf
  112. “Climate Science Fiction” (PDF), Range magazine, summer 2018. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
  113. About RANGE,” RANGE. Archived February 20, 2019. Archive.fo URL: https://archive.fo/G2JhT
  114. Email-Chain-Happer-O-Keefe-and-Donors-Trust,” Documentcloud file contributed by Damian Kahya, Greenpeace.
  115. The Truth About Greenhouse Gases,” First Things, June/July 2011 issue. Archived March 29, 2012. Archive.fo URL: https://archive.fo/EpdPk
  116. Michael C. MacCracken. “The Real Truth about Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change” (PDF), September 2011. Retrieved from ClimateScienceWatch.org.
  117. About,” First Things. Archived March 4, 2019. Archive.fo URLhttps://archive.fo/BheNf
  118. Scott Waldman. “Trump was briefed on plan to review climate science,” E&E News, May 31, 2019. Archived June 4, 2019. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/A5zQy
  119. Lisa Friedman. “White House Tried to Stop Climate Science Testimony, Documents Show,” New York Times, June 8, 2019. Archived June 17, 2019. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/XS4xC
  120. Statement for the Record.” Dr. Rod Schoonover, Senior Analyst, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Department of State. Hearing on The National Security Implications of Climate Change before the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. House of Representatives. June 5, 2019. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
  121. Scott Waldman. “White House might make federal scientists debate skeptics,” E&E News, June 6, 2019. Archived June 190, 2019. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/lZ3ff. Archived.pdf on file at DeSmog. 
  122. Ellen Knickermeyer and Seth Borenstein. “A Trump Official Consulted With Climate-Change Deniers, Emails Show,” Time, June 14, 2019. Archived July 11, 2019. Archive.fo URL: https://archive.fo/LZvVc
  123. Scott Waldman. “White House won’t review climate science before election,” E&E News, July 9, 2019. Archived July 11, 2019. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/hKEo7
  124. Michael Wilner. “Trump administration throws cold water on climate change threat to coral reefs,” McClatchy, August 7, 2019. Archived August 7, 2019. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/AWZfb
  125. Scott Waldman. “Adviser who applauded rise in CO2 to leave administration,” E&E News, September 11, 2019. Archived September 11, 2019. Archive.fo URL: https://archive.fo/bVTyT
  126. Josh Siegel. “Former Trump official says climate change is ‘imaginary threat’ invented by ‘insular and paranoid’ scientists,” Washington Examiner, November 5, 2019. Archived November 5, 2019. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/ZskaH
  127. Alex Newman. “Skeptics Bring Science to UN,” The New American, December 6, 2019. Archived December 7, 2019. Archive.is URL: http://archive.is/wip/qd7ui. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
  128. Ryan Bort. “Climate Enemies: The Men Who Sold the World,” Rolling Stone, March 31, 2020. Archived April 9, 2020. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/b4XwR
  129. William Happer and Richard Lindzen. “Climate ‘Emergency’? Not So Fast,” National Review, April 16, 2021. Archive April 22, 2021. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/4LRT1

Other Resources

Profile image screenshot from YouTube video of William Happer speaking at the Heartland Institute’s 12th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC12).

Related Profiles

APCO Worldwide Background APCO has been described as “one of the world's most powerful PR firms.” [1], [2] According to its agency profile at O'Dwyers, “APCO Worldwide is a...
Hugh W. Ellsaesser Credentials Ph.D., Meteorology. [1] Background Hugh W. Ellsaesser, born in 1920, is a meteorologist by training and retired “guest scientist” at the Lawren...
Alfred (Al) Pekarek Credentials Ph.D., University of Wyoming (1974). [1]B.A. University of Minnesota-Twin (1965). [1] Background Alfred (Al) Pekarek is a former ass...
Benny Josef Peiser Credentials Ph.D. , University of Frankfurt (1993). Peiser studied political science, English, and sports science. [1], [2] Background Benny Peiser is a sports ...