Can Climate Models Predict Climate Change?

Let’s talk about climate models. Specifically, let’s talk about the climate
models that attempt to predict the future temperature of the planet. But before we do, it’s important that you
know a little about me. I’m a physicist. I taught at Columbia University and then at
Princeton for five decades. I have published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific
papers. I have coauthored several books, including
one of the first on how carbon dioxide emissions, CO2, affects the climate. I served as the Director of the Office of
Energy Research at the US Department of Energy. And before that, I invented the “sodium
guide star,” which is still used on most big astronomical telescopes to measure and
correct for atmospheric turbulence, that is, for the unpredictable movement of air and
water. This turbulence blurs the images of stars
and other space objects. One more thing; I care deeply about the environment. We live on a beautiful planet. I want to keep it that way. I’ve spent a lot of time working to do just
that. In short, I know a lot about the Earth’s
atmosphere and climate. I also know a lot about long-term predictive
climate models. And I know they don’t work. They haven’t worked in the past. They don’t work now. And it’s hard to imagine when, if ever,
they’ll work in the foreseeable future. There’s a common sense reason for this. Aside from the human brain, the climate is
the most complex thing on the planet. The number of factors that influence climate:
the sun, the earth’s orbital properties, oceans, clouds, and, yes, industrial man,
is huge and enormously variable. Let me try to narrow this down. For the purposes of illustration, let’s
just focus our attention on water. The Earth is essentially a water planet. A major aspect of climate involves the complicated
interaction between two very turbulent fluids: the atmosphere, which holds large amounts
of water (think rain and snow), and the oceans, which cover fully 70% of the earth’s surface. We can’t predict what effect the atmosphere
is going to have on future temperatures because we can’t predict cloud formations. And, the convection of heat, oxygen, salt
and other quantities that pass through the oceans, not to mention weather cycles like
El Nino in the tropical Pacific, make predicting ocean temperatures an equally difficult business. We can’t predict either side of the atmosphere/ocean
equation. But we can say this with certainty. Water, in all its phases, has huge effects
on atmospheric heating and cooling. Compared to water, H20, carbon dioxide, CO2
is a minor contributor to the warming of the earth. It’s devilishly difficult to predict what
a fluid will do. Trying to figure out what two fluids will
do in interaction with each other on a planetary scale over long periods of time is close to
impossible. Anyone who followed the forecast of Hurricane
Irma’s path in the late summer of 2017 should understand this. First the models predicted a direct hit on
Miami and the east coast of Florida. Then, defying these predictions, the hurricane
suddenly veered to the west coast of Florida. In other words, even with massive amounts
of real-time data, the models still could not accurately predict Irma’s path two days
in advance. Does any rational person believe that computer
models can precisely predict temperatures decades from now? The answer is, they can’t. That’s why, over the last 30 years, one
climate prediction after another – based on computer models – has been wrong. They’re wrong because even the most powerful
computers can’t solve all the equations needed to accurately describe climate. Instead of admitting this, some climate scientists
replace the highly complex equations that describe the real-world climate with highly
simplified ones, their computer models. Discarding the unmanageable details, modelers
“tune” their simplified equations with lots of adjustable inputs, numbers that can
be changed to produce whatever result the modelers want. So, if they want to show that the earth’s
temperature at the end of the century will be two degrees centigrade higher than it is
now, they put in the numbers that produce that result. That’s not science. That’s science fiction. I’m Will Happer, Emeritus Professor of Physics
at Princeton University, for Prager University.

Comments 100

  • Who put the crypt keeper in this? So the fact that each year has been the newest record setter for the hottest year in history like it has been for the last 30 years doesn't mean anything to Mr Keeper?

  • Will Happer is very, very smart. Unfortunately he is a completely dishonest scoundrel.

  • Why did they add that Global Warming statement at the bottom of the video? ???

  • Let’s just ignore the fact that Prager University (which isn’t a University) is being funded mainly by the Wilks brothers, billionaires who own energy companies, and would love it if people would just ignore the very obvious fact that climate change is real and is manmade. Gee, wouldn’t it be swell if they could get someone to create baseless facts to tell people that it doesn’t exist and that they should use as much coal as possible? If only they had some sort of propaganda service that could promote such a thing…

  • I like how YouTube has to "Auto Spam" every climate video on this channel….. Nothing to see here – move along…

  • Why do I feel I'm being lectured by skeletor, pretending everything is ok when in reality it's just years from impending doom?

  • The thing to keep in mind: pollution accountability does not have anything to do with atmospheric temperature models. The predictions / models should not be the focus. There are plenty of overt, immediate consequences to pollution. Many human illnesses are caused by polluted air and water (see: China). My message to all: don't be distracted by a debate which requires predictions. Look at these immediate, plainly visible consequences to pollution and then decide what actions are necessary.

  • blah blah quasi scientific mumbo jumbo #FAKESCIENCE #FAKENEWS #LIZZARDPEOPLEPROPAGANDA

  • So he openly says that he's a physicist, not a climatologist. That means what he has to say about the climate is irrelevant. Or rather, he is not qualified in climate science just because he's really good at atomic physics. He has no degrees in climatology, paleoclimatology, meteorology, or anything like that. He has never written a peer-reviewed paper about climate in a respected scientific journal, and co-authoring a book doesn't make something true. Just because Michael Wolff published Fire and Fury doesn't mean that Trump watches the gorilla channel. It's also worth noting Happer has been repeatedly criticized for inaccurately writing about climate change by numerous organizations and people who are actually educated in this field.

    It's also noteworthy that he was willing to write a paper for a Middle Eastern oil company for money that he wanted payed in an illegal way. Granted, this was discovered in a sting operation by the less than reliable Greenpeace, but he was willing to go along with it and even admitted that the paper would not pass peer review.

    William Happer is simply wrong about Climate Science. He doesn't seem to understand how CO2 works or understand how the climate works in general

  • Answer. Absolutely yes. We can't predict the EXACT change, you're asking the impossible. But when can predict the trends and it's pretty accurate. Like your example with Irma's path prove that, we predict the trend of the path. If Irma suddenly went to the south instead of to the north, you can say the model is not accurate. But it went slightly went more to the east than predicted before going north.

  • So is global warming True or Not…?

  • For an analysis of this video's inaccuracies, see

  • Watch Climate Hysteria on YouTube at

  • David Charles Leithauser, Technical consultant, writer, inventor at Self-Employment (1980-present)
    Updated Sun

    There are a number of alarms that should go off when you watch this video. First, notice how the speaker, Will Happer, spends a lot of time talking himself up, discussing his credentials, most of which have nothing to do with climate science. He mentions writing books, but does not mention if they are peer-reviewed (unlikely). Anyone can publish a book these days. The market is full of global warming denier nonsense books. This self-promotion is an immediate appeal to get you to believe him unconditionally based on his brilliance, not the validity of what he says.
    His first real statement on the subject of climate modeling, that climate models have never been right, is absolutely false. See this report: Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?. It explains that most climate models have been fairly accurate. When looking at this report, it is especially interesting to note that most of the time when the models do not correctly predict future warming, it is because the scientists who ran them misestimated the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that would be put into the air in the future. That is, their mistake was getting economic (economic recessions) and technological (did not predict how fast solar and wind would take off) estimates wrong, not the climate models themselves.
    He mentions El Nino being hard to predict. True, but El Nino affects temperature for short periods of time (a year or two) and has no effect on long-term global warming. Again, anyone with any understanding of the science of global warming would understand this, and the fact that he brings up El Nino at all to suggest that we cannot predict long-term global warming shows either tremendous ignorance of the subject or an attempt to be deliberately deceptive.
    He talks about cloud formation. True, we cannot completely predict short-term cloud formation locally, but figuring out long-term global cloud formation is much easier. It is like trying to predict the outcome of a single coin toss vs. predicting about how many coins out of 1,000 will come up heads (pretty close to 500). I have read studies of the effects of increased water vapor as the world warms, and these studies indicate the overall effect will be positive feedback, creating additional warming.
    The fact that he tries to compare the ability to precisely predict a hurricane path to long-term climate change shows how he is trying to deceive you. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with climatology knows the difference between short-term weather forecasting and long-term climate modeling. The fact that he talks about one particular hurricane that was particularly unpredictable is an excellent example of cherry picking.
    The illustration where the climate scientists simplify the equations is interesting. It is true that climate scientists often have to simplify their equations. A totally compete model would require inputting data on the temperature, humidity, wind speed, etc. of every cubic foot of air and land on Earth. However, notice how the climate scientist in the video reduces an entire complex equation to Delta T = .5x. That is a wild exaggeration of the necessary simplification. Such a wild exaggeration can only be a deliberate attempt to make climate scientists look like they are doing something they are not. (Of course, he does not actually say that this is an accurate portrayal of simplification, which would be provably wrong. He just lets you infer it from the video.) Naturally, he then starts accusing climate scientists of deliberately manipulating the data. He is at that point drifting into the whole “global warming is a hoax” camp.
    Guess what? He ends the video with a request for money so he can keep telling people this. Wait a minute. This was posted on YouTube. They do not charge for posting videos. I wonder where the money goes.
    The bottom line is that the entire basis of the video is trying to suggest that local, short-term effects are the same as long-term climate change, the old “If the weatherman cannot tell me if it is going to rain on my house next week, how can they tell me the climate in 100 years” trick.
    One last thought. Suppose that climate modeling is as hard as he claims. Here is an actual bar graph of measured global temperatures for the last 100 years. We do not even need models to tell us that the world is warming.

    We have direct measurements.
    YOU KNOW, with THERMOMETERS & such.
    NOW with well over 30,000 ground locations worldwide and we have dozens of air craft temps….all over the world everyday….
    and we have satellites which measure the entire globe…..they all report temperature increases worldwide for over a century.

  • William Happer, born 1939 (age 78–79), is a climate change denier and Professor of Physics at Princeton University, specialising in MRI imaging. He has no training in climate science. He is also Chairman of the Board of Directors of the George C. Marshall Institute and is on the Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a denier think tank.[1

    Global Warming Policy Foundation
    "The following are excerpts from a 2015 GWPF “Report” on Climate Change by Andrew Montford:

    “Policies to ‘stop climate change’ are based on climate models that completely failed to predict the lack of warming for the past two decades. "

    1. The NEAR Universal understanding by Legitimate Science about the threats of Global Warming Caused Climate Changes
    is based on Research dating back 200 years:
    tens of millions of human observations,
    tens of thousands of laboratory experiments
    since the mid 2th century…upon all of the satellite data which feature TESTS designed to CHALLENGE understanding of Global Warming & Climate change….which ended up validating those understandings of Global Warming Science & threatening Climate Changes.

    2. "failed to predict the lack of warming"? EVEN NOTED Skeptic/Deniers Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy have recently admitted that contrary to their claims of Global Warming Pause, and Global Warming Hiatus and even Global Cooling,
    TEMPERATURES world wide have every decade BEEN INCREASING by 0.14 C per decade…or 1.4C per century…50-75 times faster than HISTORICAL RAPID TEMPERATURE RISE of 1C per 7500 years.
    "Observational data show clearly that the predictions of unacceptable warming caused by more carbon dioxide are wrong. Economic discount rates aside, policies designed to save the planet from more carbon dioxide are based on failed computer models."

    1. Leaving COMPUTER MODELS ASIDE, SKEPTIC DENIERS SPENCER AND CHRISTY have verified world temperature increases at a rate of 1.4C per century…
    THAT may sound like a small number…but if we step back in time until temperatures were JUST 2C cooler, we would be under a mile or TWO of Glacial Ice.
    "[…] Human emissions of carbon dioxide, a transparent, odorless, non-toxic gas, essential for plant growth and contained at about 40,000 parts per million (ppm) in our own breaths. "

    Interesting the the Global Warming Policy Foundation does point out that the reason we EXHALE CO2 at a rate of 40,000ppm
    is because it is a poisonous waste of our digestive track….just like pee and poo ! ! !

    They may indeed be fertilizers but I would not suggest eating food after that pee or poo fertilizer process!
    "dioxide has been mercilessly demonized as ‘carbon pollution’, when in fact it is a benefit to the planet. Agricultural production has increased substantially and the Earth is greener today with the 400 ppm current levels of carbon dioxide than it was with pre-industrial levels of about 280 ppm. "

    THAT comment is pure, much adulterated Horse Manure.
    The Author totally ignores the GREEN REVOLUTION around the world…led by man made fertilizers and irrigation.
    In point of fact, most of the so called GREENING of the world took place decades ago.
    Most of the greening of the world in the last few decades has to do with melting perma frost and tundra and moss, lichens, grasses and brush in formerly SNOW COVERED areas in Northern Latitudes … that is NOT a GOOD SIGN but rather it means that more SOLAR ENERGY is being absorbed by that greening than was previously reflected back to space by SNOW COVER AND ICE!

    "And two or three times higher levels would be even better. [9]"

    1. THERE IS absolutely NO EVIDENCE that an extremely high level of CO2 would be beneficial to ANY ANIMAL ON EARTH.
    The ABSOLUTE GOLDILOCKS level of atmospheric gasses throughout humans rise on earth has been 180PPM-290PPM.
    2. Humans have NEVER existed at the levels of atmospheric gasses we have today…let alone at 2 or 3 times this level.
    We would be experimenting with the lives of our Children and Grand Children.
    AND that claim totally ignores the rapid rise in HEAT … the increase in numbers of droughts and expanse of such droughts, the increase in number of heat waves and the expanse of such heat waves, increased desertification around the world
    melting ice and rising sea levels…in the 50's only 9 towns & cities reported tidal flooding incidents
    While in the last decade over 90 US cities in towns reported routine TIDAL FLOODING INCIDENTS …exacerbated by storm surges.
    3. The global average temperature
    for 2013-2017 is the highest five-year average on record.

    4. The last Decade
    is the HOTTEST TEN Year average on record.

    5. The last Twenty years
    is the Hottest 20 Year average temp. world wide, on Record and
    thru the study of Proxy records, in thousands of years.
    The Average Sea Rise for centuries was 1mm or less/ year
    The current rate of sea level rise 2016 … is about 3.2mm/yr
    . early 2017 rate nearly………………………. 3.7mm/yr
    ……………………………….China 2018 rate 4.4mm/yr

    "The oldest and thickest sea ice in the Arctic has begun to break up, opening waters that are normally frozen, researchers say.
    This type of incident, which has not been recorded before, has happened twice this year …"
    "…Thomas Levergne, a scientist at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, called the phenomenon “scary” in a retweet of a satellite GIF of blue water penetrating white ice and exposing miles of the Greenland coastline.
    The Norwegian Ice Service said that the Svalbard sea ice area for Tuesday is at 43,231 square miles, which is 44,775 square miles below the average from 1981 to 2010 and it’s the lowest area for this day…"
    "…The Kap Morris Jesup weather station in the region, where the temperate is usually -4 degrees Fahrenheit, this year showed 10 days above freezing and warmer winds, reports the Guardian. Last week, temperatures briefly hit a high of 62 degrees Fahrenheit….


  • one of the best videos I have ever seen! Thank you!

  • I have a lot to say about this video, most of which the creators are already aware of but refuse to tell the viewers. Before getting into the details, I’d like to say that many of the facts presented by PragerU in this video are true; however, they are only there to deceive the viewers into believing their lie, which is that global warming is a myth. Their statement that climate is unpredictable is a blatant lie. The very definition of climate is based on prediction. As stated by NASA on their website, “climate is how the atmosphere ‘behaves’ over relatively long periods of time”. If someone described the climate of Phoenix, Arizona, they might say something along the lines of it being hot and dry. This description is possible because over the course of many years, the trend of the weather there has generally been hot and dry. There are always exceptions and special cases in any trend. Surely, there has been rain or cooler days, but that refers to the weather, not climate. If asked to predict the climate over the next 50 years, the answer could be derived from its current patterns over the previous hundreds of years which is hot and dry. On the other hand, if asked to predict the weather tomorrow, it is much more difficult, as they might have a colder or rainier day. The point here is, if it does rain, it is still irrational to say that the climate is rainy. To say that Irma’s path was unpredictable, and therefore the climate is unpredictable, is ignorant.

    Scientists have recorded the global surface temperature of our planet for over 130 years, and the data is terrifying. Before the industrial revolution, the global surface temperature was fairly stable. Since then, the temperature has been climbing at an alarming rate. If you refuse to acknowledge this trend, then you refuse to acknowledge the existence of climate itself (as by definition, climate is a pattern). The reason for this may still be debated, but the fact is that CO2 captures heat that is normally emitted into space. That is a straight, undisputed fact. The reason why this makes many believe CO2 causes global warming is that CO2 levels since 1950 have been higher than they have ever been in the past 400,000 years. Maybe if it were only a one or two percent increase, then this correlation could just be by chance. Unfortunately, CO2 levels are more than 18% higher. Statistically speaking, it is very, very unlikely that this is by chance, and the planet IS heating up.

    After all that I have said, I only ask one thing and that is that you stop pushing away the truth and bring change. This planet is not our home; we are guests and must act like it. If you are skeptical, I will include the links to my sources below.
    On a pettier note, I will also link the PragerU video that urges people to give up on fixing our world and ignore the challenges we face.

  • Happer Contends:
    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]
    * *
    Dr. Happer KNOWS that human beings have NEVER EXISTED at Atmospheric Levels of Gasses outside of 190PPM to 280PPM
    Human Activity has driven these levels above 410PPM for the 1st time in our history on earth! …and climbing every day !
    * *
    CO2 has beneficially enabled life on Earth.
    (holding infra-red heat/warming the planet so life may proliferate)
    (without CO2 + other Green House gases, Earth would be a Cold ROCK 0 degrees F.)
    CO2 has boosted plant life on Earth BUT
    Coincidentially, as CO2 levels have increased, Nutrient values have FALLEN at a Faster Rate !
    LESS iron
    LESS protein
    LESS Zinc
    Less Copper
    IN all of the Staple Grains that the world has become dependent upon !
    So you see,
    CO2 has some current benefits & some immediate challenges to human well being !
    CO2 Kills!
    CO2 is a pollutant which
    kills, since it IS a poison
    kills, since it IS an Asphyxiant (heavier than air, it smothers life)
    (the higher the level of CO2, the lower the level of Oxygen)
    EVERY LARGE Building requires Fresh Air Recirculation Sytems to fight the VERY HARMFUL effects of CO2 settling in
    basements and SEALED ROOMS.
    AS CO2 atmospheric levels increase so does the THREAT of CO2 in basements, sealed rooms and protected valleys and glades.
    Carbon dioxide led to death in McDonald's bathroom September 14, 2011 1:38 p.m. EDT
    The carbon dioxide built up to toxic levels in the bathroom An 80-year-old woman died after the incident September 7
    lethal dose of carbon dioxide, authorities said Wednesday…."

  • Sad really, most of these comments on the fear of climate change. If, that is if, it is such a catastrophic event as people are making it out to be, then why is their solution carbon tax, which lowers no emissions but rather transfers wealth, and micro solutions that will only affect America and not the rest of the world, say China?

    But why, why are they not spending their time, energy, money, brain power, developing better, cheaper, renewable energy the world can use. Not current solar that is high cost and only good in sunny states, or current wind that is expensive and not predictable. Or demanding that nuclear energy NOT be used.

    If you solved the problem of perpetual energy for ALL, then the planet as a whole would move from fossil fuels. But you don't. You just whine, complain, regulate, and fear monger.

    Then Ass Clowns like +YouTube post wikipedia's global warming page. You people have billions of dollars, and you claim you are scared. So why don't you spend that money for humanity, for the earth? Why don't you put YOUR OWN money and effort into the solving of the problem? Because you know you're FAKE!

  • Pls get this guy

  • The only little shit demonrats fascist socialist care about the environment is that they can use it to destroy human rights !

  • There is no such thing as settled science ! That is whore scientist dogma that ignores facts that are proven so that they can push propaganda science ( that isn't science ) as if it were real science !

  • Besides you dont want government doing anything because there isn't anything the government can't mess up !

  • Anyone want to solve that integral?

  • If you want to stop CO2 emmisions then stop all immigration from poor nations to rich nations because as soon as the poor get here the immediately start polluting more. From ox carts to SUVs, open windows to air conditioners. Best way to reduce CO2 is to decrease population of affluent nations. Instead the left insists population decline is a national emergency and must be combated with mass immigration.

  • 20181030: What's the purpose of this video? Well that's Simple. To leave you in doubt. AND THAT'S ALL. Therefore this video is under the control of 5th Columnists. If it was not then it would have moderated its simple and all out attempt to demolish WORK done to create climate models. This video would have said, but is instead a conspiracy of silence, that yes, CO2 is rising which has a greenhouse effect, and yes, atmospheric particulates and sulphur are rising and they cool the atmosphere. BUT NO. This video has (my nose tells me) an agenda, which is perfectly legitimate. But only if it wasn't hidden….Now to this point (as I type this comment) I have NEVER seen/heard this guy. I had to check the video to find his name. THEN I looked him up on WIKI (as I usually do when I smell a RAT). And here is what WIKI tells us (you can do the same for WILL HAPPER…..Which begs the question how easy is it for (presumably) the fossil fuels industry to find people who let it be known they are for Hire and "Have Gun – Will Travel"?  1 in 100,000 is more than enough to confuse the Hell out of YOU. You're so easily manipulated YOU SHOULD CRY! ………………WIKI: Climate change[edit]Happer disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change, stating that “Some small fraction of the 1° C warming during the past two centuries must have been due to increasing CO2, which is indeed a greenhouse gas”, but argues that “most of the warming has probably been due to natural causes.”[9] Michael Oppenheimer said that Happer’s claims are “simply not true” and that the preponderance of evidence and majority of expert opinion points to a strong anthropogenic influence on rising global temperatures.[10] Climate Science Watch published a point-by-point rebuttal to one of Happer’s articles.[11]  A petition that he coauthored to change the official position of the American Physical Society to a version that raised doubts about global warming was overwhelmingly rejected by the APS Council.[12] In May 2013, Happer and Harrison Schmitt published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, "In Defense of Carbon Dioxide," in which they termed elevated atmospheric CO2 "a boon to plant life."[13]  It was described by Ryan Chittum in the Columbia Journalism Review as "shameful, even for the dismal standards" of the editorial page.[14] In December 2015, Happer was targeted in a sting operation by the environmental activist group Greenpeace. Posing as consultants for a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, they asked Happer to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions. Happer asked for the fee from this work to be donated to the "objective evidence" climate-change organization CO2 Coalition, which suggested that he contact the Donors Trust to keep the source of the funds secret as requested by Greenpeace. Hiding the sources of funding in this way is lawful under US law. Happer further acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal.[

  • Water has a greater heating effect. True. But the water cycle hasn't drastically changed to add copious amount of extra water into the atmosphere.
    My open chest wound is responsible for less movement of blood in my body than my heart but I'm much more concerned about the recent development of being stabbed.

  • Thanks, Will for blowing a hole in the climate change extremist's arguments.

  • Folks, PragerU is funded by the brothers Wilks… They are oil billionaires. Watch this video with extreme skepticism.

  • I hope you were well paid by Preager "University" to do this video…. it is a lot easier the doing basic research and modeling eh?

  • Look up who PragerU's largest donor is.

  • Lol at google adding a link to wikipedia on climate change below this video as if that is some authoritative rebuttal

  • Check out this video: "What Happened to the Republican Consensus on Climate Change." before the oil industry threatened to take campaign money way.

  • Scientific dishonesty at its finest. This guy offered to produce fallacious research for oil companies.

  • Emeritus Professor of Physics at Princeton University Will Happer explains that he doesn't know the difference between weather and climate. (3:01 – 3:49)

  • I like it but why are they showing us ads up front and then asking for money again on the back end…?

  • Greenhouse effect

  • I love how the person in the video spends the entire first minute appealing to authority when none of his credentials are even relevant to the issue in the video. And then he spends the rest of the video pretending that climate and weather are the same thing. PragerU's climate change videos have to be its most pathetic content.

  • I am ticked off at YouTube/Google. They not only have restricted many PragerU videos, but on this one they felt the need to explain the topic of global warming themselves by including a link to Wikipedia. This is shameful.

  • As a kid in 1972 I won a blue ribbon for solving the coming ice age of 2000!!!!!! The ICE AGE was assured because of CO2 gases!!!!  This science contest was done at my school under the NASA/Nixon banner to get kids interested in science!!! ( Yes I know NASA was not listening to elementary school kids !!!! ) My idea was to use the Sherman Tanks being scrapped after the Vietnam War  remove the turrets and place giant Magnifying Glasses on them and rush them towards the advancing Glaciers!!!! Some Sherman's with plows/flame throwers and explosives could be used as is to break up TOUGH spots!!  The Solar Power beams would melt the ICE keeping the Midwest safe from another ICE AGE!!!! I even suggested the fresh water could be captured and sent to Dessert nations for drinking water!!!!  My idea was so damn good the Glaciers did not even try and invade!! Now instead of Global Cooling In 1970's we are worried about Global Warming!!! Wait another 20 years and it will change along with the FOOD PYERMID !!!

  • I agree, the models are questionable. But what would the professor say about the Keeling curve's?

  • How you like YouTube’s authoritarian dictatorship link below the video.

  • People make millions of dollars every day applying stochastic modeling to a system as complex as the climate – the financial systems. Probabilistic tools like the kalman filter create distributions of potential solutions to complex, evolving systems. Please, unless you have a substantive background in stochastic processes you should not lecture on them. Not all disciplines of physics are the same.

  • Honestly he sounds a little like G-Man from Half-Life

  • William Happer has accepted funding from the fossil fuel industry in the past. In a Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide, Peabody Energy paid him $8,000 which was routed through the CO2 Coalition.

    In a 2015 undercover investigation by Greenpeace, Happer told 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 similarly concealed by routing them through the CO2 Coalition.

    In March 2018, Happer—among other , was asked by a judge to disclose any ties he had to fossil fuel companies in a case between cities and fossil fuel companies. Happer disclosed $1,000 he had received for a speech on climate change at the Heritage Foundation in 2017. The response to the request for information also revealed that Happer had received “around $10,000 to $15,000 though he does not recall the precise number” (emphasis added) from Peabody Coal, which was donated to the CO2 coalition on his behalf “earned in connection with testimony given in a Proceeding of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission in September 2015.”

  • This man is a known fraud:
    Don't watch PragerU videos, they're a far-right propaganda machine bankrolled by Oil billionaires.

  • Will Happer. Who the heck in their right mind would listen him? He's only one of the most brilliant physicists in the world.

  • No citations at all, his climate change denials have been fully rebutted

    Predicting the exact trajectory of a hurricane would be much harder than predicting future global temperatures increases. I feel like this 80 year old man is probably stuck in the past and hasn't realized how incredibly sophisticated modern models are now. You accept argument from authority so readily when it's one of the 2% of climate scientists that reject AGW without any citations, yet you don't believe the 98% of climate scientists that do when they offer actual evidence?

  • The guy speaking in this video is a proven fraud who accepts money to fake research.

  • Amidst all the climate change hysteria it is good to hear a calm and informative presentation of the facts. Predicting the future belongs in the realm of clairvoyance and delusion. The 21st century is increasingly dominated by a culture where emotion is replacing reason. That is a road to precisely the kinds of irrationality and absurdity we see around us all the time. If you are interested in a website which examines this relentless descent into irrationality and absurdity go to where you will find articles on a wide range of subjects, including book reviews and YouTube video reviews.

  • Another thing to consider. We do not have accurate global weather records prior to 1970s. For example, we did not have accurate information regarding weather patterns in remote areas, such as the middle of Siberia or the south Pacific Ocean. Even in many places in Africa or China, our weather records are spotty. Further, before the 1800s, our weather records are practically non-existent. We had some almanacs and ship captains' reports, but otherwise, we had very little accurate data.

    So, how do we have those grand charts which tell us that it is hotter today than it has ever been for the past 10,000 years (or some other period)? Scientist will take measurements of various things and use them as proxies. For example, they use ice core samples from glaciers or tree rings from ancient trees. Then, they'll create a model and input those proxies and make a prediction of the past weather. However, much like the future predictions that Prof. Happer discusses in the video above, these models can be adjusted to meet a narrative. That's why, for example, the NOAA will adjust temperatures of the past to make current temperatures hotter than the last. That's what the Climategate scandal was about.

  • So what?

    Everything this guy has said is well known basics. Did he say climate is not changing? Nope, he didn't.

  • This video is full of lies.

  • Prager University is not a university. So, if there is deceit in their very first premise, isn't it probable that there is deceit throughout their 'science'. Check their credentials and follow the money. This is a shill site for conservative, big money who are affected by science. This is their push back. Just like the Discovery Institute is not about discovery but refutation of science.

  • The Wilks brothers, the primary funders of this faux 'University', are deeply vested in fracking. While I agree with fracking in principle as a source of a valuable commodity, you should be able to see that fracking and understanding of carbon fuels on climate are diagonally opposed. Let's see the true colours of this disingenuous YouTube channel.

  • Keep in mind that the Prager in Prager University is a leading arch-conservative and climate denier. Here's an alternative view.

  • Considering it was discovered that Happer made a deal with Big Oil to deny climate change for personal gain, I would take anything he says with all the salt in the Dead Sea.

  • Hey Prager …… tell us about all the big oil money you receive! Or did you conveniently forget about it? Dodged any drafts lately? Pay any taxes lately? Ever get accredited? Prager U…Trump U…whats the difference?

  • PragerU “University” is a conservative think tank and astroturf fake university spreading anti science propaganda on YouTube. THis is tribal food. Pandering polluters propaganda to please the sheeple ship of fools and the anti science league in america.

    Smearing scientists and undermining "unwanted" science which comes into conflict with self interests and ideology, is all part of the denial propaganda machine:

    To keep their money flow going they need the public embroiled in doubt and suspicion; they need to degrade public confidence in science and scientists; they need to harm America’s future—and the world’s future—so that one of the wealthiest industries on Earth can engorge itself in even more wealth.

    Happer is a fraud who writes fake reports for money:

    Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science

    “Sting operation uncovers two prominent climate sceptics available for hire by the hour to write reports on the benefits of rising CO2 levels and coal.”

    “Happer wrote in an email that his fee was $250 an hour and that it would require four days of work – a total of $8,000. “Depending on how extensive a document you have in mind, the time required or cost could be more or less, but I hope this gives you some idea of what I would expect if we were to proceed on some mutually agreeable course,” he wrote.”

    “Our research reveals that professors at prestigious universities can be sponsored by foreign fossil fuel companies to write reports that sow doubt about climate change and that this sponsorship will then be kept secret,” said John Sauven, the director of Greenpeace UK. “Down the years, how many scientific reports that sowed public doubt on climate change were actually funded by oil, coal and gas companies? This investigation shows how they do it, now we need to know when and where they did it.”

  • Why are we listening to a known fraudster again?…

  • In that weird part of youtube again.

  • I think many people would rather err on the side of caution. Even when what they propose would cause real, immediate harm….

  • Climate is well understood, unlike the brain. Just because climate is complicated, doesn't mean it can't be predicted.

    And seriously, cloud formations? El nino?
    That affects weather, not climate.

    And christ the hurricane closely followed the predicted path, it was off but it wasn't, you know, unpredictable. And it was a cherry picked example of a particularly unpredictable hurricane.

    Seeing heaps of comments claiming weather is complicated so we can't predict climate. We aren't claiming we can predict the weather in 100 years, we are claiming we can take the average change in weather over a few decades and follow the trend.

    Also people claiming that because CO2 contributes a small amount of heat compared to other factors it must be insignificant. Which is obviously ridiculous. No one is claiming we are going to double the heat or anything, we are claiming a few degrees increase. Which is small relatively to everything but has a huge effect on us. And warming actually increases the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, around doubling CO2's effect.

    Christ as a physicist I'm ashamed. I would never claim to be an expert on climate science as a physicist nor claim such clear fallacies.

    And for the record, computer models come with error bars. Scientists don't claim they can precisely predict anything.

  • This video is intentionally confusing the viewer into thinking that short term prediction of local weather patterns using fluid dynamics equations is the same as the statistical study of long term global climate patterns. This guy was paid off.

  • Jesus Christ did you not pass your physics class and just decide to call yourself a physicist anyway i mean other then the fact that you are a proven fraud you have claimed so many things that aren't true like we can't predict how the climate will be sure we can't get a 100% chance but we can get a decent estimate

  • They can't accurately predict temperature a day in advance. Just last week they predicted that we would have double digit positive temperatures all this week Thursday was the only day they got kind of right. They predicted last week it would be plus 14. Then they dropped that prediction down to 9 yesterday but it actually went up to plus 11. They were changing Temperature forecast for the current 24 hour up to 3 times a day. At the top right of the screen they had a caveat that said spring weather is volatile. but they say the world will end in 12 years because they know and we must trust? They know nothing! They can't accurately predict anything but the obvious in the very very short term. The only thing in consensus is Fake climate models that are most likely using identical algorithms and data points.

  • unsub

  • I will admit, much of what he has said is true. Creating reliable and practical climate models is extremely difficult because of many of the reasons mentioned in the video. This can prevent us from generating accurate models, especially ones that predict climate in decades to come as would be needed for climate change projections. However, I can't help but notice that this video seems to sidestep the other types of evidence we can produce for climate change that doesn't rely strictly on computer models that attempt to predict future climate. It seems to me that they're purposefully trying to paint climate change as something that we're still "on the fence" about. But this is simply untrue, there is no controversy within the scientific community.

    We have access to countless other methods that can help us predict future climate without the use of predictive models. For example, through historical records of climate throughout the world, there has been overall increases in temperature in every continent for the past 50 years. Similarly, CO2 levels have become higher than they have ever been for as far back as we can detect through ice core samples, being around 800,000 years. None of this data is absolutely conclusive, as science by nature never is, and you can chose to believe all these trends are flukes and not caused by human influence. But scientists are now 95% percent sure that these correlations between temperature and human activity do indeed imply causation and we are having an impact on the earth's climate.

    But don't just take this from me, since you actually read my entire comment I'm going to assume that you're interested in having an informed opinion on the subject. If this is true, I would really suggest you read NASA's data on climate change.

  • Now before I tell you how much I disagree with 99.99% of climate scientists, let me first tell you how smart I am and how many non-climate related papers I've published.
    Ok now we've firmly established my argument from authority fallacy, let's say things without banking them up and hope everyone takes my word for it because of my"expertise".

  • Warning: that PragerU traffics in climate denial.

  • For the "Context" intro, he forgot to mention that he is a notable climate change denier who gets right-side attention and also gets appointed in anti-climate change events. Although he is a professor, PragerU STILL needs to mention the sources in the description. PragerU, if you're seeing this comment, source your research please. If this were a college paper, you'd be getting way below an F. Mention your exact research and resources on every video or else it's honestly just mere opinion. The fact that you don't do this on any of your videos shows that you aren't open to feedback and critics voicing their counterarguments. This channel is such a joke and isn't an actual "course". Courses don't even take 5 minutes ffs.

  • Kudos to this guy for having the courage to speak out but consider this:
    1) if he is wrong and the other scientists are right then we will be in a far worse situation if we do nothing now
    2) fossil fuels are the main reason behind human advancement in the last 150 yrs, having more renewable energy in the short term helps extend the fossil fuel resources
    3) burning stuff is bad for human health, the less we do the better.

    If anyone is making an investment the need to look at the risk/reward in the context of the uncertainty. In the do nothing scenario we are risking a hell of a lot (for example, a nuclear war initiated by food shortages) for the gain of 3% higher economic growth in the short term. In the do something scenario we are risking a reduction in economic growth in the short term but we gain new technologies, maintain political stability and get better air quality. The economic impact is less than trade wars and Brexit are having now.

    Seems like a straight forward option (though a difficult one) for governments. Even allowing for the tendency for the activist types to use climate change as a Trojan horse for all kinds of redistribution.

    Also, some will lose far more than others but that’s the way it has always been.

  • The argument of “you are just appealing to the popularity!” Is complete garbage. The truth is there is a reason why it’s the popular opinion and that’s because science proves time and time again that CO2 affects climate negatively

  • So who is lying?

  • When a physicist, who had nothing to do with climate research in his career, makes the amateur mistake of confusing weather prediction with climate prediction, it's embarrassing and very misleading.
    Weather prediction is an initial value problem while climate prediction is a boundary value problem. It's basic. For example, predicting the flip of a coin is an initial value problem, but predicting the statistics of 1000 flips of a coin is a boundary problem.
    Yes, climate models have their problems. We know their weaknesses, like problems in predicting complex climate feedback loops, but they give a good enough prediction based on different emission scenarios.

  • Happer disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change, stating that "Some small fraction of the 1° C warming during the past two centuries must have been due to increasing CO2, which is indeed a greenhouse gas", but argues that "most of the warming has probably been due to natural causes."[11] Michael Oppenheimer said that Happer’s claims are "simply not true" and that the preponderance of evidence and majority of expert opinion points to a strong anthropogenic influence on rising global temperatures.[12] Climate Science Watch published a point-by-point rebuttal to one of Happer’s articles.[13] A petition that he coauthored to change the official position of the American Physical Society to a version that raised doubts about global warming was overwhelmingly rejected by the APS Council.[14] Happer has no formal training as a climate scientist.[5]

    In May 2013, Happer and Harrison Schmitt published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, "In Defense of Carbon Dioxide," in which they termed elevated atmospheric CO2 "a boon to plant life."[15] It was described by Ryan Chittum, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, in the Columbia Journalism Review as "shameful, even for the dismal standards" of the Wall Street Journal editorial page.[16]

    In 2014, Happer said that the "demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler."[17][18][19]

    In December 2015, Happer was targeted in a sting operation by the environmental activist group Greenpeace. Posing as consultants for a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, they asked Happer to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions. Happer declined a fee for his work, but when it was urged upon him, he asked that the fee from this work be donated to the "objective evidence" climate-change organization CO2 Coalition, which suggested that he contact the Donors Trust to keep the source of the funds secret as requested by the Greenpeace sting operation. Hiding the sources of funding in this way is lawful under US law. Happer further acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal. [20].

  • Hey youtube. Nice edition of the wikipedia link, one of the most reliable pieces of source material. You should probably do something similar to, say, Adam Ruins Everything, who isn't an expert in anything. Your bias is disgusting.

  • The IPCC said this in one of its reports: "In climate

    research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing

    with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the

    long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. " (Last para of, page 774: So the IPCC agrees with Dr Happer.

  • Funding from the Far Right and Coal Companies

    Happer was the director of the CO2 Coalition, "a group formed in 2015 out of the former George C. Marshall Institute".[5] The CO2 Coalition describes its mission as “educating thought leaders, policymakers, and the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy.” In a section on its website dubbed, “CO2 Fundamentals,” CO2 Coalition says, “The debate about global warming and climate change has shifted from genuine scientific exploration to a campaign demonizing CO2.”[3] The group received $100,000 from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, at least $260,000 from the Scaife Foundation, $320,000 from the Mercer Family Foundation, $32,409 from the Charles Koch Foundation, $10,000 from the Charles Koch Institute, $125,000 from Searle Freedom Trust $125,000 from Thomas W. Smith Foundation, $50,000 from Achelis and Bodman Foundations, and $40,000 from the Randolph Foundation between 2016 and 2017.[3]

    Happer helped to organize a group called the CO2 Coalition, through which his fees are paid.[6] He has been funded by Peabody Energy[7]

  • This dude is a proven fraud. He took money from oil companies. Just letting everyone know.

  • This dude is quite literally a proven fraud. He was caught saying he would create literal fake research for 250 dollars an hour.

    All the zombie right wingers on here, what does it tel you about Dennis Prager when he has to hire a man known to have made all of his money from making actual fake research to make his argument?

    If you’re fine with getting your “science” from a known fraud simply because you’re a tribalist I feel sorry for every decision you’ve ever made…


  • "im a physicist who worked on a niche side of telescope science dealing somewhat with climate- so I'm a climate expert"

  • Oh this guy is slippery. For a basic understanding of why predicting the climate decades into the future is in someways easier than predicting the path of a hurricane (weather) search for this 2 minute video on youtube "Weather Versus Climate Change | Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey"

  • Talk about the Russian model

  • I been saying this for years.

  • This guy spends 20% of the video talking about his credentials, but he fails to mention that he is a proven fraud:

  • 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

  • The 'skeptics' here likely have never bothered to critically examine the full background of the video narrator William Happer, or Prager University that is behind the production of this video. That is not unusual because the vast majority of climate science deniers have no academic backgrounds in the relevant sciences involved in Anthropogenic Climate Disruption (ACD) and they have no interest in critically examining the news sources that they gravitate to to reenforce their preexisting deeply entrenched worldview.

    William Happer

    Physicist William Happer, the 'Unmoored' Climate Science Denier Heading a White House Climate Probe

    Trump's Potential Science Adviser Will Happer: Carbon Dioxide Demonized Just Like "Poor Jews Under Hitler"

    Evidence Squared #10 (podcast): Debunking William Happer's carbon cycle myth

    William Happer has no academic background in the biological sciences so he isnot likely to follow the impacts that scientists, in fields such as ecology, conservation biology and evolutionary biology, are reporting in regards ACD effects upon life on this planet.

    It is well known that Prager University is little more than a prolific propaganda machine run by Fundamentalist Christians with an extreme right-wing agenda. Funding involves the fossil fuel industry.

    Debunking PragerU: "Can Climate Models Predict Climate Change?"

    Welcome to PragerU — the "university" that gets its science wrong

    Welcome to PragerU — Part 2

    Those who have chosen to immerse themselves in climate science denial information sources tend to be sheltered from evidence that clashes with what they prefer to believe in. Millions of Americans have willingly turned themselves over to such sites and serve as the propaganda troops that promote these site's worldview.

    Climate change computer model vindicated 30 years later by what has actually happened
    Skeptics have long sneered at climate models but one made in the late 1980s has proved remarkably prophetic

    Satellite data confirms globe is warming rapidly

    Climate Deniers’ Favorite Temperature Dataset Just Confirmed Global Warming

    This Graphic Puts Global Warming in Full Perspective

    Watch 26 Years of Arctic Ice Disappear in Seconds

    Key indicators of Arctic climate change: 1971–2017

    Antarctica loses three trillion tonnes of ice in 25 years

    Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate. How much will sea levels rise?

    ‘Extraordinary thinning’ of ice sheets revealed deep inside Antarctica

    Loss of Arctic sea ice impacting Atlantic Ocean water circulation system

    Melting Permafrost Is Turbocharging Climate Change

    The Threat of Global Warming causing Near-Term Human Extinction
    Temperature, carbon dioxide and methane

    CO2 Concentration – Last 800,000 years

    A Horrifying New Study Found that the Ocean is on its Way to Suffocating by 2030

    World on track to lose two-thirds of wild animals by 2020, major report warns

    Humanity Has Killed 83% of All Wild Mammals and Half of All Plants: Study

    World’s largest plant survey reveals alarming extinction rate

    Plants are going extinct up to 350 times faster than the historical norm

    Insects are dying off at record rates — an ominous sign we're in the middle of a 6th mass extinction

    Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines

    Humanity is ‘cutting down the tree of life’, warn scientists

    Worst mass extinction event in Earth’s history was caused by global warming analogous to current climate crisis

    The sixth mass extinction, explained

    New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’

    Trees and plants reached 'peak carbon' 10 years ago

    Earth Stopped Getting Greener 20 Years Ago

    Experts explain how rising carbon dioxide depletes nutrients in our food

    Trees absorbing less CO2 as world warms, study finds
    · Shorter winters weaken forest 'carbon sinks'
    · Data analysis reverses scientists' expectations

    Rising CO2 levels destroying African savannah, scientists warn

    Amazon rainforest losing ability to regulate climate, scientist warns

    Satellite observations show global plant growth is not keeping up with CO2 emissions

    There's No Science Behind Denying Climate Change

    UQx DENIAL101x From the experts: Greenhouse effect

    Skeptical Science

    Climate denial activists’ parallel to anti-relativity movement of 1920s’-parallel-anti-relativity-movement-1920s

    Climate change: How do we know

    What’s Really Warming the World?

    The 97% 'Consensus' on Climate Science

    Evidence for man-made global warming hits 'gold standard': scientists

    World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice

    UN chief: World has less than 2 years to avoid 'runaway climate change'

    List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations that have issued statements saying climate change is serious and primarily caused by human activities

    America’s TV meteorologists: Symptoms of climate change are rampant, undeniable

    Climate: What did We Know and When Did We Know it?

    US Government Knew Climate Risks in 1970s, National Petroleum Council Documents Show

    Heartland's '6 Reasons To Be A Climate-Change Skeptic' Are Six Demonstrable Falsehoods

    A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate

    'Goodbye, Earth': A Story for Grown-Ups

  • Nature is random, we cannot predict cloud formation, distant weather, fluid motion, atmospheric turbulence, but for us, humans are damn well good at predicting the effects of our actions, man-made processes, even if it affects nature. There is nothing random or natural about human-caused climate change.


  • Absolutely BRIILIANT!

  • Prageru is basically if idiocracy was a YouTube channel.

  • People have no problem accepting a physicist's who isn't a climate scientist verdict as the final end all be all on climate change but tell them a nephrologist will be performing their brain surgery instead of a brain surgeon and they'll lose their shit.

  • Hey Prager,

    your first "expert" is a fraud.

  • Fact: This channel is funded by hydraulic fracturing & oil tycoon billionaires Dan Howard Wilks and Farris Cullen Wilks.

    I usually and mostly support Prager U…. well, not this time.

  • Simplemente genial !!!!

  • The Russian INM-CM4 model has been extremely accurate in predicting the change in the earth's temperature. It also predicts some of the lowest levels of temperature increases, which I believe is about 1.5 Degrees Celsius per in the next century.

  • This guy is a corrupt fraud bought by oil companies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *