In “The Real Truth about Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change: Paragraph-by-Paragraph Comments on an Article by Dr. William Happer,” Dr. Michael MacCracken, Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs at the Climate Institute in Washington, DC, takes on the prominent ‘skeptic’ Princeton physicist and Marshall Institute board chairman with a detailed and illuminating rebuttal.

The lead paragraph of a must read article for SkS authors. Could it be re-post on SkS?

MacCracken's paper is a gold mine of quality statements about the stuff we discuss and write about on a daily basis.

I submitted an article to First Things responding to Happer, another evidence based article framed in Christian values. Haven't heard whether they'll publish it or not though.

John, it's a bit hefty for a repost, I think.    But everyone should keep a copy in the saddlebag ready to cite specific paragraphs and provide a link to the full thing.   

Come to think of it, it's a good piece to quote small phrases/sentences from - with a link - for an author who's trying to get a strong point across.    If you're having problems stating something critical without venturing into personal opinion or overexcited invective,  referencing someone respectable like this being very direct may be your best option.

JH: Thanks, I sent this off a friend of mine who knows Happer (they're in the same general research area of atomic physics).

MacCracken does a very thorough job of criticizing Happer's claims, better than they really deserve.

John Cook:

Whatever happened to the article you had sent to First Thing?

From MacKraken's conclusion:

"That Dr. Happer is slowing this down by putting forth scientific statements that indicate so little understanding (presumably, because of reading too narrowly or with too closed a mind) is very disappointing. In the years that I was at Princeton and the grading system went from 1 (high) to 7 (low), I regret to say that Dr. Happer would have earned the 7. This grade was actually hard to get because it indicated “flagrant neglect” in one’s studies. For his generally uninformed and limited discussion and understanding of climate change science, however, I very much regret to say that Dr. Happer seems clearly to have earned that designation."

Ouch!