Will Happer – Another Zeta Comedian

I have been part of a long-ongoing email thread with the CLINTEL group and consulting scientists for the past many years. The thread hasn’t been active since CLINTEL released their statement last year, but, it recently had an addition by one of the members. One of the other contributors is Will Happer, who is a semi-well known “skeptic” of anthropogenic climate change.

Well, one of the members brought up the point that the only thing CLINTEL and other members of the thread should be bothering to do anymore is simply debunk the basis of AGW, which is its idea of a greenhouse effect. Nikolov and Zeller were referenced as source material for this, as well as my own books and work.

Well, Will Happer didn’t want to be part of that discussion, and asked to be removed from the thread. Curious about this, I asked Will Happer, quoting:

Actually, Will, I would like to ask you what your position is on the greenhouse effect?

Further, what is your understanding of how it is supposed to work? And what is its origin in theory, etc.?

Really would appreciate your comments here.



Will Happer responded with this:

Dear Joe,

Attached is a little essay for technically literate  readers that William van Wijngaarden and I wrote a year ago. We have have not gotten around to publishing it.  It summarizes our understanding of the greenhouse effect.

Best wishes,


So, I told Will that I would read his paper, and would add sticky notes with my comments on it. The PDF with the sticky notes still in it is uploaded to my WordPress now, and can be found here if you would like to see Will’s paper, but, I will write out my sticky note comments following and so you can just read along here.

Will wrote:

WH: “How greenhouse gases affect Earth’s climate is a complicated issue, where atmospheric thermodynamics and convection are intimately involved. We will simplify the discussion as much
as possible, but we will also try to adhere to Einstein’s admonition: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler”.”

My comment:

JP: “This principle of Einstein’s is actually violated, though. And not in a trivial way, but in a real, significant, impactful, and meaningful way.”


WH: “Launching into our maximally simplified discussion of the greenhouse effect, we consider a hypothetical Earth with a transparent atmosphere that is 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen,
and with the same mass as today’s atmosphere. But we assume no greenhouse gases at all, no CO2, no H2O and no clouds. To be consistent with no clouds, this hypothetical Earth must have no oceans, from which water vapor could evaporate. Oxygen, O2, actually does absorb a small amount of sunlight and also thermal radiation, but we will ignore that absorption and assume the atmosphere is completely transparent. To further simplify the problem, we assume that the Sun shines steadily with equal intensity on every part of Earth’s surface, from the tropics to the poles.”

My comment:

JP: “Up to here the simplifications were hypothetically rational, hypothetically possible. That makes these simplifications ontologically possible things to explore in physics.

However, when the simplification here extends to “the Sun shining steadily with equal intensity on every part of Earth’s surface”, we have now reached a degree of simplification which divorces from reality; this is a simplification which is not ontologically possible. It is not possible for reality to express this simplification, hence, it is not possible for physics to express this simplification, hence, it is not possible that there is any physics to be used for this simplification – physics as we know it cannot apply to it.

A possible fiction is created with the previous simplifications. But a true fiction, an impossible fiction, is created with the latter.

See the next note for explanation.”

In the paper, Will goes on to demonstrate how to calculate the average output flux of the Earth, which he then equates to be the same thing as the solar input flux. Thus, my comment:

JP: “This number, 340 W/m^2, is what makes this simplification irrational, i.e. non-ontological. Earlier you listed the solar flux as 1360 W/m^2. So, which is it? Is the solar flux 1360 W/m^2, or, is it 340 W/m^2?

There is a paradox here. This isn’t a matter of a trivial approximation or averaging, but represents a change in the underlying nature of the physics, because flux relates to temperature, and temperature relates to what physics can manifest. Again, this is a fictional average which does not empirically exist, and cannot ontologically exist; it has went beyond the possibility of reality, as Einstein warned about.

That is: 340 W/m^2 cannot perform the same physics that 1360 W/m^2 can perform. 340 W/m^2 is 5 Celsius, whereas 1360 W/m^2 is +121 Celsius. One of these values cannot create the climate as we know it, whereas the other one certainly can, in the context of forcing of heat upon matter and the response that matter then has to that.

We’re supposed to be making a model for the climate, and atmosphere, correct? In that case, we must use the forcing values which actually create the climate: 1360 W/m^2 is what actually exists, and, it does create the climate; 340 W/m^2 is not what exists, and, it would not create the climate even if it did. This is important!”

Will then makes a few comments about heat flow, to which I commented:

JP: “It is very important to keep to strict definitions, although the usage of the language has become quite muddled over the 100 years since thermodynamics was developed.
The first law of thermodynamics is dU = Q + W = m Cp dT, which says, that to increase a body’s temperature, one must have heat (W), and/or work (W). This means that heat is the same thing as work: work is macroscopic, heat is microscopic – that’s the only difference. Heat is therefore an action, and it is not a conserved quantity, like energy is. Heat is an action energy may perform.

When may energy perform the action of heat, i.e. of heating? For that you need the heat equation, and of course, heat only acts from a warm body upon a cooler one…and this is true for all modes of heat: conductive, diffusive, convective, and of course, radiative. They all follow the rule of heat, only acting from hot to cool.

With that, right there, the idea that the atmosphere can heat the surface or increase the surface temperature is rendered defunct…not possible.

But here is where it comes together: the idea that radiation from the atmosphere is required to increase the surface temperature comes in the first place from using 340 W/m^2 as the solar input, which makes it seem like the Sun is too feeble to heat the surface to the temperatures we experience. But, the Sun does actually have such power, because it is actually 1360 W/m^2, not 340 W/m^2!

More comments below re: adiabatic atmosphere.”

Finally, Will referenced the adiabatic lapse rate, but without deriving it, and so I commented:

JP: “Let’s demonstrate the derivation of the lapse rate in the first place. For a gas in a gravitational field, and using local thermodynamic equilibrium, then the total energy of a gas parcel is

U = mgh + mCpT

Because this is local thermodynamic equilibrium, then the differential is:

dU = mg*dh + mCp*dT

Local thermodynamic equilibrium implies constant energy, so dU = 0, and therefore:

dT/dh = g/ Cp

This gives the -10K/km for dry air, and if you factor in the average absolute concentration of water vapor and its rate of condensation and release of latent heat as it cools in the air column, you will derive the environmental rate of -6.5K/km.

So, we know that the atmosphere must have a gradient in temperature. The question is: where is the zero-point? We have a gradient – where is the anchor?

But here’s the really important part: if we know that the gradient must exist, then we also know that, mathematically, the average of the values making up the gradient cannot be found at an extremity of the gradient, but must, by definition of an average, be found around the middle. So, what do we expect to be the average? Do we expect it to be the effective temperature, of -18C, where the solar energy has been factored for albedo, etc.? If we do expect the average to be -18C, then, it is impossible that this average should occur at the bottom-slice of the atmosphere. The bottom-slice of the atmosphere has to be warmer than the average, and it must be the warmest part of the gradient, and the average must be found around the middle of the troposphere. In fact, -18C is found at altitude in the troposphere, and if you use that temperature as the anchor point, then lo and behold, you will calculate +15C as the near-surface air temperature!

In other words, we model the atmosphere with no reference to a greenhouse effect. With or without so-called “greenhouse gases”, the expected average of -18C effective temperature cannot be found at the bottom-slice of atmosphere.

Do so-called “greenhouse gases” change the altitude of the anchor point, and thus change the temperature at the bottom-slice of atmosphere? We know that so-called greenhouse gases do not change the gradient, since the derivation of the gradient only required Cp, and hence does not depend on the radiative properties of the gas. This is what Lindzen looked for, in the “tropospheric hotspot”, and did not find it. Greenhouse gases were not rising the altitude of the anchor point.

If you change the altitude of the anchor point, then you in fact change the average temperature of the entire structure. But the Stefan-Boltzmann Law requires that higher temperature emits more energy, but ultimately, there is only one energy source, and it is constant – so emit more than the constant would result in cooling, not warming.”

Here is where the comedy starts. I send the PDF of his paper with the above sticky notes back to him, with this email:

Hi Will,

OK, I took a few minutes to read it over, and I added sticky-note comments where appropriate.

I am also attaching two papers I wrote, which I hope you will take a look at to help flesh out the meaning and explanation of what I put in the sticky notes. I read your paper, and so I hope that you will read mine. They’re technical papers similar to yours, although focusing on more simple and direct fundamentals.

One problem in this discussion is that people always talk past each other with regards to the definition of “greenhouse effect” which they are working with, and these can be drastically different. The definition I use is the one which is pedagogical, which is found in instructory physics classrooms and textbooks.

I appreciate this correspondence.

Best regards,


And this was his reply (my emphasis):

Dear Joe,

You asked for my views on the greenhouse effect. The paper I sent is an accurate summary of my views.

I don’t understand many of your comments in the sticky notes, but so be it.

No offense meant, but I don’t have time for further correspondence of this issue.

Best wishes,


So, you see how the Zeta parasites operate? They just gaslight, lie, miss the point, pretend nothing was said, and pretend that they can’t understand something which they can clearly understand given their own scientific writing.

You see…as I said in my Planet Wars book: this is impossible. Given that these people have degrees in physics, given their ability to write technical papers with math and physics, given their own demonstrated interest in the subject, it is impossible for them to not understand what I write to them, and it is impossible for them to not be interested in contributions which are similar to their own.

These people are just pretending…they’re pretending to be skeptics, but what they’re really doing, what they really are, are just Zeta-infested parasitical nodes to maintain the pretense that there’s nothing to question or comment on with regards to cold vs. hot sunshine, flat-plane illumination vs. hemispheric illumination, etc.

At all costs, to all ends, they refuse to engage on the question of the greenhouse effect. I mean, we’ve been through this, you read my Planet Wars book and saw the peer-review people say that there is nothing wrong with flat Earth theory, and that it makes no difference. It’s just gaslighting. Note also how Will uses yet another personal quirky definition of the greenhouse effect and talks about “his understanding” of it…but then refuses to address or acknowledge my actual references to the actual definition of it, as if these don’t exist or aren’t relevant.

BTW, here are the two papers I sent along to Will. They’re both excellent reads, and have each appeared in my books – the first book, and the third book – but these should really be put out there and shared on their own, as they’re so excellent:

There is no Radiative Greenhouse Effect

An Alternative Global Energy Budget

Anyway – these people are comedians. I simply wrote back to Will and said:

That’s very funny Will. Thank you.



We are dealing with an alien noetic parasitical life form which at all costs cannot acknowledge any form of truth at any time. It feeds off of the energy leakage caused by cognitive dissonance. It can only lie, gaslight, and misdirect, at all times. Whenever you find this behaviour in another person, realize that you are dealing merely with a “flesh suit” which has behind its appearance a disgusting nasty parasite that wants to torture you to death as it consumes all of your energy. And yes, they do want to, and enjoy, torturing you to death:

Predators leave a herd alone most of the time; they don’t care to spend time with the herd. Individual members of a herd can easily spend their entire life never encountering a predator, and, most who do are near death anyway given that predators take the weak, old and sickly, and are in fact given a quick humane death by the predator. The herd as a whole can easily spend days, weeks, even most of the year never encountering a predator.

Parasites on the other hand never leave you alone. And they, literally, torture you to death, over weeks, months, and years, slowly wearing you down and making your life hell with no recourse and no relief. They torture you to death and they love doing it because that’s precisely how they eat from you…and they’ll sure as heck spread to other members of the herd and do the same to them, and they’ll do nothing but live with the herd full-time and torture to death as many members of the herd as they can.

Big difference between predator and parasite: Parasites slowly torture you to death with constant bullshit and make existence a living hell. Predators take you out quickly and efficiently when it’s your time anyway, and the rest of the time you live free and on your own.

A predator respects its prey and competes with it, and when it catches it, gives it a humane and quick death. Herd members have a chance with predators.

Parasites are just awful, all the time, and never leave you alone.

Like I said in my book: between predator and prey there is a certain truth which can be shared, a truth which the predator can share with the prey…and that truth is that the predator maintains the fitness, hence the Becoming, of the herd.

But with a parasite, there is no truth which can be shared between parasite and host. The parasite does nothing for the host…nothing whatsoever. This is why the noetic parasite cannot even recognize truth, why it cannot ever acknowledge any truth of any kind whatsoever, at all, why it is a constant and perfect sophist:

Otto Weininger: “A creature that cannot grasp the mutual exclusiveness of A and not A has no difficulty in lying; more than that, such a creature has not even any consciousness of lying, being without a standard of truth. Such a creature if endowed with speech will lie without knowing it, without the possibility of knowing it.”

That’s what we’re facing when we deal with these climate greenhouse effect jokers, especially the fake “skeptic” ones, who are simply parasites who have situated themselves at a position where cognitive dissonance can be defended and reinforced, which they then feed off of. Remember, these are mental, i.e. noetic, of the mind, parasites. They feed off of mental energy leakage, which is generated through cognitive dissonance.

Well, now you know their nature. They’re called “Zetas”.

You just have to face the facts. You just have to accept it.

When faced with an impossibility, then you are in fact facing a purpose. It’s impossible for these people, and the peer-review journals as I showed in Planet Wars, to respond the way that they did. It is impossible. Therefore it is purposeful. What is the purpose? You look at the end result of their policies of CO2 vilification: the end of all life on Earth. Then you ask: who would do this, and why, and what do you get out of it?

Well, throw in some occult knowledge and abilities, and you quickly find the answer.

You just have to accept that what we’ve been doing in the climate debate all of this time isn’t real. It’s not real. It’s not what you think it is – a scientific debate. That’s only the appearance, the pretense. What’s actually going on is something else entirely.

And now you know.

Read Planet Wars, if you haven’t yet.

This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Will Happer – Another Zeta Comedian

  1. Joseph E Postma says:

    Excellent email reply from Ned Nikolov:


    I find it quite amusing that, when it comes to explaining the “greenhouse effect”, experts always invoke some absolutely unrealistic baseline conditions (as Will Happer did) such as having an “absolutely transparent” atmosphere containing no “greenhouse gases” including no water vapor, and assuming “that the Sun shines steadily with equal intensity on every part of Earth’s surface, from the tropics to the poles”.

    None of these assumptions are physically possible. If there is no liquid water on the surface of a planet and no water vapor in the atmosphere, the air will be filled with dust just like on Mars, and dust absorbs strongly in both the visible and infrared spectrum. If the planet is round (which they all are!) and illuminated by a single star, then there must be a gradient of illumination between Equator and the Poles that changes as a function of the cosine of latitude.

    Invoking highly unrealistic (and frankly ridiculous) assumptions to explain a supposedly real phenomenon tells me that the expert doing the “explanation” is fundamentally confused on the matter. If you want to understand a physical phenomenon such the Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE), just analyze real data (observations) pertaining to the phenomenon in question and perhaps model results that closely mimic reality. This is what we did using published NASA planetary data and an objective math technique called dimensional analysis (Nikolov & Zeller 2017). The result from our analysis is shown on the attached slide: ATE turned out to be a form of adiabatic (or compression) heating controlled by total surface air pressure while being independent of atmospheric composition just as expected from the Gas Law… This is not complicated to grasp for anyone with basic understanding of gas thermodynamics!


  2. Why do IPCC critics like yuse guys keep wasting their time with meticulous examinations of the greenhouse gas theory when I have discovered an amazingly simple disproof that reveals it as based on a sleazy carnival double-counting trick that even a child can understand? Once you see it you can’t unsee it.


    The simplest disproof is the observation that Earth’s atmosphere isn’t a black body like the surfaces of the Sun and Earth, but it seems to fly over people’s heads so I had to come up with the double-counting disproof in hopes of ending the debate.


  3. CD Marshall says:

    Nothing is an idealized blackbody; it is a mathematical construct that does not exist in real physics. I think that is the biggest issue with the starting point. Treating a math problem, easy for limited calculations, as real-world physics which is far more complex to correctly calculate. Every math problem, complex or simple, is based on isolated formulae to begin with seeking a desired result which therefore can taint the final conclusion.

  4. Pingback: The Safe Climate Of 1906 – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort

  5. Zelator says:

    Joe I believe the problem lies in the rote learning mode employed in schools and universities. It’s all about what they have been taught to remember.

    They are not intuitive enough to to consider the true meaning of what they learn,
    only the words on paper. They cannot visualise the principles in their heads and therefore their evidence is the written word and not their own cognitive interpretation. Of course this is a generalisation and not atypical but a lot of these dudes are rote learned and couldn’t theorise themselves out of a wet blanket.

    Of course this is the education paradigm we have (on purpose) and are therefore judged by, and therefore the whole academia stinks of hierarchical snobs with letters after there name, who are generally thick as shit.

    So when you give them an analysis like you did, of course they won’t understand, as it wasn’t in their text books lol. He even said “I don’t understand” lol.

    Where is the critical, creative thinking, the open minds, the thinkers of the future?

    When we talk to them , we are talking to books not minds lol. This is the difference between AI and human. The ability to be creative. These ” things” that engage, are incapable of critical creativity. It is what defines us from the machines and the dick heads out there lol.

  6. Zelator says:

    To be honest I don’t really focus on the climate baloney, as it is all part of the bigger picture, but I admire the critical thinkers on here who do take it upon themselves to stick it to these dip shits. I don’t know how you have the patience lol. I have my focus elsewhere, but it is all part of the same battle. Once the paradigm goes the whole shit show will go with it, and every aspect will go down. I believe its not far off. Our toil will be rewarded. And rightly so. There has been a lot of energy put into this forum and I know it has made a difference. Small ripples create big waves. All the Best Z

  7. Zelator says:

    By the way the Intuitive/Creative persona type e.g (INTJ) will be the dominant in the next 6th root race. All learning will change.

  8. Zelator says:

    I suppose the most famous intuitive idea was that of the name stealer Einstein, with his riding upon a light beam, or Newton’s silly apple falling on his head, but believe me, the true brains that were actually geniuses behind the discoveries were quietly discredited or ripped off by the Jesuit Catholic Church. Real intuitives will make this planet great once we get rid of the parasites who want to hold us back.

  9. Joseph E Postma says:

    Yes agreed with your comments Z and CD.

    Z – do you have contact info for Clif High? His email I used to use doesn’t work anymore (moon@halfpasthuman.com – bounces).

  10. CD Marshall says:

    Someone mentioned Carter changed the US scholastic education program in 1970(?). The US went from being number one in the world to 23rd in the world currently or somewhere around here. Carter was a pre-Obama Obama. A hard core socialist.

  11. J Cuttance says:

    Happer makes quite a claim when he says the lapse rate would disappear without greenhouse gases – a testable claim.

    Joe, you must feel like thrashing your forehead against the wall. Don’t…drywall repairs are tricky.

  12. Zelator says:

    Hi Joe, no I don’t have an email for Clif High. His halfpasthuman website is dead I think. Sorry I cant help.

  13. CD Marshall says:

    This Nolan guy is an idiot. He repeats the same tripe and ignores the lapse rate.

  14. CD Marshall says:

    Someone needs to do a green plate meme who has the skill. Using the layers of the atmosphere as the plates and label it the “the real green plate experiment”.

    Outside solar input.
    Plate 1 surface.
    Plate 2 troposphere.

  15. Zelator says:

    See that is intuitive thinking by CD. He “sees” the concept in his head. He can critically, creatively see how it is. Of course scientific materialists like those he is up against will argue against him as they just don’t “see it”. Well done CD.

  16. Zelator says:

    Good little video here, about the life of Tesla, and how he was ripped off by the name stealers and the invention stealers aka Khazarians like Edison and Marconi. His work will eventually be the forefront of the this 5th root race, going into the 6th as the planet ascends. His name and work will be properly respected and due acknowledgment will be given to him, as it should have been all those years ago , if not for the parasites.

    Next will be Walter Russell, as humanity finally conquers the ether. In other words the electromagnetic universe.

  17. Zelator says:

    Was researching an article when a synchronicity pointed me to this. I wont go into what I was researching yet, but want to put this forward for discussion. Joe I would be interested in your take on this. Also Beverly if you are reading this, as I know you are involved in emerging timelines as am I. Anyone else reading this, I would be interested in your comments.

    This document was released in 2014, and I know information pertaining to Marduk, that updates this, and that things have changed significantly and timelines are converging to a single timeline, with no parallels. This apparently is good news and bad news for the parasite.

    The document came to my awareness via an interview I watched with Kerry Cassidy, that sent me down a rabbit hole to a website called the Wing-makers. I won’t go into the details of that now. I was aware of the Wing-makes but timing is important.

    Anyway a guy by the name of Jamisson Neruda gave five interviews in the early 2000’s the fifth being held back by him until 2014. So I am starting with the 5th interview as it is pertinent.

    Here it is:

    Click to access The-Fifth-Interview-of-Dr.-Neruda1.pdf

    The full series is also in pdf format and I enclose it here:

    Click to access The-Complete-Neruda-Interviews-1-5.pdf

    I haven’t read the first 4 yet, in fact I only came across this information this afternoon. I believe we may be able to conquer/remove this parasite with knowledge of our situation, awareness and realising “WHO WE REALLY ARE” !!!. Sin is defined in some languages as ignorance. The only real shackles we now have are ignorance. Knowledge/Gnosis will set us free. Let’s do it.

    Cheers for any feedback. I look forward to hearing from you. With Thanks.


  18. Zelator says:

    Just a small addendum> re “This apparently is good news and bad news for the parasite” should read “This is good news for us real humans, and bad news for the parasite and all of its forms”. end quote.

  19. Zelator says:

    What I have been told concerning converging timelines re. Project Looking Glass is that those that are not ready or are incompatible with the new line will simply be removed. The ” Disappearing” as it was put. Maybe they go to a level of frequency consciousness according to their beliefs i.e vibration. There is no judgement just resonance. We all find our level outside the simulation.

  20. Zelator says:

    Air – 10 000 HZ Legend:

  21. Zelator says:

    Did you know:

    That the human female pheromones during ovulation are extremely close to that of Iguana Lizards in the breeding season? Dr. William Rodgers, a veterinarian in North Carolina, also notes that the smell of a human menstruating is very similar to the pheromone of an adult female iguana during mating season…. Interestingly this stimulates the part of the brain in the human male called the Reptilian Brain.

    Coincidence? Probably not.

    See how close we are programmed to having the Parasite (Reptilian) mind encoded?

    The reptilian mind and vibration is low frequency, i.e fear, anxiety, etc

    Carlos Castaneda said they gave us their mind, via the simulation.

    Raise your vibration: Low vibration causes the coding of the simulation to glitch,
    and as the coding is done in the lower astral (4d) then it will eventually result in dis-ease if it is not corrected. Our original templates were ethereal.

    There are not really any dimensions 3d,4d,5d etc, it’s all just frequency bands, and the lowest band being matter, i.e the human body.

    Interestingly the Black Sun say they communicate with an entity outside our universe using gamma wave communication . This is very fast, as opposed to the low fearful beta waves of the simulation. Actually the everyday frequency is Beta; this is the stress frequency. The control frequency.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s