I get the heave-ho from Hayhoe

Some climate scientists we know sure are notoriously thin skinned, as an illustration of this, today I got blocked by Dr. Katherine Hayhoe on Twitter after making my one and only Twitter comment to her. See below.

Here’s the comment she made yesterday and my reply:

KHayhoe_twitter

Source: http://twitter.com/KHayhoe/status/316645342537990144

I wrote what a lot of people were thinking about that comment of hers, and today when I refreshed the browser window I left open to see if she responded, I’m rewarded with this:

khayhoe_twitter_block

Tom Nelson apparently got the same treatment today:

By their deeds ye shall know them: “Gifted” evangelical climate hoax communicator Katharine Hayhoe blocks me from following her on Twitter

Hey Katharine:  You can run, but you can’t hide.
Katharine Hayhoe (KHayhoe) on Twitter

[Message received when I tried to follow Katharine] You have been blocked from following this account at the request of the user.

ClimateBites – “A Climate For Change” Katharine Hayhoe

She’s also a gifted communicator, with a calm clear voice and a knack for stripping things down to the nub and saying it in language everybody can understand.
….
With her husband, a minister, Hayhoe co-authored a book for evangelical Christians. Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions is a must read for anybody addressing this important community or looking for clear explanations in plain language. Particularly revealing is the beginning, where the authors bridge the cultural divide and address the stereotypes that block communication between evangelicals and the science community.

I guess turning the other cheek doesn’t fit for her: http://smmercury.com/2013/01/17/qa-katharine-hayhoe-on-the-trials-of-being-a-christian-climatologist/

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate ugliness and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

139 Responses to I get the heave-ho from Hayhoe

  1. LamontT says:

    Clearly her argument is that She must ignore the other person since she doesn’t have any legs to stand on.

  2. Louis says:

    I guess she blocked you because she couldn’t find 48 other true believers to help her take you on.

  3. KevinK says:

    Twitter, is that a communication medium for twits only ?

    I’ve never tweeted, or twitted, or whatever the appropriate lexicon is. I did send a fax once from a ship sailing to Antarctica. Although probably not as exciting as a real “official tweet”. I have managed to live a full productive life (so far) without these silly gadgets/games.

    I do recognize a good old fashioned diode when I see one; “a device that only lets current (communication) flow in one direction”.

    Frankly why waste your time, they will only hear/say what they believe, proof is only necessary for non-believers.

    “We’re all going to die, in ten years, lest you repent and give up fossil fuels, the alternative is only 10 years and ANOTHER trillion dollars away…………………”

    Cheers, Kevin.

  4. FergalR says:

    Dr. Katherine Hayhoe is Director of the Fingers-in-my-ears-la-la-la-I’m-not-listening Department of the University of Patronisation at Hypocrisyville.

  5. Lew Skannen says:

    These people are beyond parody.

  6. M.J. Snyder says:

    As an evangelical Christian I’m completely appalled by her (unchristian) arrogance.

  7. MrX says:

    What gets me is that they think climate change is a pro-AGW stance. It isn’t. Climate change is a skeptical position to counter the original proposal of unprecedented global warming. If they believe it’s climate change, then it’s natural and has happened before. Crisis averted.

    Climate change was brought into the vernacular by George W. Bush. Not a big fan, but when he said it in a speech, liberals were furious at him trying to redefine the conversation. Now, the pro-AGW crowd are singing Bush’s tune. It’s quite ironic.

  8. Lady in Red says:

    This is sad, so sad. Whatever happened to science? ….Lady in Red

  9. Sam the First says:

    The words toy, throw, and pram come to mind.

    These people are all beyond childish; but at least they reveal over and over their reluctance to engage in meaningful debate.

  10. Gail Combs says:

    49 to 1 odds? she sure doesn’t think much of the Climastrologists expertise does she?
    I would recommend she read The First Book of Samuel – Chapter 17 (New International Version – NIV)

  11. nicholasmjames says:

    A better reply… “It takes only one Mr. Watts to defeat 49 climate alarmists.”

  12. davidmhoffer says:

    An evengelical christian who’s hubby is a minister? Well she’s not qualified to talk about climate. Just ask Dr. Michael Mann. I’d tweet the question to him but I don’t tweet. Perhaps Dr Spencer could tweet the question to him….

  13. Robert Wille says:

    You could take what she’s saying to mean that it takes 49 AGW “believers” to equal 1 skeptic. Sounds about right to me.

  14. ChootemLiz says:

    Hayhoe is a weak individual, peer pressure science fiction is her bubble. I hope the rapid climate response team has organized a group hugging event.

    They could combine it with one for Micky and Gav who are also a bit unloved at the moment. Hockey sticks for everyone. Yippee.

  15. GeologyJim says:

    Katharine and Mikey Mann are two peas from the same pod.

    Thin-skinned, overly sensitive, and totally divorced from real-world facts.

    Growing increasingly irrelevant as the Earth does what it does, completely irrespective of the miniscule machinations of mankind.

    Mother Nature is too big to flinch at human squiggles.

  16. John R T says:

    PM Thatcher started it, and President G W Bush re-titled it.
    Where’s the next the next Conservative, someone to pronounce the benediction at interment?

  17. jim karlock says:

    I once queried Kathlene as to why she believed in CAGW. He response was to tell me to read the IPCC, instead of giving specifics.

    Makes me think she has no facts, just belief.

    Thanks
    JK

  18. Hot under the collar says:

    “She’s also a gifted communicator…..”

    Someone needs to remind them that communication is a two way process.

  19. geran says:

    Anthony, you really need to understand the evil out there. This is not a “can’t we all get along” world”. There are folks out there that do not seek TRUTH. They seek corruption and perversion.

    Your blog should not waste one electron on Hayhoe. She wants to be a “nothing”, so let her be.

    It’s hard for normal folks to understand, but that is the world we live in.

  20. RockyRoad says:

    …address the stereotypes that block communication…

    You were wrong to block Anthony, Ms. Hayhoe.

    By the way, have you looked at how scientists initially treated Einstein?–remember, he’s the one where the “experts” were against him perhaps 1,000 to 1, and yet he won the argument.

    Odds are irrelevant; only truth matters. (One would think a Christian would understand…oh well).

  21. Eric Worrall says:

    Even after everything which has happened, they *still* think they can control the message.

  22. Ike says:

    I think her required ratio of 49 to 1 in favor of AGW in order to debate accurately estimates the ability and intellect of those who are proponents of AGW.

  23. dbstealey says:

    Who should we believe? Miz Hayhoe? Or Planet Earth — which is busy deconstructing Hayhoe’s AGW nonsciense?

    Sorry, Hayhoe, but Planet Earth is the true Authority, not you. And the planet disagrees with the climate alarmist crowd.

  24. davidmhoffer says:

    “If I was wrong, it would have taken only one.”

    Albert Einstein commenting on the document prepared by 100 German physicists trying to prove him wrong. Seems oh, so apropos, Dr Hayhoe…

  25. Theo Goodwin says:

    Dr. Hayhoe was off by a factor of 100. One sceptic, Anthony, has refuted all 49,000 Alarmist climate scientists, so-called, and wannabees.

  26. philincalifornia says:

    Robert Wille says:
    March 27, 2013 at 8:14 pm
    You could take what she’s saying to mean that it takes 49 AGW “believers” to equal 1 skeptic. Sounds about right to me.
    ——————————————-

    I appreciate your sentiment, but try multiplying 49 by zero on a calculator and see what you get.

    Anyway, I though Siltdown Mann ridiculed the opinions of anyone who was religiously inclined ??

  27. tobias says:

    @ Geran , I agree and there are days I wish for an EMP. ( with a long enough warning to get people safe of course). Just so we could just all slow down a bit and look at how NORMAL our planet really is. The rhetoric from all sides is becoming a little hard to deal with and is starting to turn a lot of people away from all insightful discussions and those discussions are not only related to climate change btw. Thanks, this forum is great.

  28. Day By Day says:

    nicholasmjames says:

    A better reply… “It takes only one Mr. Watts to defeat 49 climate alarmists.”

    Not quite–she is saying that Watts can take on 48 but at 49 plus–they may out-stomp him. But I say he can take on the whole dang consensus–what was that? 73 “scientists?”

  29. Alvin says:

    I will pray for her.

  30. Mark Bofill says:

    Dr. Hayhoe heaved you. Well, if you set your mind to it you’ll survive. Whiskey, self-help tapes, and other such devices may help you bear the crippling sense of loss, the abject suffering, and the grim bitter despair of being declared excommunicate from the light of Dr. Hayhoe’s wisdom.
    It’s a hard path you’ve chosen to walk Anthony. Good luck.
    /sarc

    On the other hand, a vigorous bowel movement might suffice to put the matter to rest and your mind at ease regarding Dr. Hayhoe…

    shrug

  31. Sparks says:

    MEMO: If all else fails, assert Authority, be smug about it and block Anthony Watts on twitter.

  32. TomRude says:

    Dr. Hayhoe’s opinion and works are a non issue.

  33. george e. smith says:

    “”””””…..Particularly revealing is the beginning, where the authors bridge the cultural divide and address the stereotypes that block communication between evangelicals and the science community……”””””

    Excuse me Sir, but didn’t you just say that she (the evangel) just blocked communication with you (the scientist); are you smoking something we don’t know about yet ?

    Just think though Anthony, I’m sure you’ve been tossed out of better class joints before.

  34. Justthinkin says:

    And getting blocked by someone who doesn’t even rate a wiki page? Oh well. She can carry on being a twit on twitter.

  35. NZ Willy says:

    Peter Principle, methinks — a silly young girl who needs teammates to hide behind because in fact she’s not able to play in the big leagues.

  36. William McClenney says:

    Demogods and Religicans, et al

    ““By their deeds ye shall know them”.

    Struth

  37. george e. smith says:

    So not to attack the (non) messenger, which is bad debating form (she don’t debate). Tell us Mrs Hayhoe; how does your science side co-ordinate ancient proxies, with your evangelical Christian assertion that the earth is only 6,000 years old; or thereabouts ?

  38. daveburton says:

    49? If they were right, then one would have been enough.

  39. hro001 says:

    I received the same “treatment” a few weeks ago from IPCC-nik (and BC Green Party Deputy Leader and candidate for election to the BC Legislature, with a “passion for politics”), Andrew <climate change is a barrage of intergalactic ballistic missiles> Weaver:

    IPCC’s Andrew Weaver can’t stand the heat in his tweet kitchen.

    Now, I could be wrong, but this mode of “communication” does not strike me as being a particularly productive way to win friends and influence people (or gain their party any votes in a provincial election, for that matter).

    They’ve been whining about getting their message across ever since CG1. Who knows, perhaps Mann is the one who suggested this oh-so-brilliant “communication” technique to Weaver and Hayhoe (amongst others?!)

    Hilary Ostrov

  40. _Jim says:

    I read that as:

    By their deeds ye shall know them:Grifter“* evangelical climate hoax communicator Katharine Hayhoe

    Sorry, between the late hr, the weariness, the bleary eyes and maybe my mind reading between the li(e)nes …

    .

    * Grifter commonly refers to “a practitioner of confidence tricks”.

  41. Chad Wozniak says:

    If this Kayhoe thinks believers outsnumber skeptics, here’s a couple of [numbers] for you:

    ~ 70 hardcorers at the IPCC

    31,000+ signers of [the] Oregon Petition

    Looks like the skeptics have it about 450 to 1.

  42. A.D. Everard says:

    Let’s face it, even had she had the extra 48 at her side, she (they) would still have run away.

    You are a force to be reckoned with, Anthony. :)

  43. A.D. Everard says:

    Another point is, when they do that, when they block people or dodge debate, they are showing clearly just how uncertain they really are.

  44. cui bono says:

    Well, with that ratio, they’re going to emit a lot more carbon dioxide getting to the debate than we are. Not that it’s ever been a worry for them.

  45. Charlie says:

    That woodman guy on her twitter feed is a self-rightous twit too..

  46. Don says:

    I am disappointed in Ms. Hayhoe. It was prophesied concerning Jesus (according to the New Testament) that “a bruised stem he will not break off, and a smoldering wick he will not quench.” In other words, He would be careful to not alienate or write-off someone with even a glimmer of faith. Glibly refusing to debate even with stacked odds, and blocking people at the slightest provocation are not actions that exemplify this quality; they appear more like temerity cloaked in bravado to me. Would Jesus have run from a constructive debate or blocked Anthony? I don’t think so. But that is a pretty high standard after all.

    If anyone could begin to build bridges of understanding and respect between honest and principled “opponents” in the Climate Wars it should be Christians on both sides that lead that effort. If Hayhoe and Spencer, for example, can’t debate publicly and respectfully, it would be great if they could at least communicate regularly and meaningfully to try to understand each others’ positions and challenge each other to honestly seek truth. it seems to me that their mutual faith requires that of them.

  47. jorgekafkazar says:

    Robert Wille says: “You could take what she’s saying to mean that it takes 49 AGW “believers” to equal 1 skeptic. Sounds about right to me.”

    Freudian slip?

  48. daveburton says:

    george e. smith says, “Tell us Mrs Hayhoe; how does your science side co-ordinate ancient proxies, with your evangelical Christian assertion that the earth is only 6,000 years old; or thereabouts ?”

    George, you have some misconceptions about Evangelical Christians. AFAIK, most of us are not young-earthers. I certainly am not, and I know that Mrs. Hayhoe is not.

    You might want to check out the ASA.

  49. MikeH says:

    Anthony, I feel you’re in good company. Much like the Catholic Church in the 17th century when Galileo was found guilty of heresy when he attempted to put forth his Heliocentric theory of the earth revolving around the sun. Ms. Hayhoe has ‘excommunicated’ you from her church of CAGW. The Catholic Church did revoke its condemnation of Galileo, but that wasn’t until 1965. So don’t hold your breath waiting on her to respond.

  50. Found a 22 minute interview Katharine Hayhoe did back in January to talk about her book and a look inside her religious strategy

    What Would Jesus Do (about climate change)?
    http://www.stanford.edu/group/anthropocene/cgi-bin/wordpress/what-would-jesus-do-about-climate-change/

    4 tidbits:
    1.Her book is selling poorly, she feels it has been blacklisted by the “right wing media”
    2. A graph in her book ends 6,000 years ago.
    3. Her husband was a climate “denier”
    4. She never had to deal with the skeptic arguments herself, she says she got too mad. Her husband did the web surfing and presented her with the skeptic arguments he thought they would need to address.

    The reason for the 6,000 year graph seems to be so she doesn’t alienate any Evangelicals who might believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old. A side effect of that is she can’t use natural cycles as an argument, there aren’t any, if the Earth is only 6,000 years old! Her whole argument rests on the increase of Co2 in the last 300 years

    IMHO, She can’t debate, she has painted herself into a corner. it would cause her to make arguments that would alienate the very Evangelical audience she is attempting to “convert”.

    My one comment to her also earned me a block.
    “@KHayhoe Well since the science is settled, then I guess we can disband the IPCC, all that’s left is evangelizing the “truth” @dana1981″

  51. Jeff B. says:

    So she believes in two religions.

  52. Adam says:

    She’s absolutely correct though. The way too win an argument is to argue with people who already agree with you and bury those who do not. I heard that Stalin never lost a debate.

  53. random1618 says:

    Communication would be so much easier if the CAGW crowd wouldn’t keep forgetting the ‘/stupid’ tag at the end of their posts and tweets.

  54. Phillip Bratby says:

    I remember seeing her on a BBC propaganda programme, something like “Is our weather getting strange?” She was talking about global weirding due to climate change. She was introduced as a climate expert, but came over as a complete non-scientific numpty. The BBC loved her.

  55. Karl W. Braun says:

    Haywho?

  56. SAMURAI says:

    I’ve always loved AGW’s sycophantic meme of, “we’re the 97%”, qualified (but conveniently UNQUANTIFIED) as: 1) CO2 is a GHG (true), 2) Global temps rose in the 20th Century (true), 3) CO2 increased in the 20th Century (true), 4) manmade CO2 emission helped increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations (true) 5) manmade CO2 contributed to GW (true), 6) Climate often changes (true).

    So, under such a broad and UNQUANTIFIED criteria, pretty much everyone IS (by this silly definition) a supporter of AGW theory… But, alas, the devil is in the details….

    IF this silly definition simply added ONE quantifier, “7) and when CO2 concentrations reach 560ppm, global temperatures will UNEQUIVOCALLY increase between 2.0C and 4.5C, with the most likely increase being 3.0C”, this silly non sequitur would fall flat on its face.

    These scoundrels and useful idiots will continue to use faulty logic and bad “science” to keep their hoax going for as long as possible until missing point “(7)” is eventually shown by empirical evidence to be untenable.

    We’re into the 17th year of no warming, so this hoax’s is already 2 years past its expiry date and is starting to turn “green” and stink up the place. It won’t be long before it’s finally thrown on the trash heap of failed theories. Hopefully CAGW theory will be tossed in the trash soon before too many more people swallow the putrid mess.

  57. Richard111 says:

    Never mind what people do with science, nature certainly pays to attention. It was -2C here in Milford Haven at 06:00am today on the day before Good Friday. This is NOT normal. Crystal clear sky overhead may have something to do with. ‘Backradiation’ from CO2 seems to be absent. /sarc

  58. Ilma630 says:

    She does not represent all evangelical Christians! She should listen to Calvin Beisner at the Cornwall Alliance and http://www.resistingthegreendragon.com/

    Being a Chrustian is no measure of which side of the debate you are on. There are many who see the ‘warmist’ pseudo-science for what it is, and those who blindly accept it.

  59. Other_Andy says:

    Just interested, who are the 49?

    I have heard about the magical 97% and 98% (Depends on who you ask) but 49?
    Are those the CAGW disciples spreading the word?
    Repent, repent, the world is coming to an end unless you believe in the all powerful CO2.
    Cast out the wicked non-believers!

  60. Manfred says:

    Lions 1 Christians 0

  61. jgmccabe says:

    In my opinion, Heyhoe is a nutter; I wouldn’t want worry about it :-)

  62. pat says:

    O/T but EU is struggling to keep their CAGW money grab alive:

    [snip . . OT indeed Pat . . please repost at Tips&Notes witha link to the article rather than a cut and paste, thanks . . mod]

  63. grumpyoldmanuk says:

    Anthony, You used Ms. instead of Mrs. or Dr. to an evangelical christian who would not take her married or her academic status lightly. Such a gauche error would easily be taken as a studied insult by one who wishes to avoid sinners such as you like the plague.

  64. DirkH says:

    Shouldn’t she, as the CEO of atmosresearch, simply be able to point to the regional climate change predictions that she skillfully (one hopes) made for the clients of her firm?

    Wow, she removed herself from the webpage. Wow, can’t find her on the wikipedia anymore. Fell into a relevance hole in the NPOV, maybe?

  65. There is little to be gained from following someone who is lost.

  66. Mike Haseler says:

    At least she is famous now!

    (Who is this woman?)

  67. Manfred says:

    She’s bowing before you Mr Watts, requiring 49 proponents of CAGW to even the odds. It’s a back handed compliment if there ever was one.
    And Mr Mod, what was deemed so non-PC about the Lions / Christians football score?

  68. Les Johnson says:

    Hayhoe bumped me too. Apparently any form of debate is not allowed. But, as the saying goes, “I’ve been thrown out of better places”. Mann, Gleick, Laden, Jason Box, Lewandowsky, Cook.

    Note that I am polite, and respecful. Unfortunately, the facts and sources I quote do not respect their position. Of course, rather than admit error, or try to present aternative data, it is much easier to just delete my comments.

    Jason Box is the champ, though. When it was obvious that his position was untenable, he deleted the entire post.

    I have to admit that Shepherd (AMS) and Gavin Schmidt are much more tolerant, and respect healthy debate.

  69. DEEBEE says:

    49 to 1. Hayhoe seems to have given Math the shove-o. That would mean 98% for AGW and 2% not so. BUt I thought it was 97% to 3%. My math says that 32 and 1/3 vs 1. Several questions is Hayhoe trying to pack the panel? Second, is she offering herdelf as the fractional AGWers that we will need? And Tony are you the designated Solomon?

  70. Jacob says:

    Anthony, you gave her much undeserved publicity.

  71. mycroft says:

    Did not Nero fiddle while Rome burned,seems many Scientists continue to ignore the real world and are in a state of denial.
    Question; why are they so scared to debate! if they are so sure of the science????

  72. Streetcred says:

    Maybe the response should be to set up a piggyback twit-account for hayhoe and repeat all of her misguided rantings there … we can then make our responses however we wish … FB would be a great place to do so as well ;) Use the Obummer political spamming to our advantage. BTW, Australian socialist politicians sought Obummer guidance on this and are now using it in Australia on the social networks.

  73. Jim Pettit says:

    Hayhoe may very well have done a disservice to Mr. Watts by banning him for what appears to be a fairly benign tweet. But such a complaint would likely have far more credibility if it weren’t coming from a man whose own mods routinely delete respectful but dissenting commentary. Ya’ know?

  74. DHolliday says:

    Seriously Petit? Do you know this because your comments are being snipped? Dissent isn’t blocked from this blog. Off topic and out of the pale derogatory comments are.

    By the way, Hayhoe’s metric is 49 for and 1 against makes her a self-labled polling scientist. All those years of study. Her parents would be so proud.

  75. chinook says:

    Awww, poor Ms. Hayhoe can’t take the heat and now only allows fellow sanctimonious, arrogant ideologues to playcomment in or follow her little echo chamber. The lady has over-cooked her cosmic, climate eggs and they’ve all cracked. Now, she has to tune out everyone but her sycophantic followers. It’s ironic and must really tick her off that her beloved Goddess Gaia is now a skeptic too! “No more warming for you, My Pretty!”

  76. pinroot says:

    I got blocked by Mann for questioning his statement that “>100% of the observed warming is caused by GHG’s”. Hockey stick math at its finest. All of these folks are extremely thin-skinned, and apparently think that anything other than sycophantic adoration is an attack. Metaphorically hiding their heads in the sand by blocking people doesn’t make the skeptics and their legitimate questions go away.

  77. wwschmidt says:

    they don’t delete respectful but dissenting commentary – I have seen plenty of that in every thread. Just look at your comment, right there.

  78. lurker passing through, laughing says:

    The small number of academics who claim to be theist or conservative often behave more like trained animals in a circus than serious theists or conservatives or-whatever that is not common among academics.
    Hayhoe does not seem to be able to practice what she preaches. That said, I would have drawn her out more. The idea, even tongue in cheek, that it takes 49 climate scientists to debate one skeptic is quite telling. More fun would have been had drawing her out on that concept. Pointing out the obvious, that she, like most AGW hypesters, is very thin skinned is too quick.

  79. Steve from Rockwood says:

    It has been proven empirically that the power of 49 dim bulbs is less than one Watt.

  80. Pointman says:

    @FergalR

    “La, la, la. I can’t hear you, I’m not listening.” And they have the temerity to call us deniers …

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/la-la-la-i-cant-hear-you-im-not-listening/

    Pointman

  81. M Courtney says:

    I would like to second the idea that religious belief (Christian or otherwise) is not a determinant of ones belief in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

    I am a Christian and yet can distinguish between emipirical evidence and idealist models.
    Indeed, my studying of my religion has helped me distuinguish beteween areas suited to faith or doubt and areas suited to reasonable probability or unreasonable credulity.
    Not that religious belief is a pre-requisite for such an understanding, yet it helps me.

    Cardinal Newman had a lot to say about the matter of reasons for belief.
    And Lord Monckton has a lot to say about the matter of reasons for disbelief in cAGW while maintaining his, quite reasonable in my opinion, religious belief.

  82. wws says:

    I actually feel a great deal of pity for Christians like Hayhoe who are desperate for approval and acceptance from the left. They can’t bear the hard fact that the social set they long to be part of despises their faith and thinks they are idiots; so in strange variation of Stockholm Syndrome they find some issue they can pander to which will cause those who despise them to treat them civilly for brief periods of time.

    That’s why they have such a tenuous grasp on the science and are so desperately responsive to social cues. (like the twitter feed) For those like the Hayhoe’s almost more than all the others, it’s all about being able to sit at the “Cool Table” in the high school cafeteria. And they fuel their passion with the desperation of those who have always been excluded up until now.

  83. ActonGuy says:

    I like her statement that “what most of us don’t realize is that, over the course of human civilization, the temperature of the earth has been mostly as stable as the temperature of our human bodies”

    Gee – I guess the little ice age was just a degree or so cooler than this rock-solid stable-for millenia room temperature average that the Earth has *actually* been at… /sarc

  84. Steve Keohane says:

    Steve from Rockwood says:March 28, 2013 at 4:47 am

    Thank you, I didn’t have to say it.

  85. JohnWho says:

    ClimateBites – “A Climate For Change” Katharine Hayhoe

    address the stereotypes that block communication between evangelicals and the science community.

    Hmm… Hey Hayhoe –

    we have met those stereotypes,

    and they are you.

  86. William Astley says:

    The number of people stating something does make it correct. Science is the comparison of theories to data to select between alternatives.

    It is obvious why there are no climategate type climate scientists that will debated the extreme AWG theory Vs Current observations and recently published analysis. Observations and analysis do not support the extreme AWG theory. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 (from 0.028 % to 0.056%) which will occur in roughly a 100 years based on business as usual projections will result in roughly 1C warming worst case estimate (i.e. Ignoring how the current abrupt change to the solar magnetic cycle will affect planetary temperature.)

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html

    Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it
    – The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
    – This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996

    http://mises.org/daily/5892
    Ocean Temperatures (William: Ocean temperatures are not rising which indicates global warming has stopped.)
    The oceans hold the vast bulk of the heat in the climate system. We’ve only been measuring ocean temperature properly since mid-2003, when the Argo system became operational.[9][10] In Argo, a buoy duck dives down to a depth of 2,000 meters, measures temperatures as it very slowly ascends, then radios the results back to headquarters via satellite. Over 3,000 Argo buoys constantly patrol all the oceans of the world. The ocean temperature has been basically flat since we started measuring it properly, and not warming as quickly as the climate models predict.

    Atmospheric Hotspot (William: Extreme AWG theory predicts there will be a hotstop in the atmosphere in the tropics. There is no observed hotspot in the tropics. That observation disproves the extreme AWG theory. The extreme AGW theory requires increased water vapour in the tropical atmosphere to amplify the CO2 forcing. If there is no amplification a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in roughly 1C global warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes which cause the biosphere to expand. Lindzen and Choi found that water vapour in the tropics rather than amplify CO2 creates an increase in clouds which reflects more sunlight off into space which resists (negative feedback) rather than amplifies (positive feedback) the CO2 forcing.)

    The climate models predict a particular pattern of atmospheric warming during periods of global warming; the most prominent change they predict is a warming in the tropics about 10 km up, the “hotspot.”

    The hotspot is the sign of the amplification in their theory (see figure 1). The theory says the hotspot is caused by extra evaporation, and by extra water vapor pushing the warmer, wetter lower troposphere up into volume previously occupied by cool dry air. The presence of a hotspot would indicate amplification is occurring, and vice versa.

    We have been measuring atmospheric temperatures with weather balloons since the 1960s. Millions of weather balloons have built up a good picture of atmospheric temperatures over the last few decades, including the warming period from the late 1970s to the late ’90s. This important and pivotal data was not released publicly by the climate establishment until 2006, and then in an obscure place.[13] Here it is:”
    William: The above observations support Lindzen and Choi’s below analysis that compares satellite top of the atmosphere radiation measurements (which determine by wavelength whether the radiation is long wave (reflected heat from the atmosphere) or short wave (sunlight reflected from clouds) vs changes in planetary ocean temperature. Their finding is the planet resists climate forcing changes by increasing or decreasing clouds in the tropics which reflects more or less sunlight off into space. Lindzin and Choi’s finding disproves the extreme AGW theory which requires amplification (positive feedback).

    http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf
    “On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
    Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2

    We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000- 2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. The present analysis accounts for the 72 day precession period for the ERBE satellite in a more appropriate manner than in the earlier paper. We develop a method to distinguish noise in the outgoing radiation as well as radiation changes that are forcing SST changes from those radiation changes that constitute feedbacks to changes in SST. …. ….We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. ….

    …The heart of the global warming issue is so-called greenhouse warming. This refers to the fact that the earth balances the heat received from the sun (mostly in the visible spectrum) by radiating in the infrared portion of the spectrum back to space. Gases that are relatively transparent to visible light but strongly absorbent in the infrared (greenhouse gases) interfere with the cooling of the planet, forcing it to become warmer in order to emit sufficient infrared radiation to balance the net incoming sunlight (Lindzen, 1999). By net incoming sunlight, we mean that portion of the sun’s radiation that is not reflected back to space by clouds, aerosols and the earth’s surface. CO2, a relatively minor greenhouse gas, has increased significantly since the beginning of the industrial age from about 280 ppmv to about 390 ppmv, presumably due mostly to man’s emissions. This is the focus of current concerns. However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. Cloud feedbacks are still considered to be highly uncertain (IPCC, 2007), but the fact that these feedbacks are strongly positive in most models is considered to be an indication that the result is basically correct. Methodologically, this is unsatisfactory. Ideally, one would seek an observational test of the issue. Here we suggest that it may be possible to test the issue with existing data from satellites.”

  87. catweazle666 says:

    I think the immortal words of David Cameron, “how many Twits make a Twat” are relevant in Ms. Hayhoe’s case.

  88. Gail Combs says:

    Day By Day says:
    March 27, 2013 at 8:51 pm

    nicholasmjames says:
    A better reply… “It takes only one Mr. Watts to defeat 49 climate alarmists.”

    Not quite–she is saying that Watts can take on 48 but at 49 plus–they may out-stomp him. But I say he can take on the whole dang consensus–what was that? 73 “scientists?”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Actually if she is thinking the ratio has to be 49 Warmists to every one skeptic, the blog awards just showed we have her WAY out numbered. Or look at the 97% Consensus Poll conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. After polling 10,257 earth scientists, they then had to manipulate the results to reach a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The pithy and sometimes hilarious comments from the polled scientists show just how far off from a real ‘Consensus’ Climastrology really is. Among my favorites are:

    “..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”

    A very clear statement of science and this gut buster

    “..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..”

    Original comments taken from the e-book The consensus on the consensus
    …..

    It would seem the actual consensus among scientists is not solidly on the side of CAGW. Poll after poll of the general public comes up with things like

    Support for climate change action drops, Stanford poll finds: global warming on the outs, distrust of climate scientists cited. 2012

    Gallup poll: Global Warming dead last again 2012

    Rasmussen poll: 69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research 2011

    Pew Poll: Belief in global warming as a serious problem continues to decline 2010

    Climate alarmism in Britain: “…the poll figures are going through the floor.” 2010

    UK Science Museum Poll: More work needs to be done to convince people of the reality of human-induced climate change and of the urgency with which we must agree an international solution. 2009

    Sure looks like after governments have spend hundreds of billions a year supporting Big Green and the MSM owned by the banking industry drowns the public in ‘Consensus Science’ after demands by activists, BP (oil), the insurance industry and government they STILL can not convince the public black is white so they now are turning to religion. (Claire Foster of the Church of England was one of the “BBC 28″ along with Trevor Evans of the US Embassy. What was missing was any skeptic scientists or much of a science voice at all.)

  89. Gail Combs says:

    Someone needs to clue Ms Hayhoe in that she is supporting the same people who tossed the Lord’s Prayer out of US schools, support abortion and even sterilization (Julian Huxley, Eugenics and UNESCO) and are insisting on placing ‘the Mark of the Beast’ on our livestock, (WTO/UN -traceability) Amish sue US government for ‘mark of the Beast’ on livestock

    I would do it but I am not on Twitter or Facebook and I have no intentions of registering.

  90. thelastdemocrat says:

    Gail cotes said, “49 to 1 odds? she sure doesn’t think much of the Climastrologists expertise does she?
    I would recommend she read The First Book of Samuel – Chapter 17 (New International Version – NIV)”

    classic! pwned.

    also, Genesis 11:4 applies broadly to the “progressive” agenda.

    I will purchase this book to see how scripture is twisted to put man on top of a tower so he can have the commanding view of God, what with population control and geo-engineering and the other fashionable topics of the intellctual class.

  91. Ilma says:

    wws, it should be said that only some Christians believe in the Global Warming ‘conjecture’ (a great word used last night at the GWPF hosted “Global Warming A History” book launch in London). There are a great many like myself who give science the respect it deserves and reject unfounded avocacy. In the US, check out the Cornwall Alliance (Calvin Beisner) who have published a series called “Resisting the Green Dragon”.

    Many Christians understand that the objectives of the green/environmentalist movement as expressed through their climate change agenda are specifically anti-Christian, as they are anti-human, describing man as a cancer on Earth. Many Christians also understand the policies put in place by politicians to “combat climate change” are highly damaging to people, pushing them into (fuel) poverty, create social injustice (e.g. renewables subsidies imposing the enforced transfer of money from poor to rich), and deny them the development we have enjoyed and improved out lives so much, etc.

    Hayhoe is basically completely misguided!

  92. Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
    I’m not sure any of my Christian fundamentalist friends would consider me fundamentalist now-days, and I cannot even consider myself evangelical any more, even though I do still desire and pray for all to know the peace of Christ. With these actions of Ms. Hayhoe, I must point out that we know a tree by its fruit. As a follower of Jesus, my prime directive is to love my neighbor as myself. I don’t think I can ban someone because I don’t like them. That is not love. That is not self-sacrificing, nor long suffering. (Restricting comments of disruptive commenters is simply needful housekeeping.) We cannot discuss if we block each other. We cannot learn if we refuse to consider each other’s positions. And, facts are facts. Nature will have (and is having) the last word. Besides, cold kills. Warmer is better.

  93. beng says:

    Hayhoe, away she goes (being lighter than air).

  94. Greg Goodman says:

    I’m sure her years of experience as an evangelical christian will be valuable assets in her role as an evangelical warmist.

    Knowing that you are right because God made you smart and put you on His earth to save His creation must be a tower of strength when combating the forces of evil on your own little corner of twit-space.

    The “if you don’t want to agree with me you can get out of my house now” argument is a killer.

    Every man is king whilst sat in his comfy chair in from of the telly.

  95. Gail Combs says:

    MrX says: @ March 27, 2013 at 7:55 pm
    …Climate change was brought into the vernacular by George W. Bush. Not a big fan, but when he said it in a speech, liberals were furious at him trying to redefine the conversation. Now, the pro-AGW crowd are singing Bush’s tune. It’s quite ironic.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Actually it is a big clue that the Them vs Us has always been the Regulating Class vs Tax Payers. Rassmusen even gos so far as to call them the Political Class and poll them separately. For example: 67% of Political Class Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction, 84% of Mainstream Disagrees

    Some people are FINALLY getting clued in that politics is just a big dog and pony show to convince the masses they had a voice in government. This article shows just how much manipulation occurs behind the scenes link A plan was made by the Political Class in 1945 and we are just now going to see the final results in the coming decade or so. link

  96. thelastdemocrat says:

    FWIW: Christian views on the timeline of the planet, and of humanity, vary greatly. The 6,000 number was a calculation done by one guy. This is not in scripture. However, for the most part, Christian view will be on the short side, versus deep time.

    Deep time has an intellectual history. There are things we “progressives” believe, and we bump aloong favoring data and arguments that support our beliefs, and we discount data and beliefs that do not jibe.

    Darwin’s elucidation of a physiological process to account for the diversity of species was welcome since it meant we progressives could finally deal a science-y blow to the Intelligent Design crowd. Up to that point, we believed in a physical universe without God, but we just needed a theory and a complement of facts for it.

    Watson and Crick are also highly favored by us for solidifying the view we already held before Darwin.
    We have always believed man is a scourge on the planet, we have always believed in population control, and have always believed we should try to control the weather.

    In the earlier days of the survivial of the fittest beliefs and the genetic argument, valid criticisms of natural selection led to the necessity of a very old earth. And, in a process not unlike the CAGW process, when the status quo wanted studies and data and theories saying deep time was the answer, lo and behold a bunch of smart people came up with theories and evidence.

    This was the only way to make evolutionary theory plausible. If the age of the earth is 4 billion years, and the age of the human species is half a million years, it was the neeed to support the evolutionary theory of origin of species that led to the discovery of deep time.

  97. Caleb says:

    Actually, to arrive at the 97% figure, she should ask for odds of 47.5 to one.

    Who is going to play the part of being .5? Half a debater?

    It is a rough job, but someone has to do it. So she took the job.

  98. Could this be the same Katharine Hayhoe who claimed

    “What we’ve actually seen, at least in West Texas, is an increase primarily in winter temperatures. Our very cold days are getting less frequent and our winter temperatures are increasing in nearly every station we look at across Texas ”.

    when the trend in Texas winter temperatures is increasing at the startling rate of 0.0000C/decade?

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/what-climate-change-katharine/

    Surely not!

  99. KnockJohn says:

    I think her 49 v 1 is some warped reasonng statement wishig to have equal representation based on the M Zimmermann MSc thesis often spoken and blown apart here: After all 49:1 is ~ 97%

  100. Annie says:

    Well, I’m a Christian and she ain’t speaking for me…

  101. Tom Stone says:

    If I was a woman with the last name of Hayhoe, I’d develop a thick skin.

  102. Tony Berry says:

    What’s new! The Christian church spent nearly 1000 years successfully controlling the message. It was only from the beginning of the age of Enlightenment that things started to change and scientific method began to challenge the orthodoxy. Nothing changes it seems!

    Tony Berry

  103. Jeff Alberts says:

    KevinK says:
    March 27, 2013 at 7:48 pm

    Twitter, is that a communication medium for twits only ?

    I’ve never tweeted, or twitted, or whatever the appropriate lexicon is.

    You have it exactly right. It’s for twits, and “twitted” is the correct (though not sanctioned) terminology.

  104. Kon Dealer says:

    The words “arrogant”, “condescending” and “prat” spring to mind to describe this affront to science that is Katharine Hayhoe.

  105. owenkellogg says:

    I don’t get how needing 49-1 in favor is smug. Sounds like she’s afraid it takes that many hoaxers to shout down the one reasoned voice in the room. Mindbogglingly terrified o the truth seems more like it.

  106. Gary says:

    Anthony, she was wrong to block you, but I sense a tiny bit of provocation in your tweet. Perhaps you could have worded it as a question: “Did she really mean to sound flippant and condescending?” If she now regrets it, then she could apologize. Human nature, however, reacts to perceived attacks without much thinking . Not to excuse her actions in any way, especially from someone who should have more self-control, but we sometimes try to be cute and end up making a mess and pride prevents us from admitting it.

    FWIW, I consider Twitter to be a conduit for gossip and idle chatter — both are activities proscribed by Christian Scriptures — so I don’t participate. Maybe unprofitable things should put away so that we can stick to the real issues.

  107. Bill_W says:

    Oh, so Ms. Hayhoe has 2 gods. One up in heaven and another for here on earth. No wonder she’s confused.

  108. DesertYote says:

    MikeH says:
    March 27, 2013 at 11:16 pm
    ###

    You need to abandon that Marxist misrepresentation of history and learn what really happened to Galileo.

  109. DesertYote says:

    Tony Berry
    March 28, 2013 at 7:33 am
    ###

    The Enlightenment was a direct consequence of Christian thought. Stop relying on the Marxist twisted non-sense you learned in school and learn some real history!

  110. a dood says:

    Steve from Rockwood says:
    March 28, 2013 at 4:47 am
    It has been proven empirically that the power of 49 dim bulbs is less than one Watt.

    Ouch!! :D

  111. M Simon says:

    Hay she has a very tough row to hoe.

    I am amused.

    And for those of you thinking of the vernacular. Don’t even go there. It wouldn’t be nice.

  112. mom2girls says:

    Ok. I’ll take those odds. If the one is Monckton.

  113. M Simon says:

    thelastdemocrat,

    Uranium decay and lead isotope ratios.

  114. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    Let’s explore a little logic here….Dr. Hayhoe supports the IPCC, and Pachuri writes soft-core porn….therefore, uh…..

    Leave religion out of it, please, Dr. Hayhoe. We all have our beliefs. My own scientific thoughts often run counter to both pro and anti-CAGW camps for several reasons, but I don’t insult anyone on the web.

    Also, the wisecrack about H.pylori was rather smarmy, Anthony. http://webmd.com/digestive-disorders/h-pylori-helicobacter-pylori

    You are in better company with your regular contributors, Mr. Watts.
    Carry on, Charles the DrPH

  115. DesertYote says:

    Hayhoe is just on of a species of tools/useful idiots who’s job is to corral Christians by promoting through the use of twisted logic and lies, beliefs that though seem Biblical, are not. This is done to cause Christians to wast their efforts to defending undefensible ground, to isolate Christians to make them easier targets of ridicule, and to mold them into a tool to promote the lefts anti-human agenda.

    Whole organizations are devoted to this task such as the Institute for Creation Research. While these groups have a patina of Christianity, it does not take much digging to reveal that the are very antichristian. They have always existed and will continue to exist. The Bible warns against them. Some people think that these people are what are Biblically called Nicolaotians.

    Christians are taught to be gentle as lambs, but also to be as wise as serpents. There is a very good reason for this!

  116. Anthony,
    I think your comment was humorless and pointless and you let yourself down with your tweet and this thread. Clearly she got the ratio about right and didn’t strike me as condescendingly smug. One skeptic is at least the equal of 49 warmists. It would be cruel and a bit abusive to expect fewer than 49 of them to match one well informed skeptic in a debate.

  117. Richard M says:

    There’s a common reaction that we all have in circumstances that make us uncomfortable. We try to avoid them. That’s why overweight people don’t often hang out with thin people. It’s why people of differing political persuasions don’t hang out together.

    So, we can garner from Hayhoe’s actions that skeptics make her uncomfortable. Now, why would that be the case? If an alarmist was confident of their position they would welcome the chance to “educate” the skeptic. Instead, she shrinks away to avoid what she realizes at some level will not work out too well for her.

    In addition, the mention of consensus is also quite telling. It’s really all she has left. She has no evidence to support her position so she takes a socially comfortable position instead. I’d advise her to never play poker. Her “tells” are quite informative.

  118. BillD says:

    One question raised in this posting is “why would Hayhoe, a Christian evangelical, believe in climate sciience?” The answer is pretting obvious–she is trained as a scientist and works as a scientist, so she believes in science. Scientists as a group also tend to shy away from arguments called “debates.” Instead, they prefer to back up their conclusions with published science. They also appreciate checking out the citations given by someone who crtiques there work and conclusions. Unfortunately, you cannot check the sources and the validity of those sources given by your oppnent in a debate. I think that is what she means when she says that a debate needs to be based on hard evidence.

  119. _Jim says:

    Gail Combs says March 28, 2013 at 6:06 am

    (Julian Huxley, Eugenics and UNESCO) and are insisting on placing ‘the Mark of the Beast’ on our livestock,

    Funny; our ‘beasts’ are beasts. *

    You should read your own posts before posting sometime, Gail.

    But then again, moments like this would not exist! Thank you for the comic relief.

    .

    * Common def, beast (plural beasts)
    1. Any animal other than a human; usually only applied to land vertebrates. Especially large or dangerous four-footed ones
    2. (more specific) A domestic animal, especially a bovine farm animal.
    .

  120. Rob Crawford says:

    “The answer is pretting obvious–she is trained as a scientist and works as a scientist, so she believes in science.”

    And yet she’s a Warmist…

  121. Zeke says:

    WUWT did the right thing, and that is to communicate the problem personally with the individual who has done something wrong. If the person listens, you have gained a brother. If not, then you try to get a few other witnesses. If there is still a refusal to listen to you or to acknowledge the wrongdoing, then you let the person go, and never think of it again. The law of liberty provides every person with choice, and having made the choice, to have the consequences for that action.

    Individual liberty is foundational to the Old and New Testament. There was a tree in Eden which allowed a way to leave the perfect existence there; and the prodigal son was allowed to take his inheritance and leave to the “far country.” The father in the parable never refused or forbade the son’s decision to walk out the door, or throw away the relationship, and waste the spiritual wealth that had been his. The law of liberty is perfect. And all of us have misused our liberty at times.

  122. RACookPE1978 says:

    BillD says:
    March 28, 2013 at 9:46 am

    One question raised in this posting is “why would Hayhoe, a Christian evangelical, believe in climate sciience?” The answer is pretting obvious–she is trained as a scientist and works as a scientist, so she believes in science. Scientists as a group also tend to shy away from arguments called “debates.” Instead, they prefer to back up their conclusions with published science.

    Odd. So, just what “facts” is she going to be able to call on to support HER “faith” and “belief” in the so-called scientists who are proclaiming CAGW theism, and by their words – are calling for the early death of millions, and the condemnation of billions to a life of squalor and poverty and disease BECAUSE she is demanding Christians accept HER “belief” and HER dogma – despite the evidence! – her creed of CAGW?

    Of, by the way, how much money is she making with her “faith” in CAGW?

  123. DaveG says:

    It only takes one to prove a mind set or a bad theory is wronge – History is jammed packed with evidence of this!

  124. John Whitman says:

    Katharine Hayhoe tweets: “@th3Derek @afreedma @ClimateOfGavin I don’t debate unless there’s equal representation (49 pro-climate chg scientists vs 1 against)”

    How many independent critical scientific thinkers (aka skeptics) does it take to debate with 49 “pro-climate chg scientists”?

    It takes only one skeptical scientist to debate 49 non-skeptical scientists, according to Katharine Hayhoe (director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University).

    She has an alarming low opinion of non-skeptical scientists / “pro-climate chg scientists”.

    On another thought = > Katharine Hayhoe gives us the juxtaposition of religion with climate science. Yet religion per se is irrelevant to science per se; both metaphysically and epistemologically. And where religion is used in the scientific dialog it then it is no longer a scientific dialog . . . . it is religious. My view of religion is that it exhibits profound faith in supernaturalism / superstitionism / worshiping imaginary entities.

    John

  125. john robertson says:

    Wegman said there was roughly 50 key people in the statistically impaired crew. One man defeated them.
    The weakness of the team must be apparent even to the faithful, explains this 49:1 blurt.
    Panic, richly deserved panic ,fear and self loathing.
    After all the abuse from these righteous morons, I wish them only the best of all 3.

  126. Ben Wilson says:

    Hmmm. . . .I think someone must have hijacked Dr. Hayhoe’s twitter account — possibly the same miscreant who caused such havoc with Anthony Weiner’s account. Witness what the good doctor claimed in a interview with the prestigious Los Angeles Times a couple of years ago:

    http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/07/nation/la-na-evangelical-warming-20111207 :

    “Most climatologists refuse to answer skeptics, preferring to let the research speak for itself. Hayhoe is one of a small but growing number of scientists willing to engage climate change doubters face to face. Unlike most of her colleagues, she is driven as much by the tenets of her faith as the urgency of the science.”

    It is interesting to notice that Dr. Hayhoe is a pastor’s wife; her husband, Dr. Andrew Farley, pastors Ecclesia Church in Lubbock:

    http://www.churchwithoutreligion.com/home

    In case you’re wondering, “Ecclesia” comes from the original Greek word that was translated “Church”.

    Given her position as a pastor’s wife and Christian evangelist, I wonder if like her friend and colleague Dr. Michael Mann, she refuses to debate with “Creationists”??

  127. DirkH says:

    Tony Berry says:
    March 28, 2013 at 7:33 am
    “What’s new! The Christian church spent nearly 1000 years successfully controlling the message. It was only from the beginning of the age of Enlightenment that things started to change and scientific method began to challenge the orthodoxy. ”

    William of Occam and Albertus Magnus were monks.
    You don’t know history.

  128. Gail Combs says:

    _Jim says: @ March 28, 2013 at 10:04 am
    …..

    Funny; our ‘beasts’ are beasts. *

    You should read your own posts before posting sometime, Gail.

    But then again, moments like this would not exist! Thank you for the comic relief.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    _Jim your ignorance is showing again but thanks for taking the bait like I knew you would. You really are getting rather to be laughable in your predictability.

    I am NOT a Christian BTW, but I do know that among some Christians NAIS (the US version of the UN/World Trade Organizations ‘traceability’ programs) is seen as the “Mark of the Beast” and this is a real concern.

    The mark of the beast is the sign of the Antichrist, and is mentioned in Revelation 13:15-18:

    “The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.”

    It seems there are as many interpretations of this passage as there are Christian denominations. Some believe these verses refer to a tattoo, a brand, or even a microchip implant….

    Recently, many claim that the implant of medical or financial electronic ID chips are the mark of the beast. Others point to credit or debit cards. While those items may be an indication of what is to come, Bible scholars agree that the mark of the beast will be a recognizable sign of those who have voluntarily chosen to follow the Antichrist….

    Hayhoe claims to be a Christian and so her support of the same organization that is cramming this unwanted traceability program down the throats of American farmers especially the Amish has special significance to Christians.

    To finish the above quote

    …Recently, many claim that the implant of medical or financial electronic ID chips are the mark of the beast. Others point to credit or debit cards. While those items may be an indication of what is to come, Bible scholars agree that the mark of the beast will be a recognizable sign of those who have voluntarily chosen to follow the Antichrist.

    In other words I just delivered the nastiest slap one can to a practicing Christian by saying she has voluntarily chosen to follow the Antichrist. This is why I suggested someone point out that she is supporting those who are implementing the mark of the beast, the UN, World Bank and the WTO.

  129. Gail Combs says:

    forgot link Mark of the Beast (You would thin _Jim would be capable of a search before shooting himself in the foot.

  130. Zeke says:

    The writings of Aristotle and Plato were the educational and scientific standard of knowledge during those 1,000 years. The Celestial Spheres model of the solar system and stars were Aristotle’s paradigm, and Plato was a totalitarian who believed that the lower classes simply should not have the things that the upper classes have. He believed that eugenics should be applied to the lower classes and the upper classes should not have any inequality of wealth between them, or they would not be united sufficiently to maintain the order. The goal of the state should be to maintain a perfect static society, which above all prevents change. Does this sound familiar?

  131. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..daveburton says:

    March 27, 2013 at 10:53 pm

    george e. smith says, “Tell us Mrs Hayhoe; how does your science side co-ordinate ancient proxies, with your evangelical Christian assertion that the earth is only 6,000 years old; or thereabouts ?”

    George, you have some misconceptions about Evangelical Christians. AFAIK, most of us are not young-earthers. I certainly am not, and I know that Mrs. Hayhoe is not……”””””

    Well Dave, I have NO conceptions about evangelical Christians, or any other group of people. I only form opinions of individuals. I’ll take your word for it, that most eCs are not young earthers.

    The public utterances of young earthers, stand out from the lack of public utterances by most persons.
    I’m sure Evangelical Christians are no alone in holding varying beliefs.

    Nancy Pelosi for example is a very publicly declared Catholic, except she publicly adheres to essentially none of the Tenets of that somewhat strict religious group..

    So I simply asked Mrs Hayhoe a question. She doesn’t need to feed my curiosity if she doesn’t care to.

    I think you can say, that most persons do not believe what some persons believe.

  132. Zeke says:

    Perhaps it would be interesting for non-Christians and non-Jews to know about an alternative view to the 6,000- year-old earth theory. The Gap Theory holds that between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 there is a period of unknown duration. “[1] In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [2] And the earth became without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep.”

    This is meant to inform of the various views held by people who read Genesis. The important point is that the original text is available and people are free to interpret it as best they can. It is an analogue to preservation and availability of original data in science.

    And Catastrophism is a very “big tent” as well – it is hardly a monolithic culture. Catastrophists can include most native people and their curious and amazing legends, Christians, Jews, and Velikovsky lovers.

  133. w.w.wygart says:

    HayWho???

    I’m not sure ‘condescending’ or ‘smug’ were the right expressions: ‘insecure’ and ‘frightened’ seem somehow more apropos to me.

    W^3

  134. _Jim says:

    Gail Combs says March 28, 2013 at 2:07 pm

    _Jim your ignorance is showing again but thanks for taking the bait like I knew you would. You really are getting rather to be laughable in your predictability.

    I am NOT a Christian BTW, but I do know that among some Christians NAIS …

    No, honey, you write VERY comically sometimes in your high-velocity ‘hair-on-fire’ save-the-world posting style, and sometimes, as they say, the Golden (comedy) Egg gets laid … just making light of it.

    Do you REALLY think all your posting (often from dubious sources) makes that much of a difference? Errors, unintentional departure from truth and dubious accuracy, sometimes due to gross misunderstanding of the subject matter (esp. in FINANCIAL matters) and all?

    We are in a “slow march” back to the caves of the stone age, if anything Gail, as we are beset by “THE DECLINE OF REASON” and I note that when you cite works by the likes of hucksters e.g. G. Edward Griffin …

    .

  135. dbyrd says:

    Science is a harsh mistress!

  136. Gail Combs says:

    _Jim says:
    March 28, 2013 at 8:58 pm

    You forgot to mention that I also quote the Federal Reserve, the US Congressional Committee on Banking and Currency, the testimony to the Canadian Committee on Banking and Commerce by the Governor of the Central Bank of Canada, and even (the much hated) Mises. Note that Friedrich Hayek was a disciple of Mises and also David Rockerfeller’s tutor at the London School of Economics. Rockefeller once stated in an interview that he considers himself a follower of the Austrian school of economics, as does Alan Greenspan.

    So yeah I ‘cite the works of hucksters’ and know absolute nothing even though I generally use direct quotes, unlike certain others who rarely–if ever–even bother to post a link.

    In science, measurement is important. How many feet are now in your mouth? Anyway, thanks for the compliments, even though you may not have intended them.

  137. Gail Combs says:

    Oh and _Jim you might want to take some time out from snarking at me and read the news, such as the Cyprus depositor ‘Haircut’ and the fact that Canada Includes Depositor Haircut Bail-In Provision For Systemically Important Banks in 2013 Budget!

    ECONOMIC ACTION PLAN 2013 and tabled in the House of Commons by Minster of Finance James Flaherty on March 21st

    …The Government also recognizes the need to manage the risks associated with systemically important banks—those banks whose distress or failure could cause a disruption to the financial system and, in turn, negative impacts on the economy. This requires strong prudential oversight and a robust set of options for resolving these institutions without the use of taxpayer funds, in the unlikely event that one becomes non-viable…. Pg 144

    The Government proposes to implement a bail-in regime for systemically important banks. This regime will be designed to ensure that, in the unlikely event that a systemically important bank depletes its capital, the bank can be recapitalized and returned to viability through the very rapid conversion of certain bank liabilities into regulatory capital. This will reduce risks for taxpayers. The Government will consult stakeholders on how best to implement a bail-in regime in Canada.
    Implementation timelines will allow for a smooth transition for affected institutions, investors and other market participants… pg 145
    http://www.budget.gc.ca/2013/doc/plan/budget2013-eng.pdf

    So Yeah I am a chicken little and all those in Cyprus who just got their money confiscated are illusions….

  138. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..March 28, 2013 at 4:40 pm

    Perhaps it would be interesting for non-Christians and non-Jews to know about an alternative view to the 6,000- year-old earth theory. The Gap Theory holds that between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 there is a period of unknown duration. “[1] In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [2] And the earth became without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep.”

    This is meant to inform of the various views held by people who read Genesis. …..””””””

    And Zeke, my drawing a bow at a venture, on Mrs Hayhoe, and perhaps evangelical Chritians, was in jest, and I’m happy to apologise to her and any other e Cs, should they have found it offensive. I don’t really segregate various Christian sub groups, or align them in any order of merit, or preference. Perhaps each represents a phase or event of the human history, that resulted in fractionation, for whatever reason.
    And the Judeo-Christian divide, that occurred 2,000 years ago, seems to also correspond with the old and New Testaments of the Bible, or Torah, if you prefer. By any accounting, that most widely published of all Literature, in any language, contains much to muse about, and perhaps chuckle occasionally.
    For me personally, I consider religion to be the single greatest scourge, to ever inflict the human race. Witness the global turmoil, that threatens us all, because of these widely held and disparate beliefs systems.
    However I live (freely) in a country, where the founding framers, had the good sense to declare that “Congess shall make NO LAW, respecting the establishment of religion; NOR PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof.” America’s foundation IS based on Judeo-Christian principles (not the same as those religious beliefs), and the code of conduct and ethics to which I hold myself is most certainly derived from that heritage. My principles give me NO licence to seek to circumvent others from practicing the traditions they are comfortable with. Would that (our) governments learn the meaning of the words “no law”, and also “free exercise”

  139. Craig Moore says:

    Try a little Iron Butterfly on her and perhaps she will take you back.
    “Oh, won’t you come with me
    And take my hand
    Oh, won’t you come with me
    And walk this land
    Please take my hand”

    In a gadda da vida, honey
    Don’t you know that I’m lovin’ you
    In a gadda da vida, baby
    Don’t you know that I’ll always be true

Comments are closed.