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:
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:
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/
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 ??
@ur momisugly 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.
nicholasmjames says:
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?”
I will pray for her.
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
MEMO: If all else fails, assert Authority, be smug about it and block Anthony Watts on twitter.
Dr. Hayhoe’s opinion and works are a non issue.
“”””””…..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.
And getting blocked by someone who doesn’t even rate a wiki page? Oh well. She can carry on being a twit on twitter.
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.
Demogods and Religicans, et al
““By their deeds ye shall know them”.
Struth
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 ?
49? If they were right, then one would have been enough.
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
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”.
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.
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. 🙂
Another point is, when they do that, when they block people or dodge debate, they are showing clearly just how uncertain they really are.
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.
That woodman guy on her twitter feed is a self-rightous twit too..
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.
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?
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.
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.
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″