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/
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.
they don’t delete respectful but dissenting commentary – I have seen plenty of that in every thread. Just look at your comment, right there.
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.
It has been proven empirically that the power of 49 dim bulbs is less than one Watt.
@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
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.
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.
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!
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
Steve from Rockwood says:March 28, 2013 at 4:47 am
Thank you, I didn’t have to say it.
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.
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.”
I think the immortal words of David Cameron, “how many Twits make a Twat” are relevant in Ms. Hayhoe’s case.
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:
A very clear statement of science and this gut buster
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.)
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.
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.
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.
Hayhoe, away she goes (being lighter than air).
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.
MrX says: @ur momisugly 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
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.
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.
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!
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%
Well, I’m a Christian and she ain’t speaking for me…
If I was a woman with the last name of Hayhoe, I’d develop a thick skin.