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/
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
You have it exactly right. It’s for twits, and “twitted” is the correct (though not sanctioned) terminology.
The words “arrogant”, “condescending” and “prat” spring to mind to describe this affront to science that is Katharine Hayhoe.
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.
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.
Oh, so Ms. Hayhoe has 2 gods. One up in heaven and another for here on earth. No wonder she’s confused.
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.
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!
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!! 😀
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.
Ok. I’ll take those odds. If the one is Monckton.
thelastdemocrat,
Uranium decay and lead isotope ratios.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
“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…
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.
BillD says:
March 28, 2013 at 9:46 am
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?
It only takes one to prove a mind set or a bad theory is wronge – History is jammed packed with evidence of this!
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
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.
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”??