Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Katharine Hayhoe seems to think it is pointless to argue the science, because scientifically literate skeptics “can muster evidence to explain why they’re right, too.”.
Katharine Hayhoe Reveals Surprising Ways to Talk About Climate Change
By Katie O’Reilly
…
When it comes to climate change denialism, Hayhoe tends to defer to social scientists. “They’ve found that more education doesn’t change people’s perceptions—that in fact, the people with the highest degree of science literacy aren’t the ones who are most concerned, but rather, the most polarized. Because those people can muster evidence to explain why they’re right, too.”
Hayhoe vehemently advises against engaging with the “smokescreens” skeptics tend to offer as the reasons they couldn’t possibly agree with or act on the issue of climate change. “There’ll be no progress that way,” she insists. “It’s a lot easier for people to say, ‘I have a problem with the science’ than it is to talk about what the real problem is.”
…
But of course, some of America’s most enduring values are prosperity and security—and climate action fits squarely into both of those. I think one of the greatest disservices ever done was framing climate change as an environmental issue. Because it’s an economic issue, a public health issue, a national security issue, a humanitarian issue. It’s an issue of whatever it is that any given person already cares about. So rather than feeling like we have to instill new values into people—and if you come at it that way, people sense subliminal judgment, that you’re saying they don’t have the right values and you do—you need to enter the conversation as if the person you’re speaking with has exactly the right values they need to care about climate change; that in fact, they’re the perfect person to care and act.
…
What about when you get stuck? Say you’ve landed on shared values—you and a climate denier agree the weather has been wild, but they just insist, “Oh, it’s just part of the natural cycle.” What then?
Here’s where you pivot and move on, beyond what they disagree on, to something you both agree on. You might offer one phrase of dissent—perhaps, “According to natural cycles we should be cooling down right now, not warming.” But then, before the conversation becomes a game of whack-a-mole, change the subject. Try, “Did you know that China and India have more solar energy than any other countries in the world? I’m a little worried the U.S. is falling behind; aren’t you worried, too?” At this point you’ve moved the conversation beyond what they don’t agree on. Because whether it’s a natural cycle or not, a lot of people are worried about losing the fight in the nuclear energy field. You want to acknowledge what people have to say but not to engage.
…
Read more: https://www.ecowatch.com/katharine-hayhoe-climate-change-2550366098.html
I personally found Katharine’s interview interesting, because it shed light on a reason why leftists and climate advocates seem to hate President Trump with such venom.
Katharine’s persuasion technique in my opinion seems to rely on making people feel bad about themselves, by playing on their personal insecurities.
President Trump doesn’t play on people’s fear, he engages people’s hope. People who believe in themselves, who believe they have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, have the confidence to make up their own minds, rather than simply accepting what they are told. They are harder to manipulate.
Can we please skip nonsense from this charlatan?
Exposing the tactics of the alarmist camp is the first step in defeating those tactics.
Please let her keep going. She’s doing a great job as the voice of the idiots.
With her literally trying to walk simpletons through it, the tactics are bared for all to see and can easily be demonstrated step-by-step or line-by-line to be brainwashing tactics. Someone doesn’t need to understand any of the science, just compare the skeptic argument with her argument above and have the person go through this checklist:
http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm
If it looks like a cult, swims like a cult, and quacks like a cult, then it’s probably a cult.
well…at least she admitted talking the science doesn’t work
Check out who the sponsors were for the recent Alberta climate event? As long as there are sponsors these kinds of events will continue.
Take a good look at Hayhoe’s smug appearance above, and consider Hayhoe’s patronizing condescending and very demeaning words.
That combination surely scares off droves of alert people.
Yes please. She’s a world class idiot. Is it really very surprising that China and India, two countries with very little oil or gas, would try to minimize their imports and sustain their own solar industry a little? And it’s very little compared with the coal plants they are building. Mostly virtue signalling on the international stage.
And the ability to undercut the costs of manufacture of western nations so they can sell them to suckers who mandate their use and subsidize their cost.
She has been willing to engage with skeptics. She has learned a very important lesson.
That cuts both ways. It applies to the alarmists and the skeptics. It applies to experts generally.
She also observes:
It isn’t an original idea but it is mostly true. You can make a pretty good guess about someone’s stance on CAGW if you know whether they’re Republican or Democrat. We’ve known that for a long time.
Most of what passes for rational thought is confabulation. The alarmists have their own reasons for wanting to believe in CAGW. What they need is the humility to realize that they are just as likely to confabulate as the skeptics. At that point, an intelligent conversation can begin. IMHO, Katharine Hayhoe isn’t far from that insight. All she has to do is realize that what she’s saying also applies to herself.
I agree. Some commenters here would rather regard Hayhoe as a sort of stealth brainwashing conspirator. Not much of a chance of an intelligent conversation if someone’s words can’t be taken at face value.
She is currently an associate professor and director of the Climate Science Center in the political science department at Texas Tech University, Yet she has a B.Sc. in Physics from the University of Toronto and an M.S. and Ph.D. in Atmospheric Science from the University of Illinois.
Something doesnt add up – A BS,.MS and PHd in the hard sciences, but is currently a professor in the political science department
It’s like an ODE that requires an integrating factor solve. Add Female Affirmative Action as the integrating factor and the equation balances nicely.
The Obamas tried to make it a national security issue. That was a hard sell given the dire nature of the threats we face: North Korea, Iran, China, Russia, Isis.
Yes, we must be careful of those perfidious Persians, and their Flying Rugs…
You mean their hundred kiloton flying rugs?
F. Leghorn +10!
Persians don’t have nuclear weapons. And Israelis don’t have flying rugs.
Leftists do spend an inordinate amount of time trying to rationalise why people don’t buy into their little delusions. One wonders what would happen if the supply of tame social scientists was removed, and they had to go cold turkey in the real world.
They know they can’t win on the science and in fact have lost. So now they want to try mind games based on other types of lies.
My god, how could anyone confuse such utter nonsense with science ?
Step one is to make sure that individuals have no knowledge of what real science is.
Fighting against the effort to require public disclosure of scientific data and studies would appear to be in lock step with that goal (see all the indignation about that on another recent post here).
That is one of the reasons why the whole “post modern” movement was invented. It avoids having to confront any real science in a meaningful way because your feelings have now become more important than objective facts.
“how could anyone confuse such utter nonsense with science”
Spend a few minutes watching CNN, sadly there are people that will swallow anything said as true. Critical thinking and common sense have become a Superpower. (“Fully semi-automatic” is my favorite CNN twist)
CNN is the Mouth of Sauron, speaking for the Deep State. It’s been going on since the 1960s. Look up “Operation Mockingbird”. CNN is a tool.
CNN wasn’t created till the 1980’s.
I want to send her a post card saying, “Stop flying on airplanes, you hypocrite.” anyone have her address?
Like Professor Lewandowsky and actor and Planetary Environment Ambassador Leonardo diCaprio, Dr Hayhoe minimizes her footprint by spending as little time on the ground as possible. What are you doing for the Earth?
Yes, high altitude carbon buttprints are a deductible against carbon footprints don’t ya know?
This should do it:
Or maybe he is flying a lot in the hope contrails cool the Earth?
I don’t know who this person is but she obviously has no capacity for logical thought.
Third rate academic with a a degree in astrophysics, a raving Christian married to an Evangelist and a career climb-it Sine-tits.
Bless!
While I agree with the first half of your comment, the last half (minus the “career climb-it Sine-tits”) is rather condescending and bigoted.
I see no reason to include the Christian references, unless you are bigoted against Christians.
I see no reason to include the tits references, unless you are bigoted against tits.
Hey Leo, I am curious. What exactly is a “raving” Christian? Does that mean she froths at the mouth? Or does she have the ‘bright shiny eyes filled with conviction’ look?
Frankly, every Christian I know, although I will admit I only know Evangelicals, is massively anti AGW.
Just sayin’
All of the above.
You have your ordinary common or garden Christian, who accepts they cant prove anything, is humble in their belief and behaves in a thoroughly socially constructive fashion.
Then you have your lesser spotted evangelical god-botherer who absolutely requires that you believe at least in an objective moral standard, and preferably a God. And calls you a bigot when you criticise them.
If the latter sort lose faith, they can’t lose the morel compass,. and they become raving Liberals. Its all about virtue signalling versus quiet faith.
And then there is the blue throated creationist, who in a daring application of Occam’s principle actually maintains that a Supernatural act of creation 6000 years ago in which everything – fossils and timelines and all – was created by a superbeing out of a twisted desire to see if people would disregard the evidence of their own eyes, and instead take the writings in a Book as the One True Source of knowledge to be trusted, is a simpler explanation!. Never mind alternative universes quark and big bangs. God explains it all much easier.
Only trouble is the God hypothesis produces no testable predictions, so we get stuck with quarks instead.
As a connoisseur of arcane world views, (I have studied many weirder than that) I have a sneaking regard for creationism. It gives the same answers as science (rational materialism) ,
I have no time for the bigoted god-botherers though. Whether they wear a suit and tie or a djellaba. They are irrational which is OK, provided you dont mess with a rational discipline like science.
Oh, great thanks Leo. You unflinchingly exposed yourself. I like that in a person. Wouldn’t want to control ones impulses in regards to those “god-botherers”, now would we.
Frankly, I rather enjoy your forthrightness. It is so passé in this politically correct world of ours.
I also am a connoisseur of arcane world views. Such strange oddities one can find on blogs like this.
“Only trouble is the God hypothesis produces no testable predictions”.
Actually, it does produce a fountain of predictions. If you know anything of Jesus, Jews and the re-establishment of the Jewish temple and land, then that, and those prophesies can be tested.
ALLEN,
not necessarily bigoted against. maybe just biased (one way or the other). let those that don’t have some kind of a tit bias through the first stone.
I heard she was second cousin to Chicken Little. Any truth to that??
That must have gotten a little twisted up in the rumor mill … it seems more likely that it’s her parents that are second cousins, to each other.
Logical thought? Logic is racist, just like mathematics. That leaves a plenty of room for an exciting, informed discussion about settled science.
Sigh… Here’s your sign…
I’m a little worried about UFOs
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3144908
What does “climb-it Since-tits” mean? In simple English.
In case you aren’t joking- climbit=climate sine tits=scientist
This is off topic but has anybody else noticed that politicians mispronounce a lot of words like inf’astructure, Feb’uary, nucle’r, — I’ll compile a list. Just wondering if it is a sign of some kind of pathology?
BCBill it’s a badge for them, since politics is a team sport and requires no thunking, badges make it easier to identify their own teams.
Climb-it because the whole point is career progression power and money and so on, Sine tits because in British English, a tit is a Very Silly Person and Sine because its all about graphs innit?
Ergo a career ascending idiot manipulator of graphs.
Simples!
Thanks Leo. I didn’t search deeply enough for hidden meaning. I just assumed it was a politically astute individual speaking.
I’m more worried about UFO’s than I am about climate change. And I ain’t worried about UFO’s.
Just one point on this topic- In the movie passengers, why did the giant colony spaceship with thousands of people in hibernation have hundreds of windows and zoom through space with all the lights on? The alternative question- why do UFO’s run around the Earth trying to avoid being spotted but with lights on? Always with the lights. Aliens have’t invented auto dim? It is solid evidence that UFO’s are not aliens, whatever they are.
If I was trying to sneak up on people to anally probe them, I wouldn’t let them see my flashlight!
Just buy my “Anti-Ufo Beacon.’ Available from Amazon and Big Lots. Haven’t been abducted in years now.
Make sure to also sign up with the Federal “ET, Do Not Abduct Me” registry. By law, all alien invaders are required to honor this registry, and could face severe penalties, fines, and even imprisonment if they are found to be abducting people who have registered.
Don’t confuse this registry with the “ET, Do Not Anally Probe Me” registry. That one restricts aliens in the manner in which they can scientifically study your corpus, but does not prevent them from the actual abduction itself.
“I’m more worried about UFO’s than I am about climate change. And I ain’t worried about UFO’s.”
LMAO – that about sums up my “concern” about “climate change” (as “THEY” mean it) too.
What’s with the apparent bias against anally probing someone?
I hear some folks like it.
As a aside, I thought my days of being probed once a year ended with the removal of my prostrate. Unfortunately that wasn’t the case.
“Just buy my “Anti-Ufo Beacon.’ Available from Amazon and Big Lots. Haven’t been abducted in years now.”
Top customer reviews
97% saisfaction
Verified Purchase:
Having obtained one of your ‘Anti-Ufo Beacons’ I can confirm several abduction free years, But lately I have been abducted & anally probed twice…do you supply replacement batteries & can you tell me where to insert them.
@ur momisugly John harmsworth
“If I was trying to sneak up on people to anally probe them, I wouldn’t let them see my flashlight!”
Use night vision glasses… works for me every time
https://youtu.be/ejmFSN2qBG0?t=35
To boil it down a bit: The most informed about science are the ones who can muster evidence to explain why they are right. One should not engage these people in discussions about areas where they are informed but instead discussions with these people should be steered elsewhere.
Or something.
Simpler than that. Don’t enter an argument (fight) you can’t win.
That’s the heart of it.
Trump doesn’t want to make people afraid? Yes he does.
“They don’t want to use guns, because it’s too fast and it’s not painful enough. So they’ll take a young, beautiful girl—16, 15, and others—and they slice them and dice them with a knife because they want them to go through excruciating pain before they die. And these are the animals that we’ve been protecting for so long. Well, they’re not being protected anymore, folks.” … and he says stuff like this on a regular basis.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/07/trump_wants_to_make_white_people_afraid.html
Could we not include nonsense about Trump in these discussions? It doesn’t help your argument.
Staggering link. What trump said is completely misrepresented by the article.
The article was in Slate, after all.
It was a direct quote, widely quoted elsewhere as well. The Chicago Tribune for example. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-trump-sessions-ohio-boy-scout-huppke-20170726-story.html He also recently congratulated Putin on a sham election immediately after Putin ordered the deployment of military grade nerve gas in Britain. Please leave him out of blog posts whenever possible.
Its not that it isn’t a direct quote, its what it is then spun to MEAN.
Since Trump is the sole Western politician making a stand against the quacking insanity of the alarmists no we can’t not include him. Can we not include ludicrous partisan slander about the man in these discussions?
I am cheered by my favorite Climate Realists being solidly behind Trump’s Climate Policies.
What is the author of this post doing, trolling for praise of Donald Trump? Or is he doing something else, like pointing out a warmist who has some valid thoughts of how to engage, or not engage, skeptics?
I think the second notion is what he really accomplished, obviously unintentionally. We also see an admission by Hayhoe that skeptics can have a valid scientific approach. And maybe her appeal to social science is an attempt to dial down the intensity of the debate (which, incidentally, she thinks would be helpful to her cause).
The author’s final comment, on how the interview shows why advocates hate Donald Trump, is a total non sequitor and has no relation to what Hayhoe actually said.
The author wants us to hate Katherine Hayhoe and love Donald Trump. He’s wide of the mark on both objectives.
Is the purpose of this blog to keep advocates and skeptics at each others’ throats? If so, this post fails big time.
The purpose of this blog, apologies to Anthony, is to scratch out the truth- the observations and theories that will help us actually understand how the climate behaves. That might not be possible in any short term(<100+ years) time frame.
Scraft1, I would just like to clarify a few things.
1. Hayhoe’s suggestions are nothing new. It is basic sales technique 101. It is the same set of tactics used when I go car shopping and don’t like the color of the car. The used car salesman will downplay the dislike, concentrate on what I do like, accentuate it and press for the sale by using my positive emotions to override my negative emotions. Catastrophists have been using this technique for a while, with little success, simply because it is very difficult to sell an ugly car.
2. The author is right, it is a sales technique that accentuates insecurities. It would be like trying to sell a Mustang to a teenager who knows they can’t afford the insurance. The salesman would say things like, “You don’t want to be ignored by all the pretty girls because you are in a Civic and your classmate is in a Mustang.”
Of course, catastrophism is not a Mustang, it’s a Pinto with an explosive gas tank.
3. Trump did win by creating an emotional positive response over a range of issue, some which resonated with certain people and some with others. He was the best choice between two poor choices. The Hildabeast lost on the day she called half the electorate a “basket of deplorables.” Truth be known, I think catastrophists problems are the same as Democrat problems. They both hate a large swath of humanity and their only message is negativity, fear and hate.
logicalchemist. If the purpose of this blog “is to scratch out the truth”, then this post has no place in this blog.
Another sufferer with DTS?
It is very difficult having to deal with a sponge laced with razor blades to clear up the mess of un-intended consequences.
She assumes that Skeptics/Climate Realists have “shared values” with CAGW Believers. No, we do not. Theirs is essentially a humanity-hating culture, based on lies, whose only attribute is that it will (and already has to some extent) make people’s lives worse, not better, under the guise of “saving the planet”. So, excuse my French, but F them.
She assumes everyone – as the Left assumes, has a moral compass, and its up to her to get it to point in the right direction.
The Right questions the validity of the direction hers points, and the practicality of walking in that general direction.
But she is a radical Christian, Faith replaces logic.
Another bigot whose only knowledge of Christianity is a cartoon based on hate.
So how would you explain Christians who study science and don’t blindly follow the CAGW meme? Like me, for instance?
Agreed 97,000,000%.
If Katherine Hayhoe asked me if I was concerned about the US falling behind China in solar and wind, I’d say first, that we’re not behind, and second, it would be better if we were behind. In the future, I hope we lag on solar and wind even more, and stop wasting opportunity costs on pointless expenditures to force intermittent, widely scattered, low density, high cost, high maintenance, solar and wind power to make up a greater percentage of our generating capacity.
I’d point her that Puerto Rican post-hurricane (Maria) fly-over video, showing the devastating effects on the wind turbines and the solar panel fields.
This article reports on various country’s per capita solar and wind nameplate capacities:
https://cleantechnica.com/2015/07/02/solar-power-per-capita-wind-power-per-capita-leaders-charts/
Agreed, Mickey. Being “concerned” about “falling behind” in solar and wind power is like being concerned about “being behind” in the portion of population living in poverty.
I wish it didn’t take me 2 days to get my brain started, but…. Anyone else notice that her question about falling behind Indians and Chinese is actually revealing her own racism? What if we fall behind them, aren’t they God’s creatures, too? The racist progressive, imagine that.
Not that I expected any logic from Ms. Hayhoe, but how did she get from “Did you know that China and India have more solar energy than any other countries” to “people are worried about losing the fight in the nuclear energy field”?
Well ….her initials are KASH ….
Follow the cash ?
Anything to keep the money coming in ….
I thought that looked rather disjointed. Not sure what it meant.
Leftist environmentalists ensured America lost the nuclear energy fight — whatever that is — a generation ago.
I could be wrong, but I suspect that people concerned about “losing the fight in the nuclear energy field” are generally not that concerned about how much solar energy the U.S. has in comparison to other countries.
I am also a bit confused by the reference to “the fight in the nuclear energy field”. What fight? Is she talking about the concern that countries may be developing nuclear weapons under the guise of developing/using nuclear energy? Or is she talking about the desire to increase nuclear energy in the U.S., in which case the “opponents” are largely people who believe CAGW is real?
She seems to be accepting that sceptics have data that suggests that they might be right.
Instead of addressing the ambiguities in the available data she simply recommends diversionary strategies in order to meet her separate agenda (of social engineering rather than a search for scientific truth) by other means.
It implies that they have lost the science argument and they know it.
She is really revealing more about herself, her thought processes and why she is on that side of the debate, than she is about any “denier”. She is completely uninterested in “proof” or “facts”, she is only interested in concerns and causes. A concern is an emotion, nothing more and nothing less. A cause is a concern with a purpose and a course of action. Further, a cause must have opposition to be overcome. Otherwise, a cause would merely be a consensus. There is very little emotional satisfaction to be derived from a consensus once it is formed. Emotional satisfaction is in fact her ultimate concern and the basis of her cause or causes. She has identified climate change as a cause and for her that is that. In her framework of reference, counter proofs or countering logic become nothing more than opposition to the cause which does nothing more than increase her emotional satisfaction. Those things in fact solidify the cause in her mind. The cause has become so emotionally melded in her mind she is no longer capable of rational or logical thought on the subject.
We hear her giving a used car salesman motivational speech, using a very apt example someone else put forth. She hears herself championing the cause. In that state of mind she will continue to formulate the illogic required to further support the illogic already accepted as hard fact because she is emotionally incapable of doing otherwise.
I’d say you’ve got her pegged very well. The positively condescending way she is looking over the top of her eyeglasses, eyebrows raised, with a “false happy face” smile, also speaks volumes to her impenetrable “holier than thou” view of anyone who doesn’t share her “belief” in the “cause.”
Her husbands’ religious escapades seem to mirror what she is doing (or vice-versa). Either way, they are making money, and are very satisfied with their ends justify the means concept of right/wrong. (and since by definition they are always right, anything is justified).
The philosophy of Marxism that is the New Lefts origins, is to destabilise by making people feel bad about themselves, about the way society is, by appealing to their baser natures. It excuses failure : you are an oppressed victim. Worse it despises success, which is manifestly ‘unfair and discriminatory’.
Some people are so immersed in this cant that they have simply lost all touch with reality. Judging by the voting patterns about 97% of the unsophisticated urban populations, and almost any academic without a very hard science/maths/engineering degree indeed, actually believe in this total codswallop.
Exactly! We criticize Katharine Hayhoe because she is teaching people how to persuade other’s to act on something, when she readily admits that it may not be true; “…those people can muster evidence to explain why they’re right, too!”. We find it illogical to try to convince someone of something that we know is false, but for the post-modern Marxist it is completely rational to be illogical.
The ultimate goal of the leftists is to get the world under their control. Since they have killed God, power is the only thing that gives their lives meaning. They would love to avoid all conversation, which they view as a pointless annoyance that gets in the way of their rightful rule, but they don’t have the power to do that. Until they do, they must engage in persuasion through emotional tactics.
The facts are irrelevant. The issues are irrelevant. The truth is irrelevant. Everything is just about power, and any method (they can get away with) to get power is legitimate. If they could send us to ‘re-education camps’, they would do it in a heartbeat, but they can’t get away with that (yet)!
When we realize that this is where the left is coming from, their irrationality begins to make perfect sense.
I think this comment is pretty comprehensive even though concise and is very on point. Thanks for expressing it so well.
Completely agree, point by point, for many people on the left. Unfortunately, many people supposedly on the right fall right in there too. In my opinion, this is why so many on the right hate Trump so very much. A smart politician sees which way the wind is blowing and bends to it. For many politicians on the right that is all they are doing.
Mark FIfe – Yes…it is all about power for many on the far right as well, but the far right is pretty well marginalized by society at this point, and there doesn’t appear to be any real threat of a white supremacist being elected to any significant office in the West. On the other hand, leftist ideas are becoming more mainstream. The communists murdered 10 times the number of innocents than the German Democratic Socialist, but the hammer and sickle is displayed openly and broadly in some sectors, without much criticism, while the swastika is almost universally despised.
Right now, it is the left that is the greatest threat to freedom and liberty.
I agree completely, the left is the current threat to freedom. No question about it. While there are white supremacists out there and there will probably always be some, they are a small minority group. There is no creditable white supremacist or Nazi movement in the US. That so called threat nothing more then a re-enactment of Hitler’s manufactured communist threat which he used to grab power in Germany. The left decries the rise of the KKK and Fascists while engaging in antagonistic rhetoric seemingly designed to encourage it. Yet KKK membership isn’t on the rise. There is no sudden bump in Nazi or Neo Nazi parties.
By the way, even if the left were correct about there being such a threat you don’t fight those kinds of things by suppression and censorship. Those actions have the opposite affect. Religions and political ideologies tend to flourish under oppression, especially in hard economic times. Beyond the simple fact oppression and censorship of ideas is wrong, they are ultimately foolish actions. It rarely ever works and when it does work that is only by massive force and brutality by the state. Ultimately stopping people from doing anything they really want to do requires exactly that.
This is where the left has been so effective. They have worked very hard to portray things in absolute blacks and whites of morality. They have worked time and again to define what they want as right and moral and those they oppose as not merely wrong but evil. Punching a fascist is a good thing. Climate deniers are working with fossil fuel companies to kill children for money. It is always about appealing to that emotional high of righteous anger and never, ever about facts and logic. And those tactics work.
One of the great lies of the left, has been to convince people that Fascists are creatures of the right.
They are big government socialists through and through.
As always, Troll Rob pops up to prove the point.
@MarkW
1) History is not “written by winners”, it’s written by historians. Academics. Civil servants, overwhelmingly leftist (and some “respected historians” in France are communists).
2) Controlling the instruction/education is what allow the left to indoctrinate with the equation “fascism = right”, which is ironical as control of education is a pillar of fascism. It’s recursively perverse.
The American society is far from ideal. After all, it is a creation of The People, not a direct creation of God. It is a product of evolution. A change might be – let’s hope – for better, but with a 99.9% probability for much worse.
It has produced a society that produces more than any other in history, on a per-capita basis. The strength of American society is the concept that the government exists at the “consent of the governed”. That the citizens have “natural rights” given to us by our creator, that are not derived by royal decree, or bureaucratic fiat. The further we dilute and infringe on that concept, the closer we get to “government that controls the rights of the people”. And that is the yoke that keeps the public in poverty, and is a “change for the worse”.
In 1973 I took a greyhound bus from east coast to west coast, and back.
The answer to the question ‘Why are Americans such rich arrogant bastards’ was answered easily.
Low population density, but massive population, plus massive resources plus genocide of the indigenous inhabitants.
I laughed my socks off ‘Gods own country’ ‘our democratic principles’ ‘hard work and Jesus’ Er, no. Lots of wealth lying there to be picked up and enough European tech to pick it up.
Slaves were handy too.
“Lots of wealth lying there to be picked up ..” Just like in Zimbabwe.
@Leopold Danze – you don’t understand economic incentives looking out the window of a bus. We are successful for the same reason that South Korea is vastly more successful than North Korea. Same culture, same population, same resources, different outcome.
Economies run on the incentives of the owners of the business, the incentives of the workers, the incentives of the customers, and the availability of capital, human resources, raw materials, and infrastructure.
The mixture of free markets, and the minimum government oversight required to maintain “rule of law”, and social order, is the recipe for unleashing the potential of mankind. In the past, those in power used their power to reward their supporters, punish their enemies, and siphon off the wealth of the majority of the public. Bad environment for creating wealth when the elites will pocket the profits. We have less of that, and we are all richer because of it.
1) There is no such thing as wealth just laying around waiting to be picked up.
2) Lots of countries have abundant natural resources yet are poor.
3) If you can find a single country that hasn’t done something bad to somebody, ever, please list it.
4) Your an idiot.
“Did you know that China and India have more solar energy than any other countries in the world?”
Did you know Hayhoe regularly lies?
The latest BP figures for India for 2016 show solar at 11.9 TWh, with the US at 56.8 TWh, Germany at 38.2 Twh, Italy at 22.9 TWh and Spain at 13.6 Twh
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html
China is always wheeled out as the “biggest” blah blah. But their total electricity generation is also by far the largest, at 6142 TWh, compared to 4350 TWh for the US.
Despite Hayhoe’s misdirection, solar still only accounts for 1% of China’s electricity.
…or she’s advocating that we should emulate 3rd would sh1tholes
The left love third-world sh1tholes because it’s much easier to convince people to support their policies of legalized theft when they have nothing to steal. And because it’s what their policies inevitably turn any country into, given enough time.
They used to promise progress and wealth if we just did what they told us to do, but history readily proved that socialism is unable to provide that. So they started claiming that progress and wealth are evil and we must all go back to living in third-world sh1tholes, because they know they can be successful at that.
Thanks to the Glorious efforts of our comrades in Caracas, Venezuela will soon have nothing but solar energy! The oilfields will cease production! There will be no chemical energy from crops or food! Human labour will also cease and we will all be bosses! Sitting in the sun and losing weight rapidly under the Glorious Sun of Socialism!
Long live the revolution!
If she’s arguing that we should be following China’s lead, then we should be building lots of coal fired power plants – especially since we have plenty of readily available fuel for those (we are, after all, the “Saudi Arabia of coal”). Plus, unlike China, we would equip ours with state of the art pollution (REAL pollution) controls, and have BOTH cheap, reliable energy AND clean air for our efforts.
I am 100% all for that….
We might even keep those state of the art pollution controls turned on all the time. 😉
My sister worked with an intern from China who, on a very nice day, commented that the Chinese called such a sky “meeting blue”. He then explained that the sky tended to be that color when there were international meetings in an area, because all the factories, etc. turned on the pollution controls while the foreigners were in the region.
So it comes down to faith, just like all religious movements.
Being a true believer is such a burden.
Being a heretic is even harder. Ask Roger Pielke, Jr. or Judith Curry, or Patrick Michaels, or Willie Soon, or even our most gracious host.
“…the people with the highest degree of science literacy aren’t the ones who are most concerned, but rather, the most polarized. Because those people can muster evidence to explain why they’re right, too.””
Wait…what?
She admits that there is evidence to support the skeptical position and it is right “too”. So, she is saying both opposing positions are right and then expects followers to continue to accept her convoluted logic?
Hayhoe seems to be stating that relying on evidence just confuses the issue. I sort of agree–that the reasons the green blob have for their policy recommendations do not relate to actual risks. They favor “renewables” because they will not sustain industrial society, which is what they hate, at least when it extends to the masses.
The Catch-22 absurdity is that grid-scale renewable power sources, that is WInd Turbines and solar PV panels, require a highly advanced technological base and a large scale precision manufacturing base to manufacture. The in addition, highly efficient transportation networks to put all the pieces together at the final site. And in the case of large wind turbines, a crap-load of concrete and steel in each base done with brute force labor and large cranes. And all of that is powered with fossil fuels — yester, today, and tomorrow.
That post-graduate educated people like Katherine Hayhoe won’t admit that or don’t know that makes them literally engineering ignorant and scientifically inept, or simply insane lirs.
Not knowing the technical details of the construction of a wind turbine is understandable (but you should know better if you want to promote a technology or make other people pay for it).
Not knowing what MONEY is all about is not excusable.
Money doesn’t pay for the sun coming up everyday, or the wind (true renewables). Money doesn’t pay for true renewables; money pays for phony “renewables” that are huge devices requiring massive fondations, special materials (esp. “rare earths”), a very costly, resource intensive production industry that happens to be extremely polluting with most production done in China (that does not have to be, just is currently, and could change with, you know, evil tariffs).
The money ends up paying for resources that are not renewable, because true renewables, like the sun rays, are free.
“Renewables” are very expensive just because they require a lot more resources that are not renewable than so called non renewables like fossil fuels. These resources are not unlimited and would probably cost even more as more “renewables” are subsidized (unless a lot more high grade mines are discovered).
The computer industry is unique in that it deals with information not power; power is a cost not a product of computers, unlike the energy industry. There is no reason other sectors should progress like computing – and they don’t.
I think Katharine is playing off ignorance with every presentation. How many in her audience understand the background of the respective power markets in India and China? How many of them know about solar being used to bypass the existing defects in India from grid management issues, coal markets, and the reliance on diesel power to maintain factory operating rates? Should a country with a reliable grid and low average power costs have the same rate of solar adoption as a country with an unreliable grid and high average power prices? Advocacy stories are good for exercises in critical thinking but not for truth or news or honesty.
But then the climate fascists are most definitely not about “truth” or “honesty.” Quite the reverse. They live by the contagion of propaganda.
Good heavens. She stole a page from Christian evangelism and discipleship training. All she needs now is the multicolored wig and a tall college campus placard giving us the end of the world date in large hand drawn letters.
The problem with Hayhoe is that her argument is about manipulation and nothing else. There is no other substance. at all.
Try substituting any other belief or theory in place of climate change and her argument is still consistant.
Vegetarian denialism
Communist denialism
Obama denialism
Trump denialism
Moon is made of green cheese denialism
This person must be kept away from children and out of the education system.
“The problem with Hayhoe is that her argument is about manipulation and nothing else. There is no other substance. at all.”
Exactly right. She is searching for a better way to brainwash/fool the other side.
Yup – just more of the same “end justifies the means” argument, right out of the Schneider playbook.
What percent of her salary and benefits comes from oil revenues?
If they can “muster evidence to show that they are right”, then the possibility exists that they ARE right.
+1
MarkW- You are, of course, correct. Your point, all by itself, would make a “scientist” curious. Not Ms. Hayhoe.
“According to natural cycles we should be cooling down right now, not warming.”
Not even true as the AMO warms during solar minima.
This is the trick. Answer with some “facts” that the other person will accept because they have no knowledge if those facts are true or not. The same goes for her “Did you know that China and India have more solar energy than any other countries in the world?” fact. This trick question normally elicits one of two answers:
1) No I did not, at the risk of looking uninformed and therefore needing her lecture
2) Yes I did, therefore acknowledging her facts as correct
But when one reads WUWT you learn to ask in retort “Source?” Most of the time the supplier of those “facts” has no source and is just passing on what they have been told or were just making it up in the first place. So they either stumble and dodge or just change the subject.
87% of statistics are formulated at the moment.
NIce one, Barry!
Reply to Barryjo. No, it’s 97% of statistics are formulated at the moment
” it’s 97% of statistics are formulated at the moment”
& the other 8% are true
“According to natural cycles we should be cooling down right now, not warming.”
She’s referring to the conclusion, which we’ve seen published a few times, that says “models say it should have warmed by X° but it’s only warmed by Y°, so (Y-X)° – a negative number – is the natural cooling.that has now been swamped by AGW”. Possibly the worst attempt at a logical argument that’s ever been seen in print. It could only have been published with the explicit collusion of reviewers and editors.
Same old drivel. All she is saying is “Ignore people who disagree with me. I’m right and they are wrong”.
If she worked at an advertising agency charged with persuading people to buy things, she would be out on her ear in short order.