"I'm a little worried the U.S. is falling behind": Katharine Hayhoe's Template for Climate Persuasion

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.

242 thoughts on “"I'm a little worried the U.S. is falling behind": Katharine Hayhoe's Template for Climate Persuasion

      • 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:
        If it looks like a cult, swims like a cult, and quacks like a cult, then it’s probably a cult.

      • 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.

      … the people with the highest degree of science literacy … can muster evidence to explain why they’re right …

      That cuts both ways. It applies to the alarmists and the skeptics. It applies to experts generally.
      She also observes:

      It’s an issue of whatever it is that any given person already cares about.

      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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

      • 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.

  4. I want to send her a post card saying, “Stop flying on airplanes, you hypocrite.” anyone have her address?

  5. 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.

      • 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.

      • 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’

      • 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?

        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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.
    Could we not include nonsense about Trump in these discussions? It doesn’t help your argument.

    • 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?

    • 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.

  8. 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.

      • So how would you explain Christians who study science and don’t blindly follow the CAGW meme? Like me, for instance?

    • 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:

      • 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.

  9. 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 ….

    • 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?

  10. 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).

  11. 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.

      • @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.

      • @Leo – 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.

  12. “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
    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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

  13. 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.

  14. “…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.””
    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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. If they can “muster evidence to show that they are right”, then the possibility exists that they ARE right.

  19. “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.

    • “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.

  20. 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.

  21. Dear Incorrigible Catherine,
    William Shatner says it all in his vocal rendition “I can’t get Behind That” – William Shatner featuring Henry Rollins

    when in the last line he says “I can’t get behind a fat ass!” .

    • OOps that should be …
      ‘Dear Incorrigible Katharine,’
      Funny how when her name is mentioned I think of Will Shatner’s “I can’t get Behind That”.

  22. Last I heard, lying was un-Christian. Yet there she is, lying her little head off, and encouraging others to do the same. Nice.

    • Lying doesn’t matter to her form of religion. Her pastor husband, Andrew Farley, teaches the gnostic hyper-grace heresy that essentially nullifies the issue of sin. The only real sin is believing one is sinful.

  23. If you haven’t been following Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) explain politics and world events framed by his training as a hypnotist (seriously), then you owe it to yourself to become educated. His belief that the vast majority of choices that we make are not, in fact, cold/rational/vulcan-logical, but rather highly influenced by emotion. To expand on that, I suggest Win Bigly.
    To understand Hayhoe (and her ilk), I suggest Robert Cialdini’s Influence or his Pre-Suasion which formed the basis of the 2016 democratic presidential campaign’s persuasion / psychological-warfare tactics. That the AGW “scientists” employ the same ops is unsurprising.

  24. She is simply describing what anyone who has had sales training already knows. Find the emotional hot button and frame you presentation to show how what you offer satisfies that emotion. Most people buy into things with emotion not facts. Cuddly polar bears going extinct, children never going to know the joy of snow,
    the Earth has a fever, and right on down the list of emotional examples of how we will ruin the Planet if we don’t do as they say.

  25. Now we’re making progress . . . let’s just drop all the pretense about climate change and go straight to the real deal: the unfair distribution of wealth or the fact that not all people are equal. As soon as we fix that technicality the world will enter utopia. Some countries have already started down that brave path, consider Mexico and China. They are building the cities of the future in which everyone is equal witness:
    We too can do this. Just remove the people’s ability to resist the government and move them into their glorious new communities.

  26. Cultural marxist: “I’m worried about ‘blank’.” Or, “The government needs to start paying for ‘blank’.

  27. people with the highest degree of science literacy aren’t the ones who are most concerned

    Right. And that may, in fact, be, because there’s nothing to be concerned about.
    Or we(!) should turn to people with the lowest degree of science literacy. Not.

  28. What an air head for someone with an PHD. She’s just using AGW to promote here socialist agenda.

      • LMFAO – and unfortunately that is the “correct” definition for far too many of today’s leftist-polluted educational “institutions” as well.

    • I once interviewed a lady who was applying for a position to head up an environmental clean up project (heavy metals in a lake). She had a phd in “Environmental Sciences”. No chemistry, math or physics. I have learned over the years that anyone can get a degree in any area of study no matter how intellectually deficient they might be if they have the time and money. There are schools out there which care not at all about actual education. And it is getting worse.

      • And society demands higher education. So a steady stream of very average ( or below) young people parade off to university to put in time and get a piece of paper as a passport to employment.

  29. The photo of this poor woman just screams “condescending, liberal, airhead”! It is remarkable that anyone would take her seriously.

  30. She still comes off as I’m correct and you’re not. She uses an example of “natural cycles” saying it is warming when it should be cooling. Interesting, since when it is cooling the cause is ALWAYS warming according to alarmists. I’ve already seen numerous stories about global warming causing the snow fall and cold temps in the US and Europe.

  31. “Don’t engage d*n*ers on the basis of the scientific evidence, they’ll just interpret it differently,” i.e. wrongly.
    Do such people have any self-awareness at all? For being so “woke”, they seem to never catch the extreme irony when they say such things. It’s like when they bemoan the deplorable bitter clingers in flyover country who are constantly “voting against their own self-interest.” NOBODY votes against their self-interest. They vote for what they believe is the best choice to get done what they want to get done — but since the coastal elites have decided that those things are “bad”, they can only interpret it as being too stupid to know what they really want.
    I remember watching the 1940 movie “Sergeant York,” and how the people in their remote Tennessee holler were gobsmacked to find out there was a war going on in Europe, and that America was going to join in. Sometime I wish we still operated at that level of news penetration. You don’t always need to hear about everything going on everywhere.
    As long as I still had YouTube…

    • Prior to Pearl Harbor, the war was just another one of those European fights that the US had nothing to do with.
      Is it any surprise that people that had little contact with the so called national media wouldn’t have heard of it?

      • It was a different time, but before Pearl Harbor I was reading local newspapers a little and knew about the problems, although education was not trying to frighten everybody. However, my family was connected to the military. and we probably had better news then. Two major newspapers there in military town of San Antonio. One barely survives, but lots of other venues.
        WWI less known, but probably more connections to military than today, in percentages. York was in WWI, not so numbered at the time. Flu killed more than war.

  32. How can one possibly consider themselves to be an objective scientists and not a political hack for advocating positions that they know are disprovable by informed scientists?
    Furthermore, how can that same individual claim to be “evangelical” Christian while admittedly using their faith as a platform to manipulate public opinion? Shameful.

    • Isn’t the “evangelical” tag pretty well synonymous with cramming your beliefs down other people’s throats? Can’t have people thinking for themselves. They might reach the “wrong” conclusions.

      • Many like to believe that, and some evangelicals are pretty rude too. But please don’t allow yourself to generalise to the whole, what this woman presents.

  33. It is all going to come crashing down on them. This year is the year the climate should start to turn and AGW theory starts to run into more and more trouble.
    By decade end we should have a clearer picture but this theory is wrong and has never had anything to stand on, other then fantasy.

    • I think you’re probably right but the great tragedy of this is that a warmer world would be better for almost all life and CO2 has nothing to do with it. Yet we are wasting billions of dollars that could be invested in actual,worthwhile endeavours.

      • …. relax, they have it covered. They’re building a new Cold War with Russia, although I think that bogeyman is a bit more dangerous than carbon dioxide.

      • Indeed. When the climate begins cooling, they’ll be wishing for the good old days of “global warming.” Of course, they’ll just come up with some new pseudo-science to claim it is all humanity’s fault, specifically the burning of those evil fossil fuels (just like the last time, see the “global cooling” scare). The goal has always been to CONTROL energy sources and energy use, because when you’re in control of energy, you’re in control of *everything.*

  34. Winning at Whack-A-Mole is a lot easier than responding to perpetual CC shaming from the radical left. Temperature could go flat for another 20 years but that is not going to stop the members of the CCCC “Catastrophic Climate Change Cult”. They need a sound ignoring…

  35. – Child, don’t do drugs. Whatever your friends tell you, it’s dangerous. Don’t follow the group when the group does back things.
    Also, don’t fall behind. Don’t let you fall out of the group. Follow the group. In every case.
    – What?
    – OK, do drugs. Whatever. Don’t be alone when there is 97% consensus. That’s more important.
    Like France. They have a popular President (elected with less than 1/5 of the electors on the first turn and with just over 99,9% of supports from newspapers – the magazine on fishing was neutral). French people are advanced. There was a hacking of the “En Marche!” (“let’s go”) party (party of the now elected President) and they refused to look at the data dump. That hacking was from Russia, tracing back to the “Russia frontier”. Well actually from IP addresses in Ukraine but they guys understand Russian too so I guess it’s all the same. French people are too clever to look at a data dump of emails hacked from Ukrainians Russians.
    Also, voter ID is bad. Don’t fall for for it. It’s racist. You see French people show their official photo ID to vote. They are horrible people. Proof is: they have a military parade every year. They can even vote with an official military ID. Just like North Korea and Russia which is not democratic because Vladimir Putin is extremely popular. Don’t follow North Korea or Russia or France. They are nationalist people. Always have been. France bad!

  36. Dr. Hayhoe has been a frequent guest at Climate One-
    In 2012 she stated this:
    “Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe discusses the emotional ties connected to climate change and people’s understanding of climate change at Climate One. “I don’t believe that facts are enough,” says Hayhoe, “this is not necessarily an issue of facts, it’s an issue about fear. There’s an enormous amount of fear that we are dealing with an issue where the impacts are distant and far away, but the solutions are imminent and people fear them as being very costly and that they are infringing on our freedom, our economy, and our rights.””
    It doesn’t sound like she has made it over to the Engineering department recently, but she might want to ask them about how to measure if actions (when putting weight on FEAR) have worked out for say Ivanpah or Crescent Dunes….

      • Brad,
        I was lost for a long time- as far as trying to understand how the precautionary principle could lead to ignoring the feedback loop(s) that most scientists and engineers back in say 60’s or early 70’s use to use to find out how things worked in the real world- but I think I get it now. Good intentions are what counts these days it seems.
        A few generations ago my ancestors left Europe and the UK when the likes of Dr. Hayhoe said we couldn’t and shouldn’t read various texts and we should tithe to those in the know. This didn’t help keep toilet’s running back then and it certainly won’t keep my well, and then the toilet, operating today.
        I am too old to figure out if a paper noted here- http://www.nusap.net/ entitled- “Engineering ethics and post-normal science: A French perspective .“ by Fanny Verrax would help Dr. Hayhoe see the light, or not, on why I will not be tithing at her church.

  37. Just wait until they see the cost of failures of the 100’s of million of installed solar panels as they start aging,
    MTBF of a 10 panel system of 40 year panels is 8-12 years.
    There are going to be (tens?)millions of bad, or low output panels per year, as they start aging.
    And that’s just the panels, the converters will have an even higher failure rate, and batteries, lol, laptop batteries still only last 3-5 years.
    Idiots, the whole lot of them.
    As for evidence

    • I lived in Southern California for 28 years. Back in December of 2005 (IIRC), we had a week long stretch of calm, cloudless nights. Three of those nights, the temperature dropped to 38 F. The morning after each such night, our pool had a 3/8 inch thick layer of surface ice. After a bit of measurement and calculating the view factor, it was straightforward to calculate that the pool had to be radiating to a sink no warmer than -60 F. That assumed an 8 hour cooling period. If one assumes radiation to space (at 15 K), the cooling period is reduced to 4.5 hours. Either (or anything in between) is physically reasonable. It tells me that there isn’t much impeding the earth’s loss of heat via radiation.

  38. “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?”
    LMAO Clearly these people have never looked at an air quality index.

    • Even if it were true, why would I worry about another country hobbling their industry so that it can’t compete with ours?

  39. “Should be cooling down right now”…according to whom?
    Why yes…according to *models*, once again. Models which are not empirical evidence, for which we don’t get to examine the code , which are not based upon any published, cohesive single theory we can examine. The entire idea is enough wrong results will average to a correct one. Which is valid when measuring *empirical* things using the same method and averaging errors out because you’re using the same methods to measure something real and the errors will (generally) average out.
    Anyway, her evasion tactics are insupportable. IF someone else can come up with their own reasons that they don’t agree and you cannot falsify their reasoning…then actual science demands you examine your OWN claims. Not being able to falsify a counter assertion means it is very possible *you* are wrong, Katherine.
    My most effective argument yet is this…pointing out that there is no actual empirical evidence that AGW exists to the degree stated …other than CO2’s behavior in a bell jar on a lab bench or in a closed system. All the millions of ‘it’s warming’ studies are consistent with…natural warming. The *sole* differentiator between AGW claims and natural variation isn’t even empirical. It’s models…and that’s IT.

  40. I suspect that the original study was trying to verify that skeptics were more ignorant than the CAGW gullible. When it turned out that skeptics were slightly MORE knowledgeable when it came to science, the paper went off on that “polarization” nonsense.
    No studies have been done on polarization per se; Are people more informed about politics more polarized than those who never vote, never watch TV news on politics, never read the papers?
    Are sports fans more polarized on who the best all time players were than those who never watch sports?
    I suspect that the answer is “yes” in both cases.

  41. Its wonderful to see the Ms Hayhoe has such a grasp of national security issues. Could we not make the argument that misallocating billions of dollars into questionable technologies for dubious reasons resulting in a power grid that is more fragile and insufficient to scale is a gross compromise of national security as well?

    • Yes, not to mention that the destruction of our economy (which “climate change” policy virtually assures) is likely to have a, to use a bit of British understatement, GIGANTIC negative effect on our national security.

  42. Yes, yes … obviously the US is falling behind the rest of the world in the rhetoric of glad-handing, crumb-feeding, blow-harding and conference-jetting. I simply don’t know what aberration of dâhmned good luck it is that Americans in the broader general population (not Sanctuary City-States) have a solid genotype of “no, not the lies, just that actual truth, please”.
    We call out mendacity.
    Its our nature.
    Its also why (I strongly feel) American has long lead scientific discourse and advance.
    Because we don’t believe prevailing bûllsnot.
    At all, when left to our scientific druthers.
    Actually I can also agree with “the Science is Settled” – it sure is… its just that the public conclusions, the rhetoric, the fire-fanning pölïtical malingering, the mendacity at large has a different consensus (oh, how I waited to abuse that word!). If right-thinking, hard-physics, hard-math, hard-logic values are played out, the gargantuan mind-fûque of Global Warmist Activism is clearly and cleanly exposed for what it is. A sham of Sisyphean proportions. Millions of blood sucking also-rans suck up to the public tît; millions jet around the world to eat croissants and coffee; millions haven’t a snowball’s chance in Hêll of recognizing their own mendacity.
    But MOST of us do.
    At least not the Americans who believe the tripe.
    In the Sanctuary City-States.
    The ultramarine blue enclaves.
    The (I’m)moral majority.
    I’m a Kansas / Missouri kind of Goat. “Show Me”, means it. Clear thinking. Keep it Simple, Stupid. And I prefer friends who are equally so inspired.

  43. What Hayhoe Hayhoe describes is the progressive’s advocacy template for every issue.
    …….”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 __________; that in fact, they’re the perfect person to care and act.”
    It’s a cultism of Progressive Supremacy.
    Just fill in the blank with any cause.
    I’ve run across this superiority in debating education, land use, transportation and other issues.
    The mendacity of “we know best & we care more” template is always the ushering lead and default.

  44. “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?” — I’m worried these insane, greedy psuedoenvironmentalists are going to do massive damage to the planet in the name of enriching the billionaires of the planet with these lies about “renewable energy”. I fear we will destroy the planet and empoverish humans to “save the planet”, or rather, to save their own wealth. I think God would not be happy with that. Katherine pretends to be a God-fearing person yet wants to degrade the planet and the human state……Her vote is poverty while the uber-wealthy pillage the planet.
    “Because those people can muster evidence to explain why they’re right, too.”—REALLY? So there IS evidence that global warming is a scam?

  45. Dr Hayhoe openly demonstrates her activism in the areas of climate alarmism and fossil fuel opposition with a video series she calls the Global Weirding Series on her Youtube channel:
    The videos on the channel appear to be aimed at children and seem to be trying to influence them to look at the climate and fossil fuels issues the same way she does. Unfortunately for her, the videos don’t seem to be getting a lot of views, at least not yet.
    So do we look at her as a climate alarmist because of her views on fossil fuels or do we see her as an anti-fossil fuels activist because she has decided that the alarmist “science” is correct? I for one am inclined to believe it is the former rather than the latter. I have said this before: I am not ignorant enough to believe that the alarmist “scientists” are not abusing and manipulating climate science simply as a plaything or tool for their anti-fossil fuels (and probably anti-Trump) activism. To believe that science cannot be corrupted by politics and activism is akin to be believing in the Tooth Fairy.
    If Dr. Hayhoe wants this country to move forward toward a post-fossil fuels era, she would do far better to advocate for the R&D needed for fourth generation nuclear power rather than wasting her time with her activism on her Youtube channel. Whether she and others like her will ever have the common sense to understand that remains a serious open question.

  46. 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.”
    Her last sentence is strictly Bravo Sierra. Nobody understands the interglacial warming trends or the cooling trends, so how it is possible to predict their occurrence!

  47. Oh heavens to Betsy! First the bomber gap, then the missile gap, then the mine shaft gap, and now the solar panel gap! Obviously we have to act immediately to close the gap. /SARC

  48. “President Trump doesn’t play on people’s fear, he engages people’s hope.”
    What? I guess you missed the part when Trump spread fear of immigrants and foreigners. Claiming they are rapists and criminals, that US should “build the wall” to keep evil monsters out, and that US was “falling apart”. His sources for this of course were Fox news and his “feelings”. His populist campaign included a lot of fearmongering, though he did engage people’s hope too, but then again so do all populists. “Fear not, i’m going to single handedly make America great again” (whatever that means. It’s a vague and meaningless marketing slogan. Just like Obama’s “Yes we can”.).
    Climate alarmists play on people’s fear, but they do engage people’s hope too. For them the salvations are renewables, “suistanability”, ethics, “climate justice”, being “natural”, and political correctness.

    • Sorry Fredar, but “sustanability”, ethics, “climate justice”, being “natural”, and political correctness” are also “vague and meaningless marketing slogan(s)”. There is no real hope in words that have no real meaning. Or was that the point you were trying to make?

    • Fredar – You are so full of it. Trump did not spread fear of immigrants nor foreigners. Securing a nation’s border is a good national policy, unless you are part of the corporations which want cheap, illegal labor that cannot stand up for itself for fear of deportation. YES – those illegal aliens who are criminals, rapists, etc., DEPORT THEM in all due haste!

    • More like saying what every “deplorable” in America already knew more-or-less firsthand. It’s not fearmongering to shout “Fire!” when there’s an actual fire. The difference was that Trump had too much backbone and independent wealth to be silenceable by the left’s usual bully tactics. They couldn’t pressure his boss to fire him, because he *was* the boss (and is now an even bigger boss). And completely unaffected by their sanctimonious name-and-shame games, to the point of openly mocking them.
      They can’t touch him and that drives them mad. MAD!

    • “What? I guess you missed the part when Trump spread fear of immigrants and foreigners. Claiming they are rapists and criminals,”
      I guess *you* missed the part where Trump qualified that statement by saying “some” were rapists and criminals. He didn’t say all of them.
      That’s just a distortion of the facts done by the Left and the Leftwing News Media in their continuing efforts to smear and undermine Trump. And you bit on their false narrative hook, line, and sinker.
      Trump was/is right: some illegal aliens *are* rapists and criminals.

      • “What? I guess you missed the part when Trump spread fear of immigrants and foreigners. Claiming they are rapists and criminals,”
        I guess *you* missed the part where Trump qualified that statement by saying “some” were rapists and criminals. He didn’t say all of them.

        He also said

        Mexico doesn’t send her best people, they send rapists and criminals

        He’s not talking about people walking out of mexico, though the Gov Soldiers might turn Dr’s and Lawyers back, I think he was really saying the Mexican gov takes criminals out of prison to the border and sends them north.
        He seems to know a lot of people, and he likely gets a lot of info most people don’t hear, and that was before he became President.
        He’s obviously smart enough to understand what he’s saying, and I think in part the problem is people don’t really listen.
        But I think he’s playing a much deeper game. And to those who think he’s an idiot and fool, I think you do so at your own risk. And he might like that characterization, he’s a negotiator, it’s great going in perceived as the weaker player, when you’re not.

      • “He’s obviously smart enough to understand what he’s saying, and I think in part the problem is people don’t really listen.”
        I think those are good points. The problem is when Liberals listen to Trump they hear what they want to hear (that Trump is the worst human being ever), not what he actually says.

      • Notice how Rob the troll ties the statistical sleight of hand.
        There are a lot more non-illegal aliens in this country than there are illegal aliens. So it’s hardly surprising that there are more non-illegal aliens who are also criminals.
        The correct method is to compare the percentages of both groups.

      • Poor Rob, he just can’t keep up.
        Now he’s trying to claim that all aliens are illegal aliens.
        It’s not like he’s ever tried to make sense.

    • So Fredar, are you actually arguing that no illegal immigrants have ever broken the law?
      Climate justice is nothing more than a group of people demanding that they be given more free stuff.

  49. The larger question is what will we do with all the enviro climate grads when the combined effects of natural cyclical cooling become obvious even to freshmen and their parents and societal demand for this bunk dries up? It won’t become officially over until party planks abandon the scare quest but getting the silent political treatment is the first stage in that transition.

  50. I have tried debating Dr Hayhoe on two different occasions on social media. The first time on Twitter, she blocked me after one exchange. On Facebook a couple of years later it lasted a little longer, but she stopped after just a few exchanges.
    Even though she has a PhD in atmospheric science, it speaks volumes that Katharine is a professor in Texas Tech’s political science department, rather than their Department of Geosciences.

    • Those who can, do; and those who can’t, teach; and those who can’t teach their field of study, teach political “science”.

  51. “Pruitt to Restrict Use of Scientific Data in EPA Policymaking

    The planned policy shift, first reported by E&E News, would require the EPA to only use scientific findings whose data and methodologies are made public and can be replicated.”
    I’m amazed that isn’t required by all governments, anyway. If it can’t be verified, why is it being used to form policies?

  52. Hey Hayhoe, if The US had made the same commitments that China and India made we would be way ahead of our promises right now.
    (That was fun calling somebody a hayhoe and not getting slapped like they do me at the Do-Drop In.)

  53. Shouldn’t this Monster be wearing a pink cardigan (and a swastika armband) and be surrounded by plates with kittens on them? This is Umbridge, all over the place.

  54. Ah, nothing like the intersection of Religion, Politics and Science. It is a mix that conjures up all sorts of misconceptions about the three and frequently obscures their purposes in our lives. As scientists, we want observable, provable, logical Truth. Faith yearns to take that Truth and expand its horizon to a Truth of the unexplained and frequently unseen. Politics wants Truth that is defined by a purpose and is, therefore, a Truth that is malleable. Each pursues their Truth differently for a unique purpose but, beware, because some intentionally intermingle these pursuits, not to promote clarity, but to promote misconceptions for their own machinations.

  55. Greetings to all:
    While I am not inclined to attack someone for their beliefs, in the case of Ms. Hayhoe, I believe there is merit in pointing out something from her own Scripture, since she professes to be an evangelical.
    We tend to agree that much of the environmental movement, whether ‘creationists’, like Ms. Hayhoe, or ‘evolutionists’, as in main-stream science, has become the voice of a “religion” that worships Gaia, or some such nonsense. It would seem to me that IF Ms. Hayhoe is of a similar mind, she is violating an important precept contained within her own professed belief.
    I do not take a stand on the veracity of what is commonly referred to as the Holy Bible within western Christendom; as far as I am concerned, one is free to accept or reject it as one sees fit. My point is that there is a passage that advises the likes of Ms. Hayhoe that her ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ are completely misplaced.
    One is free to state that I am taking Scripture ‘out-of-context’, but any decent search engine will be able to provide the entire context, should one have the curiosity to investigate further.
    The translation of the following was not specifically listed as King James, New International, or what-have-you; I did cross-check several different versions to verify that the English presentation had essentially the same meaning.
    In the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, and Chapter One specifically, Paul admonishes the Church in Rome that it is a mistake to ‘worship the creation’, and forsake the ‘worship of the Creator’ (my paraphrase), which is exactly what the modern environmental movement does. I see Ms. Hayhoe as an advocate of this worship of the creation:
    Starting at verse 20 (one should read all through verses 18 to 32, which function as a unit):
    20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. 24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
    The ‘money quote’ is there in verse 25; I recognize that others will dispute my account of the meaning of this passage; such is your right. I am only making the singular point that Ms. Hayhoe is in violation of something she states that she believes in, namely, that the creation is more important than the Creator, whom she claims to serve and worship.
    George Carlin, no Biblical Scholar, has pointed out that the Earth has been through much worse than a plague of humankind (as has been linked multiple times on WUWT discussion threads). I see some significant hypocrisy in Ms. Hayhoe and her concern for something she believes was created by an entity infinitely more powerful than herself, and an implicit disdain for that Entity being “unable” to manage or care for the Creation on [It’s] own terms. The contributor “el gordo” over at JoNova posted this little gem on the latest, “Mid-Week Unthreaded”:
    “The Greens are an ugly sight under pressure. They are deluded by hubris and consumed by a moral vanity that wearies most.” Attributed by him to one Paul Kelly. That bit about hubris and moral vanity seems to describe the likes of Ms. Hayhoe and her ilk, as I never could.
    My regards to all,
    The Mostest Deplorable-est Vlad the Impaler-est, a crashing-est bore-est, and an even bigger-est bully-est (according to C.T. at JoNova)

  56. After reading this post and the referenced ecowatch URL, my advice to Dr. Hayhoe is simple: “Eschew obfuscation.”
    Dr. Hayhoe is worried about the bugaboo of “climate change.” She’ll have to worry until her dying day because if she thinks she or anyone can stop “climate change,” she’s delusional. In the ecowatch article the phrase “climate change” appears 18 times, but the association of “climate change” with “global warming” appears three times. Thank heavens she remembered to equate “climate change” with “global warming;” otherwise I might be confused and think “global cooling” was the worrisome “climate change” issue.

    • The most worrisome element of climate change is global governance. Nothing to do with temperature.

  57. Liberalism is in general spread and enforced by social pressure, not reason. It’s high school, endlessly repeated. Which is why it remains more popular at colleges and in entertainment than elsewhere. It’s familiar territory to those people.

  58. Re Katharine Hayhoe, 3/21/2018:
    The problem is not with the scientifically literate who might make a case against AGW. The problem is with the scientifically illiterate who claim to be practicing science. Those are the ones who operate models that have been invalidated (the predicted [“projected”] Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is not at 80%+ confidence, but below 3% [0,7 vs 3ºC/2xCO2 mean] using IPCC’s own scale). These are led by the academics, Post Modern Scientists, who rely on Popper’s triad of “intersubjective” criteria (peer review, publication, and consensuses, each “within a limited circle of specialists”) with which he replaced Bacon’s scientific objectivity of Modern Science. Scientific models are supposed to work, and to foist off models that don’t work on the public, e.g., IPCC’s “policymakers”, is unethical. But, bottom line, Katharine Hayhoe is correct in a way: it’s pointless to argue science with the illiterate.

    • Post Modern Scientists, who rely on Popper’s triad of “intersubjective” criteria (peer review, publication, and consensuses, each “within a limited circle of specialists”)

      Imagine how easier it would be if there was a “science board” like the “medical board” who could exclude dissenters. Medical practice was made so safe by the medical boards.
      (Imagine that even so called “libertarians” (codename for pro big corps party) don’t even ask for the dissolution of the medical boards as an absolute urgency.)

Comments are closed.