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.
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.
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.
GoatGuy
This “women” and her ilk disgust me to no end. What an idiot.
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.
“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?
Katharine Hayhoe comments brought to mind the ‘It’s for your own good!’ dark character Mistress Dolores Umbridge, in the Harry Potter movie Order of the Phoenix.
https://youtu.be/slf08hY6pR8
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:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi6RkdaEqgRVKi3AzidF4ow.
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.
Hayhoe. Boy, if I were in 5th grade I could have fun with that name. But I’m in 6th, so …
Hayhoe really is as stupid as she looks
And that’s saying something!
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!
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
“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!
And stop letting them back in!
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.
He also said
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.
Yoda says suffer you will.
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.
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”.
“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?
So the climate Ho is out saying Hay again.
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.)
“Katherine Hayhoe” “Falling behind”
Of course I am starting to suffer that myself.
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.
It occurs to me that Katherine Hayhoe taught our Climate Barbie,everything she knows.
If anyone knows Kathrine’s email address please pass-on this important message from her pharmacist ….
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.
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)
That’s a Dolores Umbridge (Harry Potter, wizard of the dark side) expression by Katherine Hayhoe
https://goo.gl/images/nNw7w4