The Arrogance and Censoriousness of Hayhoe – Not Very Christian
So, after being banned from Twitter, I’m working up to a ban from Facebook. I’m getting there, slowly. Having comments wiped off is always a good start. Hayhoe posted this:
I replied and she responded:
The sheer arrogance and nauseating condescension of her statement, the assumption that because she is a scientist, anything posted by social media users which doesn’t conform to her opinion is therefore false and misleading! On top of that, the invitation to ‘re-educate’ myself (by watching stupid global weirding you tube videos and going to the SkS website) before being granted the privilege to post again on her scientists’ page! Nothing I said was false or misleading. She censored my comment of course, but not before I took a screenshot.
Hayhoe is selling snake oil on social media and will tolerate no members in the audience who are sceptical of her product. Yet she (and her adoring alarmist fan club) pretends that she is a top class climate science communicator.
Hayhoe’s hubby, if I recall correctly, is running a small NGO that is designed to promote her business model of selling climate alarmism as salvation.
The sin of Simony applies for what she is doing.
She is the grubbing televangelist of the climate hype industry.
So of course she is going to make dramatic nonsensical circular distraction to protect her gig.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Wikipedia tells us she is “an atmospheric scientist and professor of political science”
It also tells us that “political science is a social science which deals with systems of governance, and the analysis of political activities, political thoughts, and political behavior. It deals extensively with the theory and practice of politics which is commonly thought of as determining of the distribution of power and resources.”
As CEO of a company selling “climate services”, ATMOS Research and Consulting, her position as director of the Texas Climate Science Center no doubt bestows a certain scientific imprimatur helpful to her business.
This an example of the spiel:
“These projects bring in more customization to your specific problem. For example, you may care about the number of days per year hotter than 92oF; or how often the 10-year flood will occur in the future. We take your indicators and create custom projections for the specific aspects of climate that matter to you.
She demonstrates the shallowness of her “science” with the comment: “how often the 10-year flood will occur in the future.” She can have absolutely no idea, it is not possible to know.
I would recommend her to check out this website https://water.usgs.gov/edu/100yearflood.html
“The term “100-year flood” is used in an attempt to simplify the definition of a flood that statistically has a 1-percent chance of occurring in any given year. Likewise, the term “100-year storm” is used to define a rainfall event that statistically has this same 1-percent chance of occurring. In other words, over the course of 1 million years, these events would be expected to occur 10,000 times. But, just because it rained 10 inches in one day last year doesn’t mean it can’t rain 10 inches in one day again this year.”
The whole tenor of her ATMOS site is one of absolute certainty and that she can give companies accurate predictions to guide their spending on mitigation against a perceived threat predicated upon her climate claims.
She has had numerous state and government contracts, including the EPA, (although perhaps not any longer). Public bodies will not care whether her necromancy pans out or not, private clients may take a different view.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well if it’s any compensation they treat me the same way. I get the little lecture about how they are scientists and I should shut up and listen. I answer I am a scientist too and they say I am not the right kind of scientist because I don’t study modelling and stats and I say I do and they say I don’t study the right kind of modelling and stats (assuming I haven’t already been cut off). When they finally reach a point where they can’t out and out discredit me or my credentials they revert to the old “You’re in the pay of big oil!” as the excuse to cut me off.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is the ‘Global Weirding’ video Hayhoe recommended I view in order to re-educate myself on why ‘it’s not natural cycles’. Geoff also pointed it out in his earlier post on Hayhoe. I find looking at her and listening to her rather irritating but I’ve watched the first few minutes with gritted teeth and after a little more than a minute she lies. She says that TSI has been declining since the 1970s. This is simply not true. TSI began declining rapidly in the early 21st century. Telling lies is also not a very Christian thing to do. Here is the historical reconstruction of TSI from the SORCE website:
Jaime. I suspect the Arrogance and Nauseating Condescension Quotients of Hayhoe’s replies increase proportionately with the science content of the comments. You are dangerous, but you know this. Hayhoe just confirmed this for you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am reminded of Phil Jones’ email response to my proposal for a bet upon predicting future global temperatures. Same arrogance, same claim of special knowledge, same suggestions for my re-education. I hope you enjoyed writing your response as much as I did.
Alan, when you’ve woven a web of deceit, the plain truth of what lies beneath is dangerous. The weavers want you to see only their multi-storey silken threads, not the structure upon which they have been spun.
Jaime. I trust you meant to write “Alan, when ONE HAS woven a web of deceit…”. My deceit weaving abilities have sadly atrophied.
Thank you for the technical English grammar correction Alan. Of course I did not mean you.
Hayhoe has a blog where comments are often switched off, but not on this one from a month ago.
Zero comments so far. It might be interesting to see what kind of comments are allowed.
Geoff, there’s a comment on the Guardian article which sums up the correct response to her brainless insistence that we are responsible for what the politically neutral thermometer measures and the supposed changes in weather and impacts which ‘scientists’ like Hayhoe tell us are a consequence of that rise in global mean surface temperature.
“We now have attribution studies that show how much more likely or stronger extreme weather events have become as a result of human emissions. For example, wildfires in the western US now burn nearly twice the area they would without climate change, and almost 40% more rain fell during Hurricane Harvey than would have otherwise. So we are really feeling the impacts and know how much humanity is responsible.”
It is shifts through logic that, I think, are at the source of the argument. I don’t think there can be any dispute regarding the changes in climate. The debate is about how much that is natural and how much attributable to pollution by humans. This debate is not helped by stating that one side denies there is climate change, full stop. It is way too simplistic. I’m very much for cleaning up the environment whatever the reason but those who need convincing will drive a horse and cart through the type of statement given above i.e. where is the proof?
One of the replies to this very reasonable comment shows just what sceptics are up against:
VosCulpa 6 Jan 2019 8:18 21 22
If it’s a question of taking the word of an intentionally respected scientist based on their research or, say, an idiot who knows fuck all I’m gunna take a gamble and trust the internationally respected scientist.
6 Jan 2019 8:19
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
So, at the Graun, you can be insulted by an illiterate half-wit (“intentionally respected” was more accurate, by the way) in defence of climate alarmism, but if you dare to respond, your comment, not the offensive one by the half-wit, is removed.
Well, she has her Christian faith, and she has her climatescare faith. For the latter she draws attention to events or data sets that are consistent with her interpretation of it, and claims them to be as revelations of the truth of her view. The existence of events and data sets contrary to her view can be brushed aside/censored for not having revelatory properties so desirable for illumination and substantiation.
I see much to admire in Christianity. It has much beauty in and around it, and enhances many people’s lives. But I cannot say the same for the climatescare faith. It has no spiritual depth, and is capable of producing societal loss through the authoritarianism it seems to encourage.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Back in 2012, Katharine Hayhoe was in an episode of BBC2’s Horizon (also called “Global Weirding”, funnily enough):
“What we are seeing, what we are experiencing ourselves, where we live, in our day-to-day lives, is changes in the average conditions that we’re used to. And one of the first things we’re seeing is changes in our extremes. We’re seeing global weirding.”
“Dice are a great way to picture what climate change is doing to our world. We always have a chance of rolling that six, whether it’s extreme heat or record-setting rainfall, or even the longest drought on record, that could always happen naturally. What climate change is doing now, is one by one, it’s taking those sixes, those weather extremes, and adding a few more to the dice. So that now our chances of a record-breaking heat wave are twice what they used to be. Our chances of record-setting rainfall events have increased, relative to the last 50 years. We’ll never know for sure if that six that we rolled, that extreme weather event, is the natural one or the climate change one. But we do know that the chances of rolling those sixes are increasing.”
“Events that used to be very random and extreme are becoming much more frequent. And more severe. We’re going to be living in a different world than the one we grew up in.”
IPCC SREX Chapter 4, FAQ 3.1 “Is the Climate Becoming More Extreme? … None of the above instruments has yet been developed sufficiently as to allow us to confidently answer the question posed here.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
LikeLiked by 1 person
By unscrupulously plugging her climatescare faith and even using her Christian faith to bolster the credibility of what she unashamedly calls ‘scientific fact’, she devalues her Christian principles and also inflicts damage upon public trust in science.