Katherine Hayhoe

I’ve attended lectures by Katherine Hayhoe, Michael Mann, and Bill McKibbon. In every case,  I could have easily refuted most of their data and arguments, but no one challenged them in the least. Most of the attendees were in their 20s. From what I could see, they enjoy being lied to. No one was even googling the presentation to check facts. Fortunately, the general public sees through this; the audiences in all three cases consisted mostly of students and people who work for the Sierra Club or other global warming profiteers.

Here's a nice list of such profiteers:

http://350.org/about/team/

This is just one of several examples of the kinds of things they say that will, eventually, destroy whatever credibility they still have:

One Month Since Katherine Hayhoe Discussed The Desertification Of Texas

Posted on May 23, 2015by stevengoddard

Texas is flooded, with lots more rain on the way. One month ago, climate expert Katherine Hayhoe discussed the desertification of Texas

APRIL 22, 2015

What Climate Change Is Doing to the Texas Cattle Ranch | The New Republic

Buffoons like Katherine Hayhoe have no idea what they are talking about, which is why President Obama calls them “our best scientists.”

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/05/23/one-month-since-katherine-hayhoe-discussed-the-desertification-of-texas/#comment-523659

NASA games

Tony Heller does such a great job with the data that one has to wonder why he's the only one highlighting this. Well, not the only one, but the most effective. Here are two of his recent posts.

NASA – Hiding The Decline

Posted on May 23, 2015by stevengoddard

In 1976, the New York Times reported that the Northern Hemisphere had cooled nearly as much since 1945 as it rose in the first part of the century.

NYTimes.com

The National Academy Of Sciences reported this cooling.

But it didn’t fit the global warming agenda, so NASA has since made almost all of that cooling disappear.

Fig.A3.gif (625×474)

NASA temperature data is propaganda, not science. Skeptics who pretend that NASA temperature data is legitimate, are enabling this scam.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

What Level Of CO2 Would Stop Glaciers From Melting?

Posted on May 23, 2015by stevengoddard

Shortly after agreeing to let China double their CO2 emissions over the next 15 years, climate expert Barack Obama told us that reducing CO2 emissions would stop glaciers from melting and sea level from rising. He said that global warming threatens US security.

In light of the huge increase in Chinese emissions, any token reduction in US emissions would be just noise in the global picture. But ignoring the fact that Obama’s logic and mathematics would fail elementary school, what level of atmospheric CO2 would stop the rise of the glaciers?

In 1923, CO2 was 304 PPM – and glaciers were disappearing. Science wondered if the North Pole would melt entirely.

NORTH POLE MELTING.

MANY GLACIERS VANISHED.

Is the North Pole going to melt entirely?

Science is asking these questions

a radical change in climatic conditions, with hitherto unheard-of high temperatures

07 Apr 1923 – NORTH POLE MELTING. MANY GLACIERS VANISHED.

According to NASA, 1923 was one of the coldest years ever, even though the North Pole was melting and the Arctic was experiencing “unheard of high temperatures.”

But it is worse than it seems. According to NASA, the world was much warmer in the 1970’s than it was in the 1920’s – yet the CIA reported a large increase in Arctic ice and worried about the threat to national security from global cooling.

TimesMachine: July 18, 1970 – NYTimes.com

1974 CIA report

The world’s leading climatologists warned that Earth was headed back into the Little Ice Age, and the CIA said that it threatened US security.

CIA Report 1974

So according to NASA, ice melts at low temperatures and freezes at high temperatures – and according to the intelligence community the world is threatened by both warm temperatures and cold temperatures.

This entire climate change farce is based on bogus temperature data from NASA and NOAA, and spectacularly irrational logic coming out of Washington DC. Nothing they are doing makes any sense, yet we are not allowed to talk about it.

And skeptics who pretend that temperature data from NASA and NOAA is legitimate, are enabling this scam.

Tesla lunacy

Lately I've been hearing a lot of praise for Tesla, the electric car manufacturer. That company has never earned a profit from what they manufacture and sell; they have profited solely because of the government mandates and subsidies. Tesla is owned by a billionaire who excels at getting government funding; i.e., crony capitalism. So we have a billionaire who has figured out how to get middle-class taxpayers to subsidize the purchase of fancy electric cars by the wealthy. And I hear people in their thirties praising this!

Unbelievable.



One of many references:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2014/04/07/tesla-taxes-and-free-market-hypocrisy/

Also:

Unless a capacity for thinking is accompanied by a capacity for action, a superior mind exists in torture.

Seattle environmentalists depend on oil to protest against oil

I'm constantly amazed at the ignorance of the rising generation. They protest against the economic activity that has made their lives abundant and prosperous--not to mention environmentally friendly. I don't know if it's economic illiteracy, 1984 NEWSPEAK, or what, but these people are making fools of themselves.






Here is how CFACT summarized this situation:

They came in automobiles fueled by oil, wearing clothing made from oil, to protest oil, in kayaks made from oil. Then they tweeted their photos on phones made from oil and drove home.

edX: Denial101x Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

edX is offering a course titled:

Denial101x Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

This is not a joke. It's a serious course. I've signed up for it.

Anyone can sign up. https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x

So now edX is using a pejorative, inaccurate rhetorical term as a legitimate basis for academic study. 

I don't know how much time I'll have to interact with the course. Others are writing about it. E.g., http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/uqs-denial-101x-putting-the-stink-in-distinction/

Apparently Barry Woods is upset that his monolithic indoctrination of captive students is being questioned in his own course: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/climate-change-deniers-sign-up-to-uq-course-tackling-climate-change-deniers-20150430-1mwt52.html

So far, from what I've seen the course sets up a series of straw men to attack. It should be interesting to see how the course progresses.

Look at the description of the course, which starts off on a false premise. The 97% study is a false representation of the results of the survey it purports to rely on. Note how the description conflates "the scientific community" with "97% of climate scientists," and doesn't acknowledge that the 97% is not a count of climate scientists but of selected articles surveyed in a meta study. 

About this course

In public discussions, climate change is a highly controversial topic. However, in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.

• Why the gap between the public and scientists?
• What are the psychological and social drivers of the rejection of the scientific consensus?
• How has climate denial influenced public perceptions and attitudes towards climate change?

This course examines the science of climate science denial.

We will look at the most common climate myths from “global warming stopped in 1998” to “global warming is caused by the sun” to “climate impacts are nothing to worry about.”

We’ll find out what lessons are to be learnt from past climate change as well as better understand how climate models predict future climate impacts. You’ll learn both the science of climate change and the techniques used to distort the science.

With every myth we debunk, you’ll learn the critical thinking needed to identify the fallacies associated with the myth. Finally, armed with all this knowledge, you’ll learn the psychology of misinformation. This will equip you to effectively respond to climate misinformation and debunk myths.

This isn’t just a climate MOOC; it’s a MOOC about how people think about climate change.

What you'll learn

• How to recognise the social and psychological drivers of climate science denial
• How to better understand climate change: the evidence that it is happening, that humans are causing it and the potential impacts
• How to identify the techniques and fallacies that climate myths employ to distort climate science
• How to effectively debunk climate misinformation

Meet the instructors

• 
  John Cook
  Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change InstituteUniversity of Queensland
• 
  Daniel Bedford
  Professor of Physical Geography and Climate ScienceWeber State University, Utah
• 
  Gavin Cawley
  Senior Lecturer in Computing SciencesUniversity of East Anglia
• 
  Kevin Cowtan
  Research Fellow, Department of ChemistryUniversity of York, England
• 
  Sarah A. Green
  Professor of ChemistryMichigan Technological University
• 
  Peter Jacobs
  Graduate Student, Department of Environmental Science and PolicyGeorge Mason University
• 
  Scott Mandia
  Professor of Earth and Space Sciences and Assistant Chair of the Physical Sciences DepartmentSuffolk County Community College, New York
• 
  Dana Nuccitelli
  Environmental ScientistSkeptical Science
• 
  Mark Richardson
  ResearcherCalTech/NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
• 
  Keah Schuenemann
  Meteorology ProfessorMetropolitan State University of Denver
• 
  Andy Skuce
  Independent Geoscience Consultant Skeptical Science
• 
  Robert Way
  PhD Candidate in the Department of GeographyUniversity of Ottawa, Canada
• 
  Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
  Director of the Global Change Institute (GCI) and Professor of Marine ScienceUniversity of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia