Katharine Hayhoe on Climate and our Choices

August 24, 2016

I was fortunate to catch up with Katharine Hayhoe in June, while I was interviewing TV meteorologists at a conference in Austin, TX.  She was there to present and answer questions on the finer points of climate science for the assembled media mets.

Dr Hayhoe has been named one of Time Magazine’s most Influential People. She is a climate scientist working and teaching at Texas Tech University.

17 Responses to “Katharine Hayhoe on Climate and our Choices”

  1. Tom Bates Says:

    Did the “expert” bother to mention it is getting colder per the RSS data and has for months? Did she bother to mention the Giss data set is 66 percent fake? Did she bother to mention the STAR data set has the world cooling for decades? Did she mention the 1997-98 El Nino was warmer than this one? Did she bother to mention the weather satellite used by NOAA to measure arctic ice broke in April and has not been replaced and will not be for the indefinite future? Did she bother to mention the trees under the melting glazier in Alaska showed it was warmer than today in 1000 AD? Did she bother to mention the world is still warming from the little ice age? Did she mention that the arctic was ice free in summer from 8500-6500 BP? Did she mention the study that showed CO2 forcing was 0.08F? Did she mention the actual ocean rise in 100 years is projected to be somewhere between 3 and 4 inches or that NASA to be safe figures on 5 inches? I bet she never bother to mention any of that as all her grants are dependent on the sky is falling claims.

    • Lionel Smith Says:

      Did the “expert” bother to mention it is getting colder per the RSS data and has for months?

      Are you blind or juts plain simple, I have put this under your nose only a few days back.

      Maybe you don’t understand its meaning.

    • (Apologies to everyone here except Bates and his fellow deniers for the repetition here — I’m keeping a running count of the number of times I have to ask Bates to retract one of his lies before he musters up the integrity to do so).

      Reposted from earlier:

      Bates, you are such a pathetic liar that it’s, well, (to be redundant) pathetic!

      It’s clear to the regulars that you don’t have a shred of integrity — so they are probably getting quite bored with my requests for you to retract one of your lies.

      But new visitors may not fully appreciate how dishonest you are. I consider it my duty to bring them fully up to speed regarding your honesty (or, more correctly, the lack thereof).

      So here is, for the twelvth time at least, my request for you to retract a lie that I called you out on *months* ago:



      In an earlier comment thread, you made this claim — do you remember it?

      …and only shows warming after that when they plug 66 percent of the data with estimates which are higher than the actual temperatures they replace.

      I proved you wrong by showing that the NASA warming trend can easily be replicated with raw data (no adjustments/estimates/etc.) Link here: https://climatecrocks.com/2016/05/26/exxonknew-and-chose-to-lie/#comment-84594

      When you continued to post here without retracting that completely false claim, I followed up here: https://climatecrocks.com/2016/05/28/bill-maher-on-trump-energy-policy/#comment-84709

      You also ignored that second request to retract your claim.

      And a third.

      And a fourth.

      And a fifth.

      And a sixth.

      And a seventh.

      And an eighth.

      And a ninth.

      And a tenth.

      And an eleventh.

      So I’m following up with yet another request (this one is at least the twelveth). Will you admit that you were wrong about NASA and how it processes temperature data?

      Every time you show up here, I will ping you about this.

      Every. Single. Time.

      And I won’t stop until you acknowledge that you were wrong.

      (Actually, I don’t really expect Bates to man up and admit that he was wrong; I’m simply using him as an example of how deniers are utterly and completely incapable of admitting error, even after they tell the most egregious whoppers).

    • Eight upvotes for Tommy Poo?? So… how many of those votes are his own?

  2. Once again, Master Bates, aka Tommy Poo, has confused this site with W(TF)UWT, where people perversely engage in this sort of fact-free digital self-gratification.

    • Torsten Says:

      Tom, it’s 0.2 watts per square metre per decade, an important difference compared to what you wrote.

      Also, from the page you linked:

      “The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.”

    • Ok, since this is the first time I’ve seen master bates actually provide some links I thought I’d at least take a look at the first one since it was the only one that looked like it could have some credibility.

      It shows the sea level change for one station in the pacific, rather than globally for the whole earth. With an inference then that one means the other.

      I could equally throw back this site http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8764311 which shows a very different story.

      But both would be classic cherry picking and a blatant miuse of the data.

      Think I would prefer to see this analysed by a qualified scientist that actually worked in and understood this field than some denialist crackpot with too much spare time…..

      • Tom Bates Says:

        Have you bothered to read how they came to the conclusion of global ocean rise. First they ignored all the sites with subsidence data, about 20 percent of the sites, than they cut up the world into sections averaged out the sections which in case you did not notice buries the sites with subsidence data in the noise, than averaged out the sections and viola, the oceans are going to swallow us up and we will have to learn how to swim. France has had tidal data since 1805, they get four inches rise in 100 years. In the case of your island you may note it is in louisiana which has a slight subsidence problem which among other things has sunk large parts of New Orleans below sea level. A large part of land subsidence is pumping of ground water and in some parts oil production. Unless you have some evidence the land is not sinking or rising the tidal data is meaningless. Galveston Texas has an over pumping problem, a land subsidence problem and an actual agency to fix the problem or at least manage it. It net ocean rise is 1 inch in 70 years.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: