Katherine concedes that her intellect is outmatched by a factor of almost fifty.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
gelcarrion0t on Australia Permanent Drought Up… gelcarrion0t on “New computer modeling… Morgan Wright on Climate Destroying Shrimp Christopher Simpson on 1896 : Japan Hit By Earthquake… energywise on What’s At Stake? Robert Cherba on Too Hot To Live gelcarrion0t on Too Hot To Live Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end…
“…49 pro-climate chg scientists…”
But that would empty out their whole stable.
Besides, whatever happened to the 97 pro / 3 against consensus (that was a 32.33:1 ratio). Is she saying that it’s now a 98/2 ratio?
After all these years, they only picked up one?
And if they’ll let us pick the “one”, they’d still lose. Maybe Lord Monckton should take them up on their offer.
I like Monckton, but he ain’t the one to fill the bill.
Bastardi is actually pretty good for whipping out an encyclopedia of facts. And quick on the response. Morano can pretty much trash any 10 at a time, but one of the best spoken is Chris Horner.
Thats Weird.
Sounds like the debate’s over
New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere
A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with it’s climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth’s atmosphere.
NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block no less than 95 percent of harmful solar rays from our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.
NASA’s Langley Research Center instruments show that the thermosphere not only received a whopping 26 billion kilowatt hours of energy from the sun during a recent burst of solar activity, but that in the upper atmospheric carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide molecules sent as much as 95% of that radiation straight back out into space.
The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet. However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA’s chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA’s GISS.
Already, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been in full retreat after having to concede a 17-year stall in global warming despite levels of atmopheric CO2 rising almost 40 percent in recent decades. The new SABER data now forms part of a real world double whammy against climatologists’ computer models that have always been programmed to show CO2 as a warming gas.
http://www.principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html
That is just too much. Let’s get this publication to Katherine quick! She’s got some ‘splainin’ to do.
She could not handle the “Debate” here!
No matter what she claims, she does not have enough “Faith’ in her “Beliefs” to defend them is a real scientific debate. Of course she would need to find a “Real” Scientist to help her!
She’s on a mission from God to stamp out denialism, she has her work cut out
First she needs to stamp out her own denialism of historical facts!
That’s a tough one. I don’t think she’s capable of learning much; she ain’t real brite
They are afraid of debate for many reasons. The most important being that co2 relationship to temperature is logarithmic not linear. You might say “Hey, we know that” but they know that most people don’t. This is why we get called deniers. Don’t believe me? Launch a Poll Daddy on a Warmist media website and see for yourself.
@ Jimbo: most people don’t know what “logarithmic” means, and their eyes glaze over when you try to explain it.
I asked a question the other day, of a warmist scientist who I believe plays fair. The question was: “CO2 forcing is logarithmic, so how come the models all show exponential rise?”
I’m still waiting for a reply. But maybe he missed my question.
Hayhoe believes the world is circa 5000 years old. Her worldview of history has no Ice Ages and thus only beautiful warm weather. People who deny CAGW must be heretics and witches. I’m happy to be called both anytime she wants. Waiting for the lightning strike…..waiting…… waiting……..
“If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!”
—Albert Einstein, commenting on the book 100 Authors Against Einstein
Katherine unfortunately has forgotten that science does not work by consensus, democracy or religious affiliation, but on what is scientifically correct. Which she is not.
And I say this as a scientist and a Christian. This is not relevant to the merits of the climate science…except that Dr Hayhoe seems to think it is.
I tweeted this post, and was blocked by Ms. Hayhoe. Fair, I suppose; although she accused me of being polite to her face. I’m not so sure I was all that polite.
She can block any post with her tweet contained in it? WTF?
She can block any post with her tweet contained in it? WTF?
No; she blocked me, so I can’t view her tweets, but the post is accessible if you aren’t blocked. Maybe she has you blocked too? Try logging out of twitter, or using a different browser.
And for the avoidance of doubt, this is the tweet which was, apparently, polite:
Derek Sorensen @th3Derek
@KHayhoe @afreedma @ClimateOfGavin 49 v 1 Sounds like argument from authority. Helicobacter pylori, anyone?
https://twitter.com/th3Derek/status/316645813851914240
I don’t mind being blocked by people who can’t stand disagreement, but I don’t particularly like being accused of hypocrisy (unless I am being hypocritical, which I don’t think I was).
These are the words of a knowing fraud. If she had real ‘faith’ or conviction, the number of skeptics would not be relevant.
What a POS.
What was the question you asked her? I assume you asked her to debate someone?
It was in a thread started by Gavin Schmidt, where he asked whether climatologists should appear on TV. She said she wouldn’t debate, and I asked: “If your science is sound, why be afraid of debate?”
The above was her reply.
Hey Derek,
I just love your reference to Helicobacter Pylori. I remember that controversy quite vividly. Found by two doctors (and worthy Nobel prizewinners unlike certain others) from my home town, Perth WA. Marshall drank a beaker of the bacteria to prove it caused ulcers.
I’d like to see Hayhoe, Mann, Hansen or MacGibbon do something similar to prove their hypothesis, such as spend a year above the Arctic Circle where it is so hot “all the ice is melting” or if thats too hard, spend January to March in Moscow with no fossil fuels. The only thing they’d need to swallow would be their own bullsh!t.
Hi Derek, you mentioned co2 effect being logarithmic. That’s right. You mentioned the alarmist model’s forecast is exponential. How come? I guess everyone here knows its because they factor in positive feedback, mainly water vapour, which is then going to produce even more warming 2 to 5 times – almost to the point of thermal runaway. But nature hasn’t obliged. Water vapour hasn’t gone up. And even if it did we’d get more clouds, get cooler, and then it’d all fall down again. A huge negative feedback. Nature is chock full of negative feedbacks. Dick Lindzen attempted to quantify the overall feedback by doing a temperature perturbation analysis a few years ago. He reckoned the nett feedback between Deg C change and doubling of CO2, based on change in outgoing long wave radiation, was about 0.7, not the 3 to 5 that the alarmists say. As I said before you guys all know this stuff. But there you go, somebody might stop by and read, who didn’t know. Cheers to all from the sunny South Pacific.
Hayhoe blocked me too. I was polite, just pointing out that if you don’t debate, you don’t win, and the low poll numbers support this.
Thin skinned bunch….
So, this Hayhoe wants 49 to one odds in the debate? So, the tough little fighter needs 48 others to equal one skeptic?
If it was Monckton or Morano, either would CLEAN THEIR CLOCKS – all 49 of them!