Hayhoe’s claims here: https://video.foxnews.com/v/6322990446112 Tony Heller: Professional climate scamster Katharine Hayhoe tries to cover up her prior nonsensical warming predictions, by claiming her and her friends saved the planet.
Climate Change and our Christian Faith Video Player 1.00 How Humans are Changing the Climate Video Player 1.00 How Climate Change Threatens National Security Video Player 1.00 An Effective Climate Change Campaign Video Player 1.00 https://news.trust.org/item/20210630113113-dvenb By David Sherfinski | @dsherfinski | Thomson Reuters Foundation Research shows online ads by leading political conservatives talking about their concerns about climate change boosted worry about the issue among other conservative voters * Ads feature conservative voices on climate threats * Aim is to shift voters formerly unmoved on climate action * Study finds jump in concern about global warming By David Sherfinski WASHINGTON, June 30 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – Former U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis, a conservative Republican from South Carolina, admits he was “ignorant” on climate change when he first got to Congress about three decades ago. “I didn’t know anything about it except that Al Gore was for (action on) it and that was the end of the inquiry for me,” he recalled. But today Inglis waxes poetic about how trips to Antarctica and the Great Barrier Reef, as a member of the House Science Committee, helped upend his views and spur him to try to win over like-minded potential converts to action on climate change. “Our deal is to go to conservatives and be able to speak the language of conservatism to them,” he said in an interview, calling such framing “our natural language”. Inglis’ proposition was put to the test when researchers rolled out a month’s worth of online ads, aimed at Republican-leaning voters and featuring prominent conservatives talking about climate risks. One spotlighted retired Air Force Gen. Ron Keys, who emphasized the number of military bases now at risk from rising sea levels driven by climate change. Inglis, in another ad, spoke about how climate solutions don’t necessarily lead to bigger government. A study of those 2019 ads, published this month in the journal Nature Climate Change, found they significantly boosted belief among right-leaning U.S. voters that global warming was a serious threat – a sentiment that still borders on heresy for many conservative hardliners. The campaign raises hopes that communicators are closing in on solving a long-thorny problem: How to shift public opinion on climate change among a relatively stubborn subset of the U.S. population. “I think the big takeaway is … that it works,” said Matthew Goldberg, the report’s lead author and an associate research scientist at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Among conservatives who saw them, the ads in one month drove a 7-percentage-point rise in belief that global warming is happening, a 10-point boost in understanding that warming is human-caused and an 11-point hike in how much importance viewers gave the issue, the study found. Katharine Hayhoe, a prominent climate scientist who spoke in one of the study’s ads about how curbing climate change is consistent with Christian values, said the findings make clear more such carefully crafted messages are needed. “What they’re doing is showing that it’s effective in terms of advertising on social media, that it can actually change minds in that way,” she said in an interview. “That is a game-changer.”
https://climaterealism.com/2021/03/national-climate-assessment-lead-author-hayhoe-joins-billion-dollar-dark-money-group/ By James Taylor Activist climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe, who served as a lead author of the federal government’s most recent National Climate Assessment, has accepted a position as chief scientist for The Nature Conservancy, a billion-dollar dark money environmental activist group. Joining The Nature Conservancy so soon after serving as a lead author for the National Climate Assessment raises ethical concerns, as The Nature Conservancy spends more than $1 million per year lobbying government – more than any other environment-focused activist group. In return, The Nature Conservancy receives approximately $100 million per year in government grants. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a dark-money activist group that does not publicly disclose the names of its donors. To the extent the identities of some TNC donors are known, they include major oil and chemical companies. Critics of the organization have presented evidence indicating TNC’s large corporate donors receive valuable payback for their donations, including excused environmental damage and greenwashing propaganda. The environmental website The Good Human published an article titled, “Greenwash of the Week: The Nature Conservancy and Corporate Donors.” The Good Human describes TNC’s list of corporate donors as “a veritable who’s-who of planet destroyers.” The Good Human notes that oil and chemical corporations also are the core of TNC’s Leadership Council. TNC’s president makes just shy of $1 million per year. Several other top staffers earn more than a half million dollars per year. TNC did not disclose how much it will be paying Hayhoe. Hayhoe joining a deep-pockets, dark-money activist group so soon after leading the National Climate Assessment raises serious concerns about the revolving door of activists working in high-ranking government environmental positions and then selling that visibility and access to the largest bidder among environmental activist groups. Not only does that raise questions about improper influence Hayhoe may provide to assist TNC’s lobbyists, but it also encourages other government-affiliated scientists to take extreme, aggressive positions while in government positions in the hope of landing a similar position with a billion-dollar activist group. Hayhoe joins a growing list of climate activists with potential conflicts-of-interest turning advocacy work while in government into lucrative positions with Big Environment. After serving as EPA Administrator in the Obama administration, for example, Gina McCarthy took the position of president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a position that typically pays over a half million dollars per year. Then, after serving as president/CEO of NRDC, McCarthy recently accepted a position as White House National Climate Advisor. Similarly, Brenda Ekwurzel worked as a senior climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) while simultaneously joining Hayhoe as a co-author of the National Climate Assessment. The UCS is another dark-money group, with $40 million in annual revenue, that does not disclose its donors. In addition to promoting climate alarmism, Hayhoe frequently denigrates Americans who disagree with her. In an interview published yesterday in the Washington Post, Hayhoe said, “whatever the current issue of the day is — covid, school shooting — you can guarantee that whoever rejects climate change will also be adamantly defending the right of people to bear weapons and supporting covid myths and disinformation. It all goes together.” Hayhoe, who asserts that she is Christian, singles out for criticism Christians who disagree with her. Said Hayhoe, “you have a lot of people who are just really confused because they hear people whose values they share, who call themselves Christians, who have called themselves Republicans or conservatives, telling people, ‘Oh, this isn’t real.’ ‘Those scientists are just making it up.’” “I can’t remember where I saw this,” Hayhoe added, “but in the last election — not this one, but [in 2016] — they surveyed people who self-identified as evangelical who voted for Trump and asked them, ‘How often do you go to church?’ Fifty percent of them did not go to church. So the term ‘evangelical’ is now used in the United States for two very different types of people.” Hayhoe also celebrated the COVID economic shutdowns of 2020 for their effects on emissions. “We have satellite observations from around the world that showed that, as the lockdown progressed from China to Europe to North America, levels of dangerous air pollution dropped significantly in some of the most polluted parts of the world,” Hayhoe told the Washington Post. “At the same time, our carbon emissions dropped. So it’s estimated that in the month of April, at least, global carbon emissions were down 17 percent. … [W]e’ve seen what can happen. If we want to meet our Paris [agreement] goals, we have to cut our emissions about 45 or 50 percent by 2030. As of this time last year, that seemed like an impossible goal. Well, we got a third of the way there in four weeks. One-third of the way toward the Paris agreement in four weeks! It’s just stunning.” Now, Hayhoe is cashing in with The Nature Conservancy for her prominent climate advocacy. James Taylor James Taylor is the President of the Heartland Institute. Taylor is also director of Heartland’s Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy. Taylor is the former managing editor (2001-2014) of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly publication devoted to sound science and free-market environmentalism.
Biden transition team discussed bringing back John Holdren as science advisor and @KHayhoe to USGCRP to coordinate climate science across federal agencies. Also, one top NOAA/NASA candidate doesn’t want job and another is married to Biden’s chief of staff https://t.co/4qLjhckJLE — Scott Waldman (@scottpwaldman) December 10, 2020 https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063720347 By Scott Waldman, E&E News reporter One of the transition team’s top candidates to lead either NOAA or NASA doesn’t want the job, and another contender for NOAA chief is married to President-elect Joe Biden’s chief of staff. But there are more — a lot more — people out there competing for a range of climate science positions at NASA, NOAA and elsewhere, sources said. So much so that one observer warned that Biden could be dissuaded from picking a climate hawk for his top science adviser position because there might be “too many cooks in the kitchen.” J. Marshall Shepherd. University of Georgia Transition discussions have centered around a few key candidates, some who would be new to Washington while others are Obama administration veterans, according to multiple sources who spoke on background because they were not authorized to talk on the record. J. Marshall Shepherd, chair of NASA’s Earth Science Advisory Committee, has been mentioned frequently as a possibility for NOAA administrator, which The Washington Post first reported. He is also being discussed as a possible head for NASA. Shepherd leads the atmospheric sciences program at the University of Georgia and is a former president of the American Meteorological Society. He was also a research meteorologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. Shepherd told E&E News that he would turn down an offer to lead the nation’s premier science agencies because he wants to spend time with his family before his children go to college. He told E&E News that he is flattered to be considered, but believes NOAA and NASA have to do a lot of rebuilding after the Trump years. “I feel like my role is more valuable external to the government,” he said. “Where some people are sort of awestruck or starstruck by these potential opportunities, my first thought is about the realistic aspects of them, the challenges of them because I’ve seen the work ahead. It’s going to require someone to get down and dirty in those positions. You’re going to need to have someone who’s willing to commit a good portion of their time.” Everette Joseph. NCAR Shepherd said he would endorse Everette Joseph, director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, for the NOAA job. Joseph is under serious consideration for that position, according to multiple sources. Joseph spent a significant part of his career heading the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center at the State University of New York at Albany and helped establish an advanced weather detection system in the state. If nominated, Joseph would also become NOAA’s first Black administrator. … There has been some discussion about bringing in Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University and a lead author of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, into a public climate role. However, it was unclear if that would be as science adviser at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy or as lead scientist at NOAA or NASA. Hayhoe also has been discussed as a possible head of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which coordinates research across multiple federal agencies.
https://www.cfact.org/2020/06/01/alarmist-queen-hayhoe-takedown-by-friends-of-science/ Hayhoe takedown by Friends of Science By David Wojick |June 1st, 2020|Climate|23 Comments If Greta Thunberg is an alarmist princess then Katherine Hayhoe is the queen of climate alarmism, at least in the U.S. and Canada. She was the de facto spokesperson for the atrocious third National Climate Assessment. After that she started doing bogus “Here’s what is going to happen to you” climate studies for various states and cities. Making big bucks scaring people. Last year Hayhoe delivered a doomsday forecast to the Province of Alberta, Canada, and here our story begins. Alberta is home to the Friends of Science Society (FOSS), one of Canada’s top skeptical organizations. FOSS has now produced a 77 page takedown report, shredding Hayhoe’s so-called study in detail. It is an elegant critical work, with implications far beyond Canada. The topic is technical but it is written for policy makers. The plain English table of contents gives the flavor and shows the scope, with 37 succinct chapters. There are even chapters titled “What is “Climate Change”?” and “What is a Climate Model?” In the same vein Hayhoe’s report is arrogantly titled “Alberta’s Climate Future” so the FOSS takedown is “Facts versus Fortune Telling”. There are lots of data issues, especially since the Hayhoe report uses truncated trends. The FOSS rebuttal does a lot of longer term analysis. Another big issue is that the Hayhoe report is based on so-called “downscaling” of hot climate models. This means taking huge crude regional results and interpolating questionable local details. Hayhoe bills herself as an “atmospheric scientist” but her Ph.D. work was on downscaling, which is just computer science. It is fitting that she is now in a university Political Science department, as her work is certainly political. What Hayhoe ignores is the fact that different global climate models give wildly different regional projections. I recall when the first U.S. National Climate Assessment came out; it used two major models, the Canadian and the British Hadley. For the North Central region one projected a 160% increase in rainfall, while the other gave a 60% decrease. Swamp or desert! Obviously this junk is no good for policy making. Here is the Friends of Science condensed summary: “This review shows how Hayhoe & Stoner misinform, how they did not use all available information, how they cultivate alarm regarding Black Swan events, while ignoring counter trends and evidence of cycles. Their report style demonstrates a false, absolute certainty, of knowledge, where due qualification of assumptions and other influences can alter results as reported. Facts and evidence, not fortune-telling, should guide public policy on climate and energy.” Here are some more specific and telling FOSS findings: “Hayhoe & Stoner’s “Alberta’s Climate Future” report fails in a number of ways. The report ignores climate cycles and instead forecasts continuing linear temperature increases based on global climate models, even when local trends may be quite different. The report only addresses trends from 1950, ignoring much warmer conditions in the past in the Province.” “More concerning, “Alberta’s Climate Future” is based on the use of unreasonably unlikely scenarios, such as Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5. This computer simulation is a very extreme projection of the future where the world goes back to using more than five times the coal than is used today. Most mainstream scientists believe the RCP8.5 scenario to be a critically flawed benchmark for forecasting future climate.” “Hayhoe & Stoner make bold and unverified statements such as: “extreme high and low temperatures are projected to increase exponentially” without justification. The report creates alarm with discredited references to natural “Black Swan” events, ascribing human caused climate change as the driver of floods and fires.” There is a great deal more criticism, which is worth looking at. FOSS really does a job on Queen Hayhoe’s so-called research. The Friends of Science takedown is a model for critical analysis of alarmist pseudoscientific hype. The deeply flawed Hayhoe report is not unusual. On the contrary it is typical of climate alarmism — computer based, on selected data, presenting speculative scary conclusions as facts. Author David Wojick
Environmental Reporters Strategize On Using Coronavirus To Advance Climate Agendahttps://t.co/Uw0Ub0YeRz @sejorg — Western Wire (@WesternWireNet) April 6, 2020 https://westernwire.net/environmental-reporters-strategize-on-using-coronavirus-to-advance-climate-agenda/ With the nation locked down due to the coronavirus outbreak, members of the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ) last week compared the dangers of the pandemic with climate change and discussed how to leverage reporting on the public health crisis into advancing environmental policies. The webinar, entitled, “Covering a Crisis: Climate, Coronavirus, and Global (In)action),” featured Katherine Hayhoe, a professor at Texas Tech University and Denis Hayes, a member of the Earth Day Network. The panel was moderated by Emily Holden, an environmental reporter for The Guardian. Hayes kicked off the webinar by arguing the $2 trillion economic relief package passed by Congress last month should have been geared toward transforming the industrial and energy sectors. “But the rest of it is basically to prop up the status quo. You can make a fairly compelling case, I would make it, that if you’re going to be spending that kind of money, going that far into debt, you ought to be doing it in a way that makes a transition into a sustainable future,” Hayes said. Hayhoe then said the partisan reaction to Coronavirus is similar to the partisan breakdown over climate change and that if people are concerned about keeping family and friends safe from the outbreak, they should care about protecting them from climate change. “What matter is this: the health, the safety of ourselves, our friends, our families, our loved ones, our community. That is what really matters, that is what is threatened by the pandemic, and that is exactly why we care about climate change, too,” Hayhoe said. “The difference though is this: with the pandemic, we didn’t act quite fast enough, but acted in time to actually start making difference. But if we wait until climate change is that close to us, the impacts are that widespread and devastating before we take action, it is going to be too late,” she continued. Hayhoe said “there are lots of lessons to be learned” between the response to Coronavirus and climate change. Western Wire previously covered criticism that Hayhoe has faced conflicts of interest as a scientific advisor due to a lack of transparency of funding sources for her climate research. Earlier this year, Western Wire also covered a similar panel discussion held by SEJ where reporters discussed using energy and agriculture regulations to tell negative stories about the Trump Administration in 2020. After some discussion about the role reporters should play in covering both coronavirus and climate change, Holden asked about the possibility of poor perception from comparing the two events. “Is there a risk of environmental journalists’ reporting right now looking kind of opportunist and connecting these two crises or writing stories that are completely unrelated to this one? Is there a way to link these without being in bad taste?” she asked the panel. Hayhoe empathetically replied “Yes” and described how reporters should frame their stories. “You want to have a strong statement at the top about how bad this is and how much we have to focus on this. And then connect the dots,” Hayhoe said. “So, we start with what everybody cares about today which is the pandemic and then we connect the dots between an aspect of how we are responding to pandemic. We connect the dots to how climate change is exacerbating these types of risks or how preparedness helps both,” she continued. Alice Hill, a Senior Fellow for Climate Change Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations drew parallels between the death rate of Coronavirus and climate change, downplaying the lack of lasting impact of the pandemic. “Commonly people think it [climate change] is like a disease, maybe they even think it’s like a pandemic and it’s going to go away,” Hill said. “Climate change, the changes we’re talking are, in large part, are probably permanent. This pandemic, we could have another pandemic, but the changes are not, they’re permanent in that people will die, they’ll die with climate change. But the changes to our atmosphere are fundamental.”
By Tony Heller Michael Mann and Katharine Hayhoe created a climate cult, which has now turned on them.
https://www.cfact.org/2019/10/01/mann-hayhoe-caught-falsifyine-temperature-history-to-erase-medieval-warm-period/ By James Taylor Climate alarmists Michael Mann and Katharine Hayhoe have been caught using dubious, revisionist temperature data in their attempt, as one Climategate email author put it, to “deal a mortal blow” to the extensively documented Medieval Warm Period. Before climate change became a political issue, it was scientifically well-established that a significant global warming event occurred between approximately 900 AD and 1200 AD. For example, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) First Assessment Report presented a temperature history and visual graph documenting that the Medieval Warm Period existed and that it brought temperatures at least as warm as today (at pg. 7). Multiple peer-reviewed studies provided additional confirmation of the Medieval Warm Period. The warming climate of the Medieval Warm Period spurred abundant crop production, fewer extreme droughts and floods, growing human population, and improving living standards. The Little Ice Age terminated the Medieval Warm Period and brought devastating weather extremes, widespread crop failures, famines, plagues like the Black Death, and a contracting human population. (For a good summary of the extensive benefits of the Medieval Warm Period and the devastating harms of the Little Ice Age, see the excellent book, “In the Wake of the Plage: The Black Death and the World It Created.”) The existence of large historical temperature fluctuations, warmer temperatures than today, and many documented benefits of those warmer temperatures presented a powerful obstacle in alarmists’ attempts to brand our current modest warming an unprecedented climate crisis. One of the many embarrassing emails leaked in the Climategate scandal showed how alarmists deliberately set a goal of eliminating the historical existence of the Medieval Warm Period. Alarmist climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck wrote in an email to fellow alarmist Keith Briffa, “I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature.” Also, scientist David Deming testified to Congress that a prominent figure working in the field of climate change asserted to him, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” We have often been told that the science is settled. Apparently, that doesn’t apply to scientific data and evidence invalidating climate alarmism. Mann last month favorably retweeted an assertion that present temperatures are the warmest they have been for at least the past 5,000 years. Hayhoe earlier this year gave a presentation in which she presented a graph (without any scientific citation) asserting temperatures steadily and consistently declined for 4,000 years – without any significant variation – prior to the warming of the past 120 years that finally and mercifully brought an end to the Little Ice Age (at 7:41). As documented above, the existence of substantial historical climate variations such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were scientifically well-documented and not in dispute before climate activism politicized the issue. Alarmist scientists were on record searching for justifications to eliminate these inconvenient climate variations that blew gaping holes in their alarmist theories. Now, conveniently, alarmists like Mann and Hayhoe claim the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and other well-documented warm and cold periods simply did not exist. An old sarcastic saying goes, “When the facts doesn’t fit the theory, change the facts.” Mann and Hayhoe provide perfect real-world examples of such perniciousness. Powerful scientific evidence supported near-universal agreement about the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. Then Mann and Hayhoe, supported by little or no compelling evidence, waved a magic wand and made the Medieval Warm Period conveniently disappear. Climate realists, however, will stick with the powerful scientific evidence, the long-established scientific “consensus,” the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and the findings of the IPCC. Sorry, Mann and Hayhoe, but you have been caught red-handed.
Katharine Hayhoe’s High Hopes for President Trump’s New Climate Science Advisor https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/04/katherine-hayhoes-high-hopes-for-president-trumps-new-climate-science-advisor/ Guest essay by Eric Worrall President Trump’s choice is approved by both Katharine Hayhoe and Roger Pielke Jr. Can Trump’s new science adviser convince him that climate change is real? Brandon Miller-Profile-Image By Brandon Miller, CNN Updated 2030 GMT (0430 HKT) January 3, 2019 (CNN) In the eleventh hour of the outgoing Congress’ term, the… — gReader Pro
Dr. Katharine Hayhoe tries to scare Canadians with threats of warmer temperatures https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/13/dr-katharine-hayhoe-tries-to-scare-canadians-with-threats-of-warmer-temperatures/ Mass Public Indoctrination Program on Climate Change Introduced in ‘Alberta Narratives’ During Calgary Climate Symposium By Michelle Stirling and Trevor Marr CALGARY, Alberta, Canada As the IPCC Cities Conference progressed in Alberta’s capitol city of Edmonton, March 5-8, 2018, Canada’s energy center was not going to be left out. The Calgary Climate Change Symposium featured… — gReader Pro
Sign up to get updates.
