Search
Close this search box.

Search Results for: Hayhoe – Page 2

Warmist Katharine Hayhoe: Don’t call skeptics ‘deniers’ – More accurate to call them ‘climate dismissives’

Should We Call Climate-Change Deniers “Dismissives” Instead? A renowned scientist proposes an alternative to a contested word. BY EMILY ATKIN May 9, 2017 NPR’s Rachel Martin had a fascinating interview on Tuesday with Katharine Hayhoe, a renowned climate scientist and evangelical Christian, in which they discussed the toxic nature of the world “climate denier”—a word that environmental reporters, including me, use all the time to describe people who don’t accept the scientific consensus that climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous. Hayhoe argued that calling people deniers is “a good way to end the conversation,” and that it’s actually more accurate to use the word “climate dismissive.” “I think that’s the perfect term,” Hayhoe said, “because a dismissive person will dismiss any evidence, any arguments with which they’re presented, because dismissing the reality of climate change and the necessity for action is such a core part of their identity that it’s like asking them to almost cut off an arm. That’s how profound the change would be for them to change their minds about climate change.” Hayhoe’s terminology comes from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, which last year published a report on how Americans view the threat of global warming. It concluded that America was divided into six categories: alarmed, concerned, cautious, disengaged, doubtful, and dismissive, the latter being people “who do not believe global warming is real and are likely to believe in various conspiracy theories about the issue.” http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/ I’ve struggled with whether to use word “denier,” especially because of the common accusation that it’s meant to invoke Holocaust deniers. That’s not accurate, as Peter Dykstra explained at Scientific American: The word refers to a type of psychological defense mechanism first conceived by Sigmund and Anna Freud, where “an unpleasant reality is ignored, and a realistic interpretation of potentially threatening events is replaced by a benign but inaccurate one.” That’s why I think of “denier” is the most accurate term for people who ignore, misrepresent, or generally discredit the field of climate science—whether it’s because they don’t like the proposed solutions, or because they just can’t accept reality. But another compelling reason to use “denier” is that the alternative terminology is inadequate. I won’t use the word “skeptic” because it distorts the meaning of skepticism within science. Climate scientists are skeptical by profession, and yet, a vast majority of them concluded that global warming is real and caused by humans. In other words, “skeptics” implies that the majority of climate scientists are not skeptics, when they are. The Associated Press stylebook recommends that reporters use “doubter.” That word troubles me, too, since “doubt” implies a sincerity of belief regarding the science, but many deniers are motivated instead by political ideology. When Senator Jim Inhofe brought a snowball to the Senate floor to try and prove global warming was a hoax, for instance, he was not expressing sincere “doubt” about climate science. He was just denying it. Hayhoe argues that “dismissive” is more accurate than “denier” because she believes most people aren’t malicious about their belief systems. “The biggest thing I’ve learned in the last 10 or 15 years is that people who don’t agree with me on the science are usually fairly smart people who usually have good reasons,” she said. “Those reasons usually don’t have much to do with science,” she said, but added that “mutual respect is the foundation of further conversation.” But the goal of such a conversation is to convince climate “dismissives” to come over to the correct side of science, and even Hayhoe admits that’s unlikely: Follow Katharine Hayhoe ✔@KHayhoe If someone’s a dismissive, tho, then all the facts in the world won’t change their mind. why? bc it’s their identity https://youtu.be/nkMIjbDtdo0  12:03 PM – 28 Feb 2017 1010 Retweets 2626 likes But Hayhoe argues that agreeing on solutions to climate change—like reducing carbon dioxide emissions and investing in renewable energy—doesn’t require that everyone be motivated by despair over climate change. “We can often move forward on agreement on solutions even if we don’t agree on the science,” she said. I’m not sure that’s true. If someone like Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburndoesn’t believe that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that traps heat in the atmosphere, then why would she support efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? And calling Blackburn a “dismissive” rather than a “denier” isn’t likely to make her any more amenable to such efforts.

Warmist Katharine Hayhoe ‘Denies The Science’ – Accused of ‘blatant dishonesty’ about Texas droughts

Hayhoe Denies The Science http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/hayhoe-denies-the-science/ By Paul Homewood     It seems as if Katharine Hayhoe has been at it again. In the documentary “Years of Living Dangerously”, she tries to persuade viewers that the Texas drought of 2011 was brought about by rising levels of CO2. Only one slight problem, Katharine, droughts have occurred regularly in the past in Texas, and sometimes more severely. In particular, the drought years of the 1950’s were both longer lasting , and more severe than the recent drought, as NOAA’s drought index shows.   http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us   And there is a very well understood reason for these regular occurrences – ocean cycles. With regards to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, NOAA themselves tell us that:   Recent research suggests that the AMO is related to the past occurrence of major droughts in the Midwest and the Southwest. When the AMO is in its warm phase, these droughts tend to be more frequent and/or severe (prolonged?). Vice-versa for negative AMO. Two of the most severe droughts of the 20th century occurred during the positive AMO between 1925 and 1965: The Dustbowl of the 1930s and the 1950s drought. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/faq/amo_faq.php   And currently, surprise, surprise, we are in the warm phase of the AMO.   http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/gcos_wgsp/tsanalysis.pl?tstype1=91&tstype2=0&year1=&year2=&itypea=0&axistype=0&anom=0&plotstyle=0&climo1=&climo2=&y1=&y2=&y21=&y22=&length=&lag=&iall=0&iseas=0&mon1=0&mon2=11&Submit=Calculate+Results     And then there’s the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. You will not be surprised to learn that:   Positive PDO values are usually associated with wetter conditions in the Southwestern United States, while negative PDO values are suggestive of persistent drought in the Southwest. http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oceananddrought.html   Or that we are currently in the negative phase of the PDO, just as we were in the 1950’s. (Note that the 1930’s were in the positive PDO phase, which helped to ameliorate the 1930’s droughts in Texas – this was not the case further north, over the Great Plains and Mid West; there is a useful map of this here.)   http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/gcos_wgsp/tsanalysis.pl?tstype1=20&tstype2=0&year1=1900&year2=&itypea=0&axistype=0&anom=0&plotstyle=0&climo1=&climo2=&y1=&y2=&y21=&y22=&length=&lag=&iall=0&iseas=0&mon1=0&mon2=11&Submit=Calculate+Results     The blatant dishonesty of all of this is breathtaking. Katharine Hayhoe must surely know all of this, that is what she is paid to do. So why is she trying to convince the public otherwise? Sent by gReader Pro

Warmist Katharine Hayhoe converted her husband to warmist by showing him NASA temperature data revealing rising temps

Meet The Surprising Star Of Showtime’s New Climate Change Series http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/14/3425256/meet-star-showtime-series/ “Years Of Living Dangerously” airs on Sundays at 10 p.m. EST on Showtime. On a recent Washington, DC evening, a few hundred people gathered to catch a sneak peak of Showtime’s new star-studded series on climate change. The surprisingly action-packed first episode of “Years Of Living Dangerously” featured big names doing bigger things: In one scene, Harrison Ford helicopters over the scorched forests of Indonesia. In another, Thomas Friedman interviews rebel fighters in war-torn, drought-ridden Syria. But when the audience stepped out into the unseasonably warm night, people were buzzing about one person they’d never seen on the big screen before. An evangelical Christian, married to a pastor, living in conservative West Texas, and widely regarded as a top-notch climate scientist, Dr. Katharine Hayhoe is a rare breed on paper — in person, she’s even rarer. Deftly moving between topics like science, religion, and gender with equal parts insight and levity, Hayhoe is an unassuming force of nature. “I’ve never heard of anyone like Katharine Hayhoe,” actor Don Cheadle remarks before meeting her in the episode. Science has been a guiding force in Hayhoe’s life for as long as she can remember. One of her earliest memories comes at just four years old, lying on a blanket with her father, a science educator, out long past her bedtime so he could show her how to find the Andromeda galaxy with binoculars. Family vacations involved driving from Canada all the way to the Outer Banks in North Carolina to catch a glimpse of Haley’s comet, simply because that was the only place you could see it. “That kind of gives you a picture of the level of commitment,” Hayhoe laughed. As the brother to six sisters and father to three daughters, Hayhoe describes her father as “gender blind,” meaning she was never hindered by the feeling girls often have “that science is too hard or isn’t a girl’s thing.” When she was nine, her family moved to Cali, Colombia, where both of her parents taught and worked with the local church. Raised by missionaries and teachers, Christianity has always been a fundamental part of Hayhoe’s life — something she simply never saw as being at odds with her passion for science. While attending graduate school, Hayhoe met Andrew Farley, a Ph.D. student who was a member of the same Christian student group. Even when Hayhoe moved back to Toronto to work as a consultant after completing her master’s degree, the two remained good friends. After a couple years, Farley and Hayhoe ended up getting together and the two were married in 2000. Having known each other for years, “we just assumed that we had most of our values in common,” Hayhoe recalls, but “it wasn’t until after we got married that we realized how different we were.” One of the ways we realized we were different … was that he didn’t think climate change was real. “One of the ways we realized we were different, besides the fact that I did not keep butter in the fridge and he did,” Hayhoe said, “was that he didn’t think climate change was real.” After pausing for the surprise she knew would follow, Hayhoe offered an explanation: “I, growing up in Canada, had never really met anybody that didn’t think it was real and he, growing up in Virginia and going to southern Baptist school, had never met anybody who did think it was real.” Farley and Hayhoe found themselves at an impasse. They both respected the other person, not only as researchers and academics, but as people who shared the same deep faith. If those things were true, then they had to talk about it. Eventually, Farley came around, but it wasn’t easy. “We are both first borns who love to argue and will not back down,” Hayhoe said. In all, Hayhoe guesses Farley, her first climate change convert, took about two years to convince — though she notes “it wasn’t like we talked about this every day.” “A lot of my political opinions are Republican,” Farley tells Cheadle from the couple’s kitchen table. “The politics, the questions about God, and then the climate change — it’s all just become this ball of sound bites and people can’t parse it out.” The tipping point for Farley? When the two went to the NASA website, downloaded global temperature data, and plotted it on their own computer. “It was clearly going up,” Hayhoe said, so “he had to decide, was NASA, the organization that put people on the moon, involved in some worldwide massive hoax or were they telling the truth?” The same data, simply plotted, makes an appearance in the Showtime episode. “We see that temperature and carbon dioxide track together,” Hayhoe tells Cheadle, running her finger along the jagged line to the sharp uptick at the end. “We also see that right now we are way out of the ballpark.” In hindsight, Hayhoe recognizes that the hours spent debating climate science with her husband were critical to sharpening her understanding of the fundamental science behind climate change and, perhaps more importantly, her ability to communicate it to a doubtful audience. The science is there, it’s been around and it’s not getting through so what’s the point of publishing another paper or 10 more papers? Climate science wasn’t always Hayhoe’s chosen path. When it came time to go to college, she dove straight into her favorite subject, astrophysics. Looking to fulfill a course requirement, she saw a class on climate change and recalls thinking, “Why don’t I take that? It doesn’t sound too hard.” Not only was she immediately blown away by the fact that climate science was grounded in physics, but even more so by the urgency of the problem, “and this was way back in the early 1990s.” Hayhoe credits this course and the professor, Danny Harvey, with opening her eyes to the importance of communicating science, particularly when it’s as pressing as with climate change. “The science is there, the science is solid … and it’s not getting through so what’s the point of publishing one more paper on climate science — or 10 more papers or even 100 more papers — if it’s not going to get through?” she realized. Unable to decide between atmospheric science and astrophysics for graduate school, Hayhoe decided to apply for both. “Back in the day” when applications were submitted via mail with money orders, she had already applied to nine schools and had one money order left, so she basically flipped a coin and sent her last application to the University of Illinois. It was a fortuitous flip. Unbeknownst to Hayhoe at the time, the school had brought on a new department chair, who saw her application and asked her to come visit. Don Wuebbles turned out to be the perfect person for young Hayhoe to learn from, “somebody who recognized not just the importance of the science but communicating that science.” And the feeling was clearly mutual. “Right from the beginning she was an excellent communicator,” Wuebbles said. “She not only has an excellent understanding of the science … but being able to communicate that science clearly is a special skill.” CREDIT: Showtime Wuebbles dropped Hayhoe “right into the deep end, in terms of working on not just research but communication.” Marking another important turning point in her career, Wuebbles introduced her to the Union of Concerned Scientists and brought her on board for a significant research project assessing the health of the Great Lakes. Examining the climate projections they were using, Hayhoe was shocked to discover they were woefully out of date. “I realized that there was this massive disconnect between the physical climate science that develops climate projections and the people who are actually using these projections to figure out what it means for our world,” she said. Figuring out how to deliver the best available climate science to the people who need it the most would become a primary motivation in Hayhoe’s life. In 2005, Hayhoe and Farley decided to move from South Bend, Indiana and needed to find a university with both a program in second language acquisition, Farley’s specialty, and atmospheric science. In addition, Hayhoe, who had continued consulting, needed to finish her Ph.D. Texas Tech University met all of those criteria so the couple packed up and moved to Lubbock, Texas. In Lubbock, a conservative town in West Texas, “people started to ask us even more questions about climate change,” Hayhoe remembers, and shortly after their arrival she received her first invitation to speak to a women’s group. “Some thought [climate change] was real, a lot didn’t” but regardless of their position coming in, Hayhoe realized that they all had questions and weren’t sure whom to trust. “In the evangelical community, science is not a key value,” explained Mitch Hescox, president of the Evangelical Environmental Network. An evangelical Christian church in the area had recently lost its pastor and asked Farley to fill in. Eventually, he was offered the job. Because he loved it and could continue his academic work at the same time, Farley accepted and the questions about climate change became even more frequent. It was soon routine for him to come home look up the answers to the questions he received with Hayhoe — things like, how can polar bears be endangered if there are more of them now? Or, how can global warming be real if the planet is cooling? In the process, the couple quickly saw that they “couldn’t find any book or any resource of any type that started where the people who we were talking to were at, who were not even convinced that this was a real problem and also convinced that this problem fundamentally challenged their core values and beliefs,” Hayhoe said. So the two decided they needed to create that resource. Farley’s task was to gather all of the questions he received about climate change from members of their church and posited in movies like “The Global Warming Hoax” and together they would answer them. “Oh, and we had a baby at the same time,” Hayhoe said. The new baby combined with their decision that nothing would go into the book unless they both agreed to it led to many late nights “arguing over one sentence in the book or two sentences in the book.” A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions was published in 2009 and immediately caught the eye of Hescox. After buying copies for all of his employees, Hescox called her up and said, “Katharine, you and I have to get together.” Hayhoe’s unique gifts impressed Hescox from the very beginning. “She’s the best communicator of climate science that I’ve ever met and she’s also a person of profound faith” — a rare combination. Hescox recalls inviting her to Washington, DC to speak with leaders of several Christian relief and development organizations about what was happening to the Earth’s climate and the impacts of those changes. Among the attendees was, according to Hescox, a very conservative Christian who was quite skeptical of what she had to say. Hearing Hayhoe speak about the science in terms he was comfortable with, however, sparked a total 180. “That’s just an example of the kind of typical impact she has when she can share faith and science at the same time,” Hescox said. CREDIT: Showtime “Religious communities get confused about which voices to listen to and trust,” explained Jennifer Wiseman, an astronomer and Director of the Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. She points to a recent survey conducted by Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund which found that evangelicals are more than twice as likely as the rest of the population to turn to a religious leader or text when they have questions about science and technology than to a scientist. “It’s here where the ambassador makes such a difference,” Wiseman said, and “Katharine is a terrific ambassador.” As Christians, we already have all of the values we need to care about climate change. The inroads Hayhoe has been able to make with conservative religious communities focuses around one fundamental guiding belief: the key to bridging what has become such a divisive, heated issue is not hoping to present people with enough information that they adopt new values. “As Christians, we already have all of the values we need to care about climate change,” she said. And when climate change is presented in terms of its impacts on people, impacts that will disproportionately affect the world’s poor, then the path for engaging Christians is clear. “When we tie that to our Christian values there’s no conflict. In fact, quite the opposite — our faith demands that we act on this issue,” Hayhoe said. Over the years that she’s been giving her presentation to religious groups, Hayhoe has seen a noticeable difference. Even when she knows probably half of the audience doesn’t believe in climate change, by the time she’s finished, the questions revolve around solutions: What can we do about this? Will it ruin the economy? But “I don’t get questions anymore about the science,” she said. It hasn’t all been smooth sailing for Hayhoe, however. In 2012, she agreed to contribute a chapter to a book Newt Gingrich was writing, a collection of environmental essays that would serve as a sequel to his 2007 A Contract With The Earth. Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh caught wind of Hayhoe’s contribution when he had Mark Morano, former staffer to longtime climate denier Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), on as a guest. “Morano has posted numerous attacks on Hayhoe in the past month and provided her email address so his readers could contact her,” journalist Kate Sheppard wrote at the time. Shortly after Limbaugh attacked Hayhoe, whom he referred to as a “climate babe,” on air, Gingrich was asked about the chapter at a campaign stop in Iowa from a woman who was concerned about what she heard. “That’s not going to be in the book. We didn’t know that they were doing that and we told them to kill it,” Gingrich responded. Hayhoe learned that her chapter had been cut from a reporter. “Nice to hear that Gingrich is tossing my #climate chapter in the trash. 100+ unpaid hrs I cd’ve spent playing w my baby,” Hayhoe tweeted. The targeting of Hayhoe led to a dramatic spike in the hate mail directed her way, to the point where she “received hundreds of harassing emails in a single day,” E&E reported. According to Hayhoe, a lot of the vitriol she receives centers around the fact that she is a woman. “There’s definitely a gender component to it and we’d be naive to assume that there isn’t,” she said. There’s definitely a gender component to it and we’d be naive to assume that there isn’t. Taking the risk that comes with repeatedly espousing an unpopular opinion isn’t just unnerving to Hayhoe as an individual but for her children, as well. “As a mother, it’s also very scary to feel like you’re putting yourself out there,” she said. “But also as a mother, that’s one of the main reasons I care. As a parent, you’d do anything for your child — you’d lay down your life for your child — and when you see this massive problem threatening the world that your child will live in, that’s what makes you want to do something about it.” The politicization of climate change comes as an unwelcome surprise for many scientists. “I think there is a tendency for some scientists to withdraw and not want to be a part of that,” said Don Wuebbles, Hayhoe’s graduate advisor. “Our lives are based around the search for truth … and here we’re being attacked for only the reason that we’re trying to tell people the truth about the science,” Wuebbles said. The experience with Gingrich and Limbaugh taught Hayhoe that “politics and science are about as different as any two areas could be.” Rather than ignore the politics to pursue the science, however, she now works in the political science department at Texas Tech. “Understanding how they can work together … is essential to solving the climate problem,” she said. “Otherwise, we have no hope.” Ian Scott-Fleming, a current student of Hayhoe’s at Texas Tech, said that one of the reasons Hayhoe is so effective as an educator is her ability to empower her students with the knowledge she gives them. Rather than overwhelm students with too much information, Hayhoe builds a context in which the information has meaning. “What’s nice about Katharine is she’s good at presenting that framework, giving you the hooks to hang the knowledge on, then presenting you with the knowledge so you know what to do with it when you’ve got it,” he explained. After starting his career as a consultant for various DC-area firms working on weapons systems and other projects, Scott-Fleming “was making lots of money, feeling very important” but he woke up one day and realized, “the better I am at what I do … the worse off the world is as a result.” Working with Hayhoe, Scott-Fleming sees the importance not only of the deep research and data gathering that occurs at the highest academic level, but also being able to reach people outside of that bubble. “I think that’s one of her strengths,” he said of Hayhoe. “Communicating this to folks that aren’t already so deeply buried in it that the arguments are obvious.” The most memorable example of this occurred on a night of climate change speakers that was open to interested attendees from all over Lubbock, not just the university. “This is a very conservative part of the country and it is also Big Oil country,” Scott-Fleming notes. There were several people in the audience who were not receptive to Hayhoe’s statements regarding the effect of fossil fuels and human activity on the Earth’s climate — one older fellow in particular who stood up during the question and answer portion of the evening and “started talking and got a little bit more and more into his own rant.” Scott-Fleming remembers being impressed with Hayhoe’s ability to gently steer what began as a confrontational moment to a more thoughtful discussion. “I think the questioner felt like he had been heard, even if the answer he got wasn’t to his liking,” Scott-Fleming said. “This is a skill few folks have, and a big part of what makes Katharine so effective.” As a person with “about 20 projects on the go at any one time,” Hayhoe has several irons in the fire these days. With her research team — “a group of fantastic women post-docs from Korea, India, Denmark and Romania who all ended up here in West Texas like me” — Hayhoe is looking at how climate change might impact specific types of weather and climate events, such as drought, ice storms, and heat extremes. She’s also working with a variety of cities, government agencies, and non-profits to help them figure out how to reduce their vulnerability, as well as their impact on the climate. And she just had another paper accepted for publication last week, this one written with her first science teacher: her dad. “How cool is that!” she said in an email. For a person whose life’s work is dedicated to the alarming changes occurring to the planet, Hayhoe is unwaveringly upbeat and focused on the cause that drives her. This ebullience makes her approachable and relatable but also never downplays or sugar-coats the severity of climate change. “I naively thought that I would study climate science until we fixed the problem and then I’d go back to astrophysics,” she said with her characteristic smile. “Until we have policies in place to actually start curbing our carbon emissions and reducing the impact we’re having on our planet, I have to keep going.” The post Meet The Surprising Star Of Showtime’s New Climate Change Series appeared first on ThinkProgress. Sent by gReader Pro

For more results click below