Roberts Interviews Hayhoe
David Roberts did an interview recently with Katherine Hayhoe, the Texan evangelical Christian and climate scientist. Hayhoe contributed a key chapter on climate change to Newt Gingrich’s forthcoming book on environmental entrepreneurship, only to have Gingrich reverse course and dump the chapter from the book. She has some really interesting insights into what’s going on with climate scientists and their interactions with those who have been misled by climate change denialists: Chatting with the climate scientist Newt dissed.
January 19th, 2012 at 11:10 pm
So, shcb, you don’t understand what evidence she’s talking about.
From Hayhoe’s bio:
Katharine’s work has resulted in over 50 peer-reviewed publications and many key reports including the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s 2009 report, “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States,” the U.S. National Academy of Science 2011 report, “Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia,” and the upcoming 2013 U.S. National Climate Assessment. In addition to these reports, she has led climate impact assessments for a broad cross-section of cities and regions, from Chicago to California.
[me again]
So we’ve got her, with her credentials, saying that further evidence for climate change has emerged in the last five years. (And not just her, but pretty much all the climate scientists doing actual research in the field.)
And then we’ve got you, with no relevant qualifications at all, saying you don’t know what she’s talking about. Well, right. That’s actually not surprising. She’s talking about evidence that has appeared in climate science journals — journals with which you are unfamiliar, since you don’t read them.
It’s both funny and kind of sad that you present this as if it constitutes a compelling case against her. You not only view yourself as an authority on climate change, but apparently you think other people view you that way too. Why else would you think it’s a clever, cutting point for you to say you’re unfamiliar with the evidence, and then just stop, as if that settles the matter?
It reminds me a little of Michael Palin in the dinner scene at the end of The Meaning of Life, when he/she asks Death, “How can we all have died at the same time?”, then smirks at the other guests as if she’s scored a really telling blow.
You’re not being nearly as clever here as you think you are.
January 19th, 2012 at 11:29 pm
shcb, http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm has some nice information that addresses your “I haven’t seen any warming in the last decade” claim. It also refers to a number of papers that have appeared in the last five years.
Enlightenment is just a few mouse clicks away!
January 19th, 2012 at 11:41 pm
This post also has a nice roundup of recent studies that presumably are some of those Hayhoe was referring to: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1213
January 20th, 2012 at 6:06 am
Second one is really funny, how is it possible for man to have contributed 150% to global warming??? Once you’ve caused it all isn’t that all there is??? I thought 100% was every item in a group, course I was raised in an era when we were taught that science looks at all sides of an issue and children in school should be taught that. Times have changed I guess.
January 20th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
The salmon mousse…
January 20th, 2012 at 2:05 pm
That skeptical science website is awesome!
January 20th, 2012 at 2:40 pm
Yeah it is, it is great source. Here’s one for you:
“the sum of their natural and human global warming contributions is larger than 100%, since their model shows more warming than observed over that period.”
So the model was off by 50%!! Boy, confidence is high, and that is using the assumption that man caused all the warming. Nature, that little thing that has been causing warming and cooling for millions of years took 60 years off so man could produce all of the warming. If that isn’t true then the model is off by god knows how many times. Great site.
Think about it, they are saying the model is right, the observations are wrong! The whole premise of a good model is it is able to reproduce documentable results. And these guys publish this with pride. You guys wonder why fewer and fewer people are taking AGW seriously, well this is it.
January 20th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
The coolest thing about the links jbc posted today is the plethora of links contained within. Of course some ‘folks’ already have their mind made up and no amount of evidence, science or math will ever change their minds.
I mean everyone knows made up numbers like 150% are jes nonsense! 100% is the most thar is, evar! Stoopid libs! Aint possible! also, sociamalism!1!1!! eleventy!
Seriously Mr Nutjob, when you can link to any actual science, any actual numbers showing the temps leveling off or going down or whatever your claim du jour might be, you let us know and we’ll mock those links then.