Hayhoe Goes Full Orwell

The people tampering with the thermometer data say that Republicans don’t trust thermometer data.

their attempts to pretend as if a thermometer gives us a different answer if we are Democrat or Republican

Pruitt: EPA will review ‘politicized’ climate science report – POLITICO

She noted that the report found no alternative explanations for why climate change is happening other than human influence.

Climate change is most definitely man-made – by Katherine Hayhoe’s friends who throw out the actual thermometer data, and replace it with fraudulent data.

The cynicism of these criminals seems to know no bounds. A bunch of total psychopaths.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to Hayhoe Goes Full Orwell

  1. Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

    A luminous photosphere of energy radiates from our sun in all directions out across the cosmos. When that sphere expands to the average orbital distance to the earth its dispersed luminous surface radiates a power flux of 1,368 W/m^2 (S-B BB 394 K). But the earth does not orbit in a nice average circle, but in an ellipse with perihelion being closer and aphelion being farther. So how much difference does that make to the climate?

    At perihelion (closer) the power flux is 1,415 W/m^2. At aphelion (farther) the power flux is 1,323 W/m^2. The total annual range/change/fluctuation is 92 W/m^2. Yes, 92 W/m^2.

    According to IPCC AR5 the radiative forcing added to the atmosphere by the CO2 increase in the 261 years between 1750 and 2011 is 2 W/m^2. Yes, 2 W/m^2. IPCC’S worst^4 case scenario is RCP 8.5, 8.5 W/m^2.

    So if an annual 92 W/m^2 fluctuation does not cause catastrophic climatic consequences what possible reason have we to believe that 2 W/m^2 or even 8.5 will?

    The annual ToA ISR fluctuation because of the tilted oblique incidence at 40 N is 670 W/m^2. From that we get summer and winter. Who’s afraid of 2 W/m^ or for that matter, 8.5 W/m^2?

    That’s a perfectly acceptable alternative explanation for why the climate changes. Don’t think so? Bring science, I did.

    • arn says:

      Thanks !
      Most people even do not know about the differences in the orbital distance and the resulting differences in the power flux.

      And the claims of the ipcc are once again far away from logic.
      Saying 0.01% of very week climate gas in our atmosphere will turn earth into a fire ball
      has the same logic as saying that 2 W/m 2 will burn the planet while 92 W/m 2 don’t.

      And these pathetic 2 W/m 2 are just the equivalent of the 0.01% co2.

      It’s like saying: Everytime i pee in the pool the water temperature will rise by 5 degrees.
      One doesn’t need a group of scientists to know that this won’t work as the additional warming effect is almost non-existent.

      But say the same about co2 and climate and people will believe it because authorities say so.

  2. AndyG55 says:

    “She noted that the report found no alternative explanations for why climate change is happening other than human influence.”

    Hey, Ho-hum..

    Just because these twerps are wilfully ignorant of solar variability, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist !!

    • Kris Johanson says:

      Another lazy professor with an insignificant career that will amount to nothing, getting a government check, living in a walled-off garden, surrounded by group-think, probably totally unaware of the other side’s arguments or the sentiments of a large part of the population. I’m getting too cynical

    • Gamecock says:

      ‘ the report found no alternative explanations’

      Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

      “We can’t find any other reason, so it must be humans.”

    • Ilma says:

      The IPCC are only tasked to examine human on Florence, so why would they say anything else that would provide the ammunition to demonstrate they’re not required. Same throughout the climate science world – is too good a gravt (grant) train to be truthful.

  3. Eric Simpson says:

    My wuwt comment:

    “Regarding the politically contrived climate ‘consensus’”

    The fact is now that the left doesn’t even care whether their theory is true or not. They are so committed and in love with their crazy ideology, and global warming er “climate change” is a cornerstone of that ideology, so they will put their hands over their ears because they don’t even want to hear any opposing arguments. Nearly across the board that’s the approach the leftist voters, and the leftist MSM, are taking.

    So as conservatives we need to solidify our unity on this key issue. We must demand that our politicians don’t walk with the leftists on this critical litmus test issue.

    Yes, it’s a consensus of ideology, not of science. Proof of that is that conservative scientists don’t believe the garbage. If you field a “red team” the consensus would be nearly 100% against the leftist theory.

    No more support for politicized science!

    • AndyG55 says:

      On NoTricks, I am finding out just how IGNORANT some of these AGW apostle really are !!

      Their understanding of basic fizzics is bizarre.

      One guy is say that if he sits still in a chair he doesn’t exert any force on it and no work is done in holding him up.

      Amazingly bizarre. !!

      • tonyheller says:

        W = F*D
        so he is correct about work but incorrect about force.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Work is done in deflecting the structure of the chair, Tony.

        • AndyG55 says:

          A little trial.

          Take a brick and hold it in your hand with your arm out horizontally.

          Get back to me in 10 minutes and tell me you haven’t expended any energy. :-)

          • tonyheller says:

            Your analogy is incorrect.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Its the same analogy as sitting in a chair.

            Supporting a stationary object.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Supporting a stationary object which has a force acting on it (in this case gravity) means that an equal and opposite force has to be applied.

            Where does that force come from.?

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Its the same analogy as sitting in a chair.”

            Meant to add..

            Forces from sitting in a chair are mostly compressional (or maybe tension), although sheer and bending are also involved depending on the design.

            Forces from holding a brick at arms length are mostly torsional and bending.

          • R. Shearer says:

            Your arm is just not strong enough to resist the force of gravity in that case, which is due to the fact that it’s being used as a lever. Pull your arm in and the “effort or work” required to hold the brick is lessened. But we know that the force due to gravity is still the same.

            The problem is one of definition. Tony is using the physics definition of work and you are using a colloquial one. A chair made out toothpicks might also be able to support you, but doing so doesn’t do any work from a physics definition. On the other hand it might collapse because it’s really not strong enough to counteract gravity. Gravity would do work on the toothpick chair during its collapse because work is associated with kinetic energy.

          • tonyheller says:

            A chair doesn’t have any energy source and has no ability to do work

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            I don’t believe the hype of the manufacturers of so called working chairs.

            I’ve never seen any of them do any real work, and often not even the people sitting in them.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “A chair doesn’t have any energy source and has no ability to do work”

            And yet it is able to provide an equal and opposite force to the weight force of the person.

            Look up the units for “tensile energy”

          • pmc47025 says:

            If you use a vice to compress a spring, turning the crank on the vice against the compression of the spring results in work (force over distance). When you stop turning the crank, the spring is still in compression (as your arms might be while holding a weight over your head) but no work is being done.


          • Ron Hotchkiss says:

            Work is being done by the arm turning the vice, not by the spring itself just as the chair doesn’t work but the ass that sits on it does. Work and force aren’t the same thing. The ground under my house doesn’t work holding up my house.

      • Kris Johanson says:

        Speaking of modern Fizzics: just go on YouTube and type in “Inventor jailed for engine that runs on water” and you will see hundreds of such videos which underscore exactly why people think CO2 is the same as CO, and temperature is the same as heat, and Antarctica has a giant crack which will end up drowning us all, and so forth. Then type “Free energy magnet motor fan” and you’ll see dozens more. I show these to high school Physics students to inoculate them against such things. It’s very hard intuitively to grasp why you can’t put fixed magnets on a rotor & stator and generate free electricity

        • Jeff Jones says:

          And that electricity and hydrogen are sources of energy.

          We have a HUGE educational program to do. I am a long term member of Society of Petroleum Engineers and ASME and I am totally disgusted with both groups. Both have their heads down, writing ‘technical’ papers and forming symposia to discuss CO2 sequestration instead of teaching the public about the true science. It is truly sickening.

          When I get caught in an SPE forum on CO2 sequestration, my first question to each author is, “If you truly believe as you say in your paper that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, are you active working to put your employer out of business whose primary product is liquid hydrocarbon for the express purpose of turning into said deadly CO2? If not why not?”

        • pmc47025 says:

          In 6th grade science class an experiment required a weight, string, pulley, and generator. We timed how long it took for the weight to drop to the floor and spin the generator with no load. Then, connected a load (light bulb) to the generator and repeated the experiment. Loaded, the light bulb glowed and the weight took much longer to fall.

          Mr. Treadway said:
          The most important thang you will learn this year is to foller directions, god bless him.

    • CheshireRed says:

      So right Eric. I posted one of Tony vid’s on data manipulation on Facebook and tagged a couple of family members. They went nuts! Refused point blank to even discuss the vid or any issues raised in it, literally none. Went off on one at me and demanded not to be tagged again!
      To this day I cannot discuss ‘the world’s most important challenge’ with them. (Just think about that for a second. Greatest threat to humanity ever is off limits. Crazy)
      They’re both green blob fans, think Hillary is ace, despise Trump and are still furious at Brexit.
      Their discomfort is palpable but tbh I fucking love it!

      • Eric Simpson says:

        Yup. That’s the sad state affairs. Seems it was a bit different 10 years ago. You could at least get a conversation. But now they’re circling the wagons. They won’t even listen.

        BUT .. our job is to go after the Independents. And of course ostracize any “Republicans” that think they should waltz right along with the nutcase leftists on climate change.

        • Jeff Jones says:

          You hit the mark there; next year should be a primary bloodbath throwing out anyone who has been there more that 2 terms. No matter how good a start a politician gets or how idealistic he goes in, within a couple rotations every one of them is compromised and no longer useful. Hopefully we can get non-professional, Constitutional Conservative majority who will clean house and go back to work after the job is done.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        There you go again, Red. You should know that every self-respecting leftist will gladly discuss the dangers of climate change if you put it in proper context. I mean you must go in with the sophisticated nuance they expect.

        Why don’t you try again with the right scientific questions? I’m sure you’ll start a stimulating intellectual discussion if you ask what is the greater threat to our civilization: nuclear war or bad weather? You can throw in the danger of Guam capsizing in the middle of it. What if all three disasters happened at the same time, let’s say on September 1st? And I guarantee to you, if you mention inflatable chickens and the Russians, your relatives will get so excited you’ll have to beg them to stop.

        Trust me, I’m speaking from experience.

        What’s a greater threat to Guam? North Korea, or climate change?

        North Korea Aside, Guam Faces Another Threat: Climate Change


      • Andy DC says:

        It is no different than attacking their religion. Something they desperately cling to out of faith rather than reason.

  4. AndyG55 says:

    say => saying..

    whatever.. you are all used to my typing non-accuracy by now. ;-)

  5. ItsGettingHotinHereSo says:

    In the 4th National Climate Assessment Report look for the very carefully crafted comparison periods. They will compare 1901-1960 to 1985-2015. They will eliminate 1961-1984 (a cool period) for their comparisons.

    1901-1960 had two periods of extensive droughts (1930s and 1950s). They use that base period for their precipitation calculations. The precipitation calcuations are an artifact of cherry picking a base period with droughts to today’s ordinary rainfall patterns. There is nothing extreme or harmful about our current precipitation.

    They use the same method for temperature. The base period of 1901-1960 had warm periods and cool periods. This is compared to the period of 1986-2016. This is an isolated warm period. The cool period of 1961-1984 eliminated from the calculation. You are guaranteed to get spurious warming.

    The shame is that this deception is coming from the top government and university climate scientists.

    • ItsGettingHotinHereSo says:

      “So be suspicious of anyone touting small little bits of data saying that it proves something. The one thing we know in science and in life in general is we can’t just throw out the data we don’t like, just because we don’t like it. ….you’re allowed to do but it is not very wise”.

      K. Hayhoe
      February 28, 2015

      • Anon says:

        That phenomenon is quite rampant, where just half the science is used, the parts that agree with the thesis, no matter if they result in an illogical paradox:

        The Google Memo: Four Scientists Respond

        Here, I just want to take a step back from the memo controversy, to highlight a paradox at the heart of the ‘equality and diversity’ dogma that dominates American corporate life. The memo didn’t address this paradox directly, but I think it’s implicit in the author’s critique of Google’s diversity programs. This dogma relies on two core assumptions:

        1] The human sexes and races have exactly the same minds, with precisely identical distributions of traits, aptitudes, interests, and motivations; therefore, any inequalities of outcome in hiring and promotion must be due to systemic sexism and racism.

        2]The human sexes and races have such radically different minds, backgrounds, perspectives, and insights, that companies must increase their demographic diversity in order to be competitive; any lack of demographic diversity must be due to short-sighted management that favors groupthink.

        The obvious problem is that these two core assumptions are diametrically opposed.

        Let me explain. If different groups have minds that are precisely equivalent in every respect, then those minds are functionally interchangeable, and diversity would be irrelevant to corporate competitiveness. For example, take sex differences. The usual rationale for gender diversity in corporate teams is that a balanced, 50/50 sex ratio will keep a team from being dominated by either masculine or feminine styles of thinking, feeling, and communicating. Each sex will counter-balance the other’s quirks. (That makes sense to me, by the way, and is one reason why evolutionary psychologists often value gender diversity in research teams.) But if there are no sex differences in these psychological quirks, counter-balancing would be irrelevant. A 100% female team would function exactly the same as a 50/50 team, which would function the same as a 100% male team. If men are no different from women, then the sex ratio in a team doesn’t matter at any rational business level, and there is no reason to promote gender diversity as a competitive advantage.

        On the other hand, if demographic diversity gives a company any competitive advantages, it must be because there are important sex differences and race differences in how human minds work and interact.


  6. McLovin' says:

    Hello Mr. Heller:

    In your efforts to display a more balanced vision of the America’s climatic throughout the 20th century, you’ve done extensive and interesting work finding historical new articles, etc. I now also suggest finding any oral histories, especially where the voice of the subject is recorded, that have been done on the dust bowl years. As you’ve pointed out, that generation with a living memory of the astoundingly hot temps you show in your videos and blog posts are largely lost to us now. But any recordings of them for today’s generation to hear would be moving. Also, I don’t know how much conspiracy there really is in all of this, but if someone stands to lose from any such recordings being available, you might want to find them before they get lost.

    Laslty, in looking into this (a very cursory search), I found this link (from May 2015), in which is found:
    “The unusually hot summers of 1934/36 broke heat records that still stand today.”


  7. TA says:

    “She [Hayhoe] noted that the report found no alternative explanations for why climate change is happening other than human influence.”

    As if climate didn’t change before humans were on the scene.

    Katherine, what causes climate change is the same thing that has caused climate change since the beginning of time: natural variation and natural inputs.

    To claim that humans and their puny contributions of CO2 are altering the changes, you have to have some evidence. You don’t have any evidence. You cannot point to anything in the climate and say definitively or even confidently that that particular change was caused by humans.

    We are no hotter now than in the 1930’s or the MWP and in those periods climate was caused by natural variation, and there is no reason to assume that today’s climate is not caused by natural variation other than a religious belief in the greenhouse gas theory that causes you to assume that what you are seeing is human-caused because that’s what your theory say. Still, it’s speculation without any evidence and you have no evidence. Hockey Stick charts are not evidence. They are only evidence of fraud.

  8. Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

    Based on recent proximity w/the PhD process my impression is that a PhD is not evidence of expertise, but of willingness to play the good-old-boys’ & gurls’ academic game and sacrifice time and money in the process.

  9. Anon says:

    That is correct. I have seen and participated in the grant making / funding process myself. It is a well known secret (lol) that if you can demonstrate that your research is pertinent to AGW, you have a much better shot at getting funded. I learned the hard way, before being “clued in”.

  10. Russell Cook says:

    Lest anyone forget, it is Katherine Hayhoe who, among other ‘scientists’ just like her (Mann, for example), injects pure politicization into the AGW issue when she accuses her critics of being on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry.


  11. I believe that more than 99% of “Climate Science” is not science in the generally accepted sense because as in “Behavioral Sciences” a two sigma standard is the norm.

    The two sigma standard means that there is a 5% chance that the result that the “Null Hypothesis” is correct. In other words there is a 5% chance that the observed result is due to sampling or experimental error.

    In some fields of research, 99.7% of the published papers can be “Junk” as you can see here:

    Contrast this with real science where a standard of 3 sigma or higher applies. The three sigma standard means that the likelihood of the result being due to random factors is less than 0.3%. For example, the Higgs boson is said to have a mass of
    ‎125.09±0.21 GeV/c2. Note that the error range is +/- 0.17% which is better than 3 sigma. The publication of this result was delayed several months until enough measurements were collected to achieve the three sigma standard.

    “Junk Science” has a massive effect on public policy in medicine, social sciences, energy policy and many other fields. Here is a video that may help:

  12. Another huge problem for Junk Science is “Replication”. Often the researchers who publish papers cannot replicate their own results. See John Staddon’s video in my earlier comment.

    When it comes to “Climate Science” things are much worse. Results can’t be replicated because people who publish papers often refuse to share their data and calculations even in the face of FOIA requests. Michael Mann is a major offender in this respect but he is not alone. Such people should be barred from receiving government funding until FOIA suits are settled.

    • RAH says:

      If it can’t be replicated and confirmed by others it’s not science, it’s fiction until proven otherwise. Peer review does not make it science since it is merely an affirmation that other scientists agree with the methods and results and not replication.

  13. Jeff Jones says:

    Katharine Hayhoe is at it again today. She has an evangelical article on Drudge blaming Exxon Mobil for everything that is wrong in the world. Of course there is no science in her article, reads exactly like a JW tract.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *