Crooked Little Girl

Katharine Hayhoe tries to pass herself off as a sweet, perky Christian girl. She is actually one of the most dishonest people I have ever had to deal with. Check out this paragraph from the Obama National Climate Assessment which she prepared.

Southwest | National Climate Assessment

She studied wildfires from 1916 to 2003, but only reported between 1970 and 2003. Why would she not report from 1916 to 1970? Well that’s easy. Because reporting the full data set would have completely destroyed her fake global warming thesis.

Indicator 3.16: Area and percent of forest affected by abiotic agents

High and Low Temperatures | Climate Change | US EPA

I sat with Hayhoe and Mann at Naomi Oreskes wildly fraudulent movie claiming climate skeptics were being funded by big tobacco and oil. These people are as intellectually corrupt and dishonest as anyone I have ever met.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Crooked Little Girl

  1. Arn says:

    Sadly her behaviour is the standard among them.
    Beneath their slim layer of slimey nice attitudes a pseudo-good intentions is just a huge cesspit of lies and blatant hipocrisy-
    and that’s the reason why everything they touch get worse and worse and eventually turns into shit and all the results are usually are the opposite of what they have predicted/promised.

    (one just need to compare the statistics/results of
    eg. media created
    “Messiah” Obama
    evil evil “Hitler” Putin

    compare the development of income & income gap,
    wealth,life expectancy,pensions,unemployment rates
    ((number non-working working age people ,not fake 5% unemployment statisticy))
    and you will see the huge difference between reality and official truth.

    The mechanics these people are using are part of the game theory
    where a certain person first tries ton obtains trust and good reputation by false pretenses with the purposes to missuse the loyalty of people later.

    it works pretty well as we can see,as long as those people keep up their slimey
    facade and always pretend that the bad results of their evil intentions
    are just results of pure coincidence.

    • ScottDrysdale says:

      You are wrong…..the Bible warns to beware of wolves in sheep clothing. She is self-deceived and/or not a Christian and confuses education with political and religious indoctrination. Her religious affiliation is with the green cult and she has simply become one of Al’s Gorons.

      Watch PBSdocumentary entitled “The Devil’s Broom Fire” now on Netflix for powerful insights.

  2. Bob Johnston says:

    When you are a true believer you feel justified for lies, omissions and obfuscation. This is a known human condition – cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias hold sway over almost all people. This is why “the experts” are almost always invariably wrong, groupthink is the rule, not the exception.

    So I don’t believe Hayhoe and her ilk are guilty of intentional fraud and malice, I simply believe them to be human and therefore flawed and not worthy of trust, just as you prove each and every day.

    • rw says:

      But could she have unintentionally omitted the forest fire acreage data? While I too can’t believe she’s malicious, she’s clearly been guilty of a lot of questionable behavior. Maybe she rationalizes it by thinking it’s all in a good cause – but that doesn’t change the character of her actions.

      (Incidentally, one should go easy on the use of “cognitive dissonance” as an explanation, as well as GroupThink. These are problematic ideas – in fact the original CD conception is almost certainly wrong. (And the idea that groupthink was involved in the Bay of Pigs (proposed by Janis in the book that introduced the idea) invasion was subsequently shown to be questionable.)

  3. Chauncey Chapman III says:

    Thanks for this

  4. CheshireRed says:

    What’s obvious from all these data manipulations is the ‘scientists’ leading each study have absolute permission to do ‘whatever is necessary’ to get the desired message across. We know that because these papers get ‘peer reviewed’ even though they deserve to be filed in the bin.
    In this case Hayhoe looks to have been tasked with delivering an alarmist narrative for forest fires and that’s exactly what she’s done. How she arrived at her conclusions – via cherry picking, data omission and an overall intention to wilfully misdirect the reader, are irrelevant. Great work, Katharine, have a biscuit!

    • gator69 says:

      No, she’s been tasked with leading the flock astray…

      But here in the beating heart of Christian America, she’s an apostle of her discipline, faced with a daunting challenge. Of all U.S. religious groups, white evangelical Protestants are least likely to believe in human-caused planetary warming: Only 11 per cent accept the idea, compared to 46 per cent of the broader U.S. population.

      White evangelical Protestants aren’t as stupid as the MSM would have you believe. They know human life comes first.

      • Rob says:

        “White evangelical Protestants aren’t as stupid as the MSM would have you believe. They know human life comes first.”

        We sure about that?

        Their entire belief system comes from an old book written by unknown authors without any actual evidence to support what’s in the book. Furthermore, the book has multiple contradictions and errors which just like the global warming religion and its errors and issues, believers ignore said errors and issues while those who aren’t believers will point to them as a reason to be skeptical.

        I bet the figure of Protestants who believe in it is so small not because they are aware and see the data that shows it is bunk but rather their beliefs of “Jesus this, Jesus that” are the reason why they don’t believe. They may very well believe there is warming but instead will say it is caused by the god they believe in.

        • gator69 says:

          Nice biggoted comment Rob!

          I was speaking of intelligence, and not beliefs. Atheists believe that everything we see around us is an accident. I’ve had many accidents, and none ever produced anything worth keeping.

        • Mac404 says:

          In other words, your belief about other people’s beliefs is that some people cling to gross generalizations and oversimplifications about vastly complicated subjects, and form their opinions based on ignorance and confirmation bias? Irony.

          Projection really is a thing.

        • TimA says:

          Actually Rob, we learn from God to distrust people who are corrupt by nature until they are redeemed by Him and then worthy of trust. Many (not all thankfully) in science have become final authorities and “godlike” when in reality they are greedy and corrupt and have vastly limited information yet are extrapolating this out to create dangerous conclusions which threaten our very existence…..all of this behavior is clearly spelled out in that “old book”.

  5. That spike in the heat wave chart at about 1986 matches a Mojave Daily Miner story from July 25 of that year. Carolinians were begging President Reagan for drought relief. Here’s the link:

  6. Bleakhouses says:

    Results created to support a pre-determined political outcome.

  7. R. Shearer says:

    Climate science has become one big cherry picking enterprise. You can’t blame students like Ms. Schreiber because teachers like Hayhoe are setting the example.

    If one can’t ignore the truth and spin evidence to promote the predetermined agenda, then such students will not graduate, just as honest scientists are driven out.

  8. sunsettommy says:

    She reminds me of Dolores Umbridge in Harry Potter.

  9. Don B says:

    Cherry picking is what climate activists do.

    In 2005, Washington State Climatologist Phil Mote wrote an article in which he claimed that “global warming” had reduced Pacific Northwest snowpack by 50% in the past 50 years. He cherrypicked the start and end dates to give him the result he wanted. Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor debated Mote, and pointed out that using all of the available data would have made it obvious that snowpack is cyclical.

  10. Tom Halla says:

    Classic use of the “cut-off graph” trick. When a database has something that contradicts your claim, just omit it.

  11. Adamant de-Nye-er says:

    As a Texas Tech alumnus, I find it extremely entertaining that a fellow (maybe “fella” if you speak microagression) alum and professor would accuse any one else of undue influence through funding by petroleum interests. As I recall, a substantial portion of the endowments and finance for all of Texas state supported universities are provided by oil and gas companies as grants, leases, and taxes. If there was truly any such interference with scientific opinion from those sources, she’d have been shut down long ago.
    Tech’s Petroleum Engineering department: claims that their new (2014) building rolls in at over $225 million.
    A dirty little (huge) secret is that coal, oil, and natural gas industries stand to literally make a mint from wind and solar energy, which can’t be produced, transported, or maintained without huge additional long term income for suppliers of traditional energy sources. China and Russia know this, hence their investments in traditional energy and in climate alarmism. The narrative supporting the idea that fossil fuel business is opposed to so-called “sustainable” resources is one of the biggest lies used by fake science alarmists to suppress research.

  12. ScottM says:

    Is it the contention here that one of the highlighted sentences is a lie? If so, which one?

    • Gator69 says:

      Try reading the post again Scott, and maybe you will understand the point of the post, but I doubt it.

      Hint: The post is self explanatory.

      • ScottM says:

        I read the post and there are huge gaps between the presented facts and the conclusion. That means it’s a non sequitur, unless the gaps can be remedied.

        The post claims: ” She is actually one of the most dishonest people I have ever had to deal with. Check out this paragraph from the Obama National Climate Assessment which she prepared.”

        That implies there is something in the highlighted paragraph that supports the contention that she is dishonest.

        But the paragraph *only* contains citations of other people’s work. In particular, assuming the highlighting is supposed to point out the alleged dishonesty, we have two sentences in question:

        1. “Climate outweighed other factors in determining burned area in the western U.S. from 1916 to 2003, a finding confirmed by 3000-year long reconstructions of southwestern fire history.”

        2. “Between 1970 and 2003, warmer and drier conditions increased burned area in western U.S. mid-elevation conifer forests by 650% (Ch. 7: Forests, Key Message 1).”

        Now, Gator69, do you see those smaller-font numbers in the original, that weren’t reproduced by my copy-paste? They go from 180 to 186. These are citations. This means the sentences are citing the research papers which you can see reference to if you click on them.

        So the first sentence is citing a study by Littell, J. S., D. McKenzie, D. L. Peterson, and A. L. Westerling titled “Climate and wildfire area burned in western US ecoprovinces, 1916-2003” published in Ecological Applications; and it cites several additional sources for the second half of the sentence. The abstract of the Littell paper does indeed say that wildfire areas burned were “controlled by climate during the 20th century (1916–2003)”.

        The second sentence is citing a paper by Westerling, A. L., H. G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, and T. W. Swetnam called “Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity”, published in Science.

        The first paper is paywalled, so I can’t see the full details that may or may not support the statement. The second is freely available, and her statement appears to be a synthesis of several facts presented in that paper.

        If you can demonstrate that the papers in question don’t support the statements, you may have something.

        Trouble is, Tony Heller doesn’t do that. Instead he rests his claim on his observation that “She studied wildfires from 1916 to 2003, but only reported between 1970 and 2003.” And that is precisely false. Hayhoe’s statements are based on the research she cited, not on wildfires that “she studied”. The first paper indeed covers 1916 to 2003, but those wildfires were studied by someone else; she is only summarizing. The second paper only covers years after 1970, and is not data that she “reported” as Tony seems to think. It would be a falsification for her to claim the second study went back any further than that.

        • Gator69 says:

          So now you kind of get the post, but still want to bitch. The post is accurate, even if you do have trouble understanding it. Hayhoe misled people by cherry picking dates.

          Religion is a personal choice Scott, don’t get all worked up if not everyone wants to join you drinking the Koo-Aid.

          • ScottM says:

            Gator, she did not “cherry-pick” the dates. She cited studies. In citing a study, you can only cite what’s *in* the study. If study A covers dates A through B, and study B covers dates C through D, then remarking on dates outside of the scope of each study would be inappropriate.

            Sorry you are so blind to this simple observation.

          • ScottM says:

            Also, don’t forget that Tony outright lied (1) when he said “She studied wildfires from 1916 to 2003, but only reported between 1970 and 2003.” She didn’t claim to have studied wildfires over that period; she read and reported the contents (aka citation) from studies done by others.

            (1) It’s a lie unless it happens that Tony has no idea what a citation is. I am crediting him with some knowledge of that but I might be mistaken.

          • Gator says:

            Scott, if Katy did not cherry-pick, she voluntarily recited a cherry pick, which is just as dishonest.

            And how the hell do you know what was studied by Katy? Were you there? Tony has knowledge that she prepared a dishonest assessment.

            Why is it you do not have a problem with alarmist cherry picks, but do have a problem with someone who points out this dishonesty? What does this say about you Scott?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.