Saturday, December 31, 2011 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

How would Jesus deal with global warming?

Gingrich fires a prolific female AGW-religious hack

This story is kind of hilarious. Three years ago, current GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich recorded a love scene with Nancy Pelosi on Al Gore's couch. Funded by the former vice-president's $300 million fund dedicated to the propagation of myths about the climate (which didn't succeed at all), they claimed that "We can solve it", meaning global warming.

Two Climategates and other events have changed the atmosphere in America and pretty much everyone in the U.S. knows that the movement claiming that a dangerous climate change is behind the corner is a fradulent pseudoscience driven by politics, ideology, and special interests. Newt Gingrich, a hardwired career politician, has noticed the change so he began to undo his "sins" not only with Nancy Pelosi.

His newest step in this direction involves a change of his coming book about the environment.

National Journal (and CBS, WaPo, Grist) informed us – I learned it from Marc Morano – that a chapter on climate change has been dropped from the book.

The details are interesting, too. The chapter was written by Katharine Hayhoe, a wife of a pastor in Texas who is, incredibly enough (as you will see), also employed as an atmospheric scientist. Rush Limbaugh was making fun out of her quotes on his show – and there's a lot of material here to be humiliated, indeed – so Newt decided to sack her in an effort to prevent a few more millions of GOP voters from leaving him during his otherwise promising campaign.

While Gingrich is regaining his rational thinking when it comes to the climate, he hasn't regained his control over the website yet. :-) Try to click the link many times: it's always different.

Hayhoe has co-authored a book filled with climate change "facts" optimized for "faith-based decisions". This book shows that not only leftists may get infected by this pseudoscientific virus; the combination of warmist and Christian zeal is possible and arguably viable. After all, man-made global warming is a religion and whether two religions may co-exist depends on various details of the situation and the individual humans' attitude.

Two weeks ago, NPR presented a John-Cook-like crash course designed by Katharine Hayhoe which wanted to describe

4 Ways to Answer Skeptics on Climate Change
What are the four talking points she recommends her fellow believers to repeat all the time?
  1. You don't have to agree on everything. Hayhoe tells other warmist priests that they don't have to convince their targets about an old Earth. The belief in a 6,000-year-old i.e young Earth is perfectly OK. One should separate these issues, we are told, and the important thing is to convince the Young Earth creationists that climate change is going to fry the Earth.
  2. The facts are all around you. The proofs of global warming are everywhere. In particular, we are told, there are lots of proofs on your yard. For example, if a bird created a nest at a different place than years ago, by a few inches, it proves that everyone will die in a horrible death induced by global warming.
  3. This isn't just another cycle. Hayhoe thinks that everyone should say that because of the natural cycles, we should be experiencing a global cooling. It's not really true and she doesn't offer any arguments why her statement should be true but she finds it important for this statement to be repeated.
  4. What would Jesus do on a warming planet? This question is so cute that I will repost the answer in its entirety.
The answer to the last question is:
That’s easy, Hayhoe says. Jesus “told us to love our neighbor as ourselves; and today, it’s our global neighbors—the poor and needy, the disadvantaged and hopeless—who are already being affected by climate change,” she writes. Natural disasters, rising seas and extreme temperatures are affecting (and taking) life across the globe, she says. “To ignore their cries and cast scorn on those who attempt to draw our attention to their plight is not a response of love; it is acting out of fear, and God is not the author of fear,” she writes.
God isn't the author of fear, she writes, which is why His Son would join Al Gore in promoting the fear that the sky is falling and melting. Nice! At a different place, she warns that those who claim that the climate change depends on natural cycles could be forced to believe an old Earth, too! That's because there haven't been too many natural cycles in the last 6,000 years, she believes. ;-)

Well, I, for one, am not frightened by this possible conclusion!

Blessed are the poor in spirit.

You could think that we are just making fun out of a random stupid woman who has surely nothing to do with the actual "origins" of the global warming "science". But you would be wrong. The IPCC environment is literally built out of cranks similar to her. She wasn't just a top AGW "adviser" for a major GOP presidential candidate. Her bio which you get at the top of the Google search for her name says:
Katharine Hayhoe is a highly-respected expert on climate change, one of the most pressing issues facing the planet today. An expert reviewer for the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, her life’s work has been dedicated to discovering and communicating the realities of a changing climate to those who will be affected most by it.

As an associate professor in the Department of Political Science and director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University, Katharine develops new ways to quantify the potential impacts of human activities at the regional scale. [...]
The rest of the text presents details about her links to special interests, companies, churches, U.S. government climate bodies, and other institutions.

Hayhoe, Hayhoe, climate scientists go.

Not only she isn't just a marginal player in the IPCC games: she's one of the true "leaders" in the IPCC hierarchy who determine the overall "tone" of the message and who are responsible for spreading this intellectual disease to numerous layers of the U.S. society. While she is ready to okay the hypothesis that the Earth is just 6,000 years old, she wants to teach the world about the future climate change.

Note that there is a remarkable "symmetry" between the hypothetical short period during which the Earth existed in the past; and the hypothetical short period in which it will exist in the future. According to the actual science, the Earth has existed for 4.7 billion years and it will continue to exist for several billions of years, too. Once the Sun becomes a red giant in 7.5 billion years, the Earth as we know it will cease to exist: video. Well, the Earth will actually be on the "boundary": Mercury and Venus will be eaten by the swollen Sun while Mars may escape and the Earth's fate is uncertain. But do expect some climate change at the point. ;-)

However, the Young Earth creationists say that the past of the Earth is only 6,000 years old; and the global warming alarmists claim that the future of the Earth is only 100 years long. What's the actual difference between the Young Earth creationists and the global warming alarmists? By a simple division, you may see that the difference is that the global warming alarmists are approximately 60 times bigger lunatics detached from science than the Young Earth creationists.

Happy New Year 2012!

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (3) :

reader notalotofpeopleknowthat said...

As well as writing a book, she also runs ATMOS Research, a climate change consultancy. How this is compatible with being a public funded scientist beats me.

For the record, the quality of ATMOS Research looks no better than some of the other tripe she has come up with.

reader Farhâd said...

Hi Lubosh:

What are your thoughts about the results of Professor Muller from Berkeley, regarding global warming. Didn't he used to be a skeptic?

reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Farhad, this blog is full (click) of this topic.

No, Muller has never been a skeptic. The closest true thing to this assertion is that he has agreed with the skeptic - and still agrees with the skeptics - that Michael Mann is a fradulent pseudoscientist. But that doesn't make - and never made - Muller a skeptic.