What started as almost a point of agreement with the left resulted in an unraveling of a Climate Change “expert”. The following outlines my brief encounter with Katherine Hayhoe.
I ran across a rare agreeable point made by socialist gun-grabber Beto O’Rourke today. Apparently, we share an interest in wind power. It is an excellent idea in my mind too! My interest is in it’s potential for supplement or off-the-grid energy. However, I knew my support for wind power would be twisted to imply a support for taxes on breathing. So, I added a comment to clarify that I only agreed with the idea of wind power, nothing else.
This led to numerous opinions, insults, religious projections and consensus science propaganda. I eventually posted ice core data and asked for an explanation. The ice core data indicates a pattern of climate change on earth showing changes over hundreds of thousands of years. This fluctuation is periodic and extends well before humans roamed the earth. Here is one version of the data found online:
Let me also say that I really haven’t spent much time on this issue but I do find this data interesting as it seems to add reasonable, if not significant doubt, to the idea that human’s cause global warming or significant CO2 effects.
I’d really like to know how this ice core data is brushed aside to make room for the “human-caused” theories. Honest question #1.
At that point, an “expert” on climate change was tagged on Twitter and she entered the discussion. Her website expresses a friendly, “Hi, I’m a Climate Scientist” to eliminate all doubt of her expertise. Ms. Hayhoe suggested that I watch a video that would answer my question.
So I did. After watching her video, the question about ice core data was not answered and her explanation had inspired another question.
I would really like to know how she can apply the “conservation of energy” law to volcanos and other natural possibilities but ignore that humans are also in the same closed system. Honest question #2.
Wikipedia: In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant, it is said to be conserved over time.
Here is the video, please let me know if you think it answers my question about the ice core data or if my “conservation of energy” question was uncalled for.
As you can see from the following screen captures, links to videos and insults is what I received from this expert after she initiated the conversation with “Davy”. Here is the dead end conversation on the ice core data. Interesting “rinse, repeat” strategy of Twitter engagement, “watch my propaganda, watch it again.”
Honestly, I did not expect such obfuscation. Pure propaganda is what I got for honest questions. I truly believed that I would be shown inconclusive consensus science stuff, if not a fact or two. Here was her final request to “rinse, repeat”.
She has since blocked “Davy” on Twitter solely for this exchange. There was no other exchange whatsoever with her or her Twitter page at any time since or before.
I initially assumed there were easy answers to my questions. I assumed that she would easily embarrass me with consensus science magic, especially on Beto’s page with all the socialist cheerleaders watching.
Of course there is always a chance that the emperor has no clothes and thus can only respond with confusing and misleading videos and insults. Perhaps that was the case here. Experts that actually have solid fundamentals based on facts don’t bully and degrade others for asking questions that ever so slightly challenge their hypothesis. Perhaps propaganda experts do that, real scientist don’t need to.
I would still like to know:
- How the ice core data is explained away to make room for the “human caused” hypothesis
- How the “law of conservation of energy” can be selectively used in her video to discredit volcanos, etc because they can’t create heat in a closed system; but the same law of physics doesn’t apply to human-caused warming when volcanos and humans are part of the exact same closed system.
Perhaps she’s on to something though with “conservation of energy”. However, she will have to drop her political agenda. If her theory regarding the law of conservation of energy is applied without bias then the cause must be external. External is also implied by the ice core data and it’s hundreds of thousands of years untouched by human hands.
Interesting exchange, nonetheless. It reminded me of a quote by the late, great Michael Crichton.
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”