Dr. Katharine Hayhoe Blocks Scientists Who Invite Her To Debate CO2’s Effect On Planetary Temperature

In yet another example of the squelching of scientific debate by those advocating for the position that dangerous anthropogenic global warming is a cosmic threat, Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, climate scientist, has been found twitter-blocking fellow scientists who have the audacity to ask her to support her views on the greenhouse effect.  

Image Source: https://twitter.com/NikolovScience

For over a year now, physical scientist Dr. Ned Nikolov has been enthusiastically debating anyone and everyone on his twitter page who wishes to challenge his conclusions on the mechanisms that set macro planetary temperatures.

Frequently referencing the comprehensive explanations found in their 2017 scientific paper, New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model (Nikolov and Zeller, 2017), Dr. Nikolov has garnered a reputation for responding openly and directly to each serious query or objection to his views.

Casual observers of his twitter page may notice that Nikolov does not shrink away from defending his theories.  He invites debate and challenges to his climate theories.

The intriguing empirical planetary temperature model he espouses is one of the featured presentations at this weekend’s Basic Science of a Changing Climate conference in Porto.

Image Source: Porto Conference 2018

In direct contrast to the openness to debating ideas and the scientific method, Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist who believes that up to 123% of climate change is caused by humans, has taken to twitter-blocking scientists like Dr. Nikolov.  Why?  Because he dared to ask her to discuss the basics of the greenhouse effect with him.

Hayhoe apparently finds it threatening to debate scientists who disagree with her about the role of greenhouse gases or human activity in climate change.

Is silencing those who challenge one’s views now accepted practice among climate scientists?  Apparently so.

69 responses to “Dr. Katharine Hayhoe Blocks Scientists Who Invite Her To Debate CO2’s Effect On Planetary Temperature”

  1. SebastianH

    For over a year now, physical scientist Dr. Ned Nikolov has been enthusiastically debating anyone and everyone […]

    And there we have the problem with you cultists. It’s all about debating stuff as if they were a possibility. Nikolov is a good example of such a person, he uses the same vocabulary as you guys.

    A smart person once said: never debate a cultist, they know all the arguments that get you into that cult!

    1. David Guy-Johnson

      Sebastian H. What an ignorant reply to a serious question. Cults do not invite debate on their fundamental premises, much like alarmists then.

      1. SebastianH

        What question?

  2. David Reich

    Hayhoe claims she is a “Christian”. However, Christians don’t lie, and don’t purposely and willfully deceive like she does. She won’t debate Tony Heller either. Thanks for exposing this.

  3. Stephen Fox

    “A smart person once said: never debate a cultist, they know all the arguments that get you into that cult!”

    Curious that Mr H should spend so much time here if he thinks this.

    1. Bitter&twisted

      DNCWTRT

  4. Reasonable Skeptic

    A number of years ago, I finally came to understand that democracy is dependent upon one key feature, the ability to share power. You have to be comfortable allowing others to govern.

    This concept applies to science, especially complex science. If you can’t share ideas comfortably, you are no longer working for the advancement of science.

    1. Yonason
  5. David Anfinrud

    I actually find the theory to be well thought out and presented in a good way. I am not Atmospheric Scientist. But I do understand the need to question and defend your idea. You make a theory and try to disprove it. Asking for debate on his ideas is a perfect way to see if there are any flaws in his theory that needs to be investigated. Something the Global warming community never does.

  6. Sean

    This is not a big deal as it’s counter productive. Refusal to debate simply comes off as arrogant on the one hand and raises suspicions that the refuser won’t hold up well ina debate. The approach may have bee useful 10 years ago when climate change was less polarized politically and before the bills started coming due for green energy’s inflated prices. When funding runs out for the AGW crowd or much more money gets directed too the understanding of natural climate cycles, the willingness to debate will return.

  7. Don from OZ

    Hayhoe asks ” please have the courtesy to read…” and yet she shows complete arrogance and rudeness in blocking and other inanities. Write her off as worthless

    1. SebastianH

      Well, people can have their weird opinions, but you can’t expect that other will tolerate your BS. When you get blocked by someone you either swallow your pride or you try to find out why people might block you. That’s the way it is …

      1. spike55

        You seem to expect others to tolerate YOUR total and utter BS, seb.

        Swallow your slimy arrogance and your baseless ego and ADMIT that you have ZERO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for CO2 warming

      2. Bitter&twisted

        Hey-Hoe, Hey-Hoe, a-lying we will go!
        Hey-Hoe etc.

        It’s what warmists do.

  8. Yonason

    Hi, Pierre. I’ve got a lot on my plate in the upcoming month, so will be posting sparsely – but before I go I’ll leave this very nice interview of Fritz Vahrenholt for those who like to watch such things. The whole thing is good, but I’ve set it to start right before he exposes the greens for being utterly anti-environment. They claim to love it, but they hate it.

    https://youtu.be/JS5Bm44O_TQ?t=740

    Again, I hope you guys enjoy the whole thing, but the portion that begins there puts the lie to them caring about anything but their agenda, at the expense of everything and everyone else.

    Nice thoughtful comments from so many non-regular posters (though probably regular readers, I hope). It’s refreshing, and I hope they feel motivated to post more often. It gets boring with just all the regulars, however much I enjoy reading them.

    1. P Gosselin

      Thanks! I recall posting on Vahrenholt’s interview awhile back . Hope you’ll still find the opportunity comment!

  9. ...and Then There's Physics

    I think people are perfectly entitled to block, on Twitter, whoever they would like, for whatever reason they would like.

    https://andthentheresphysics.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/screen-shot-2018-09-07-at-10-08-08.png

    1. spike55

      What you think is irrelevant to rational thought and discussion.

  10. spike55

    Its seem that Ho-Hum is yet another alarmist apologist that cannot provide empirical evidence of anything to do with the farce of “climate change™”..

    So just RUNS and HIDES.

  11. Roberto

    My very important opinion is that this section of the big, fragmented debate helps to demonstrate that fragmentation.

    I’m pretty sure the simple CO2 explanation is not big enough to get us all into disaster, but that doesn’t mean I agree with everything said by “the skeptic side.” Some of that is questionable, too.

    This tendency is tough for the consensus side to get a grip on. They have one main unified theory, and they want a debate with one main unified theory. But they won’t get it. because there are many.

  12. Dr. Katharine Hayhoe Blocks Scientists Who Invite Her To Debate CO2’s Effect On Planetary Temperature – BBC Issues New Guidelines To Shut Down Debate On Climate Change – Newsfeed – Hasslefree allsorts

    […] Ref.: http://notrickszone.com/2018/09/06/dr-katharine-hayhoe-blocks-scientists-who-invite-her-to-debate-th… […]

  13. ...and Then There's Physics

    Since my first comment got through, I’ll make a more serious comment. Ned Nikolov’s ideas are simply flawed at a very fundamental level. His proposed hypothesis doesn’t even conserve energy. Many people have discussed this with Ned and he continues to promote it. It seems entirely reasonable for someone to simply block him, rather than waste their time with someone who cannot recognise that the scientific idea that they’re promoting is flawed.

    1. P Gosselin

      CO2 warmists ideas are flawed, as are your own. But I still let you comment. They block because they are afraid.

      1. ...and Then There's Physics

        Why do you block? Are you also afraid?

        In a sense, whether or not Ned’s ideas are flawed has little to do with whether or not some other ideas are flawed. Understanding the flaw in Ned’s idea is quite simple. The surface loses almost 500 W/m^2. Including albedo, we’re only receiving about 240 W/m^2 from the Sun. Without an atmospheric greenhouse effect, the surface should – on average – be cooling. Why isn’t it? This is because of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. This prevents all the energy leaving the surface from escaping directly to space. Essentially, in order for the amount of energy being radiated back to space matching the amount we’re receiving from the Sun, the surface needs to be warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere.

        1. P Gosselin

          What’s the problem then? If his “flaw is quite simple” to prove wrong, then there’s no risk letting him present them. I see no reason for all the climate scientists like Mann, Hayhoe, Rahmstorf etc. to block everyone they don’t agree with. They can’t tolerate a little dissent.

          1. ...and Then There's Physics

            I notice you didn’t answer my initial questions.

            Blocking Ned doesn’t prevent him from presenting his ideas. He presents them regularly. People, however, have the right to choose how they engage on social media.

          2. P Gosselin

            The last thing a rational person does is run from debate when (s)he’s comfortable with her/his position. Obviously they are very uncomfortable with their POSition.

        2. spike55

          Ken says… “This is because of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. “

          Ah.. the badly named GHE, which is actually the atmospheric mass/gravity-thermal effect, which exists on every planet with a viable atmosphere.

    2. spike55

      Sorry, Ken, but it is your understanding of Ned’s work that is FLAWED.

      Stick to looking at stars and leave climate to those who know way more than you do about it.

      I saw some of that “debate”. Ned had you running around in circles as you intentionally misinterpreted his work.

    3. spike55

      “someone who cannot recognise that the scientific idea that they’re promoting is flawed.”

      You mean like the conjecture of AGW that is totally flawed from its most basic level. ?

      You think those people promoting the FLAWED AGW conjecture scam should be blocked ????

      I prefer them not to be, because they are great comic relief as you watch them tie themselves in knots trying to support a scientifically unsupportable political agenda/meme.

      People like Ho-Hum and Schmidt effectively block themselves from having to face reality.

Leave a Reply

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close