Saturday, March 8, 2014

Howard Hayden’s one-letter disproof of global warming claims - examined

Note to Professor Emeritus Hayden, 

A fan of yours recommended your EPA letter with the following comment:
Anonymous said: "I suggest you read this submission to the EPA by Howard C. Hayden Professor Emeritus of Physics, UConn. (Now I wonder what will be wrong with Professor Hayden? Will HE be too old or too young or ONLY a physics professor? See how silly your screams of deniers end up being!! Who are the ONLY deniers? hehehe Sort of says it all - hope you post it - know you won't - BUT what I DO know is that you'll READ IT. That is all I aim to do - my last post here - goodbye & Cheers," {comment on A look at the world of climate change denial}
And indeed, I did read your letter and thus began another excursion into the wormhole of science by rhetoric.  'Anonymous' challenges me with: " what will be wrong with Professor Hayden?"  I have no idea what's wrong with you.

But, I can recognize a great many things wrong with that dishonest letter you wrote to the EPA.
For starters, who actually believes they can in "a simple one-letter proof" disprove the accumulated works of over a century, involving tens of thousands of researchers and technicians.   Including studies into radiative properties of greenhouse gases that have resulted in successful satellite communication systems; various forms of Earth bound astronomical observations; and heat seeking air-to-air missiles, to name a few.  

Second, what you present doesn't even reach the level of 'science in a vacuum.'  There's no science at all!  It's all 'science by rhetoric.'  

I can't help but wonder at the ideological bias that allows yourself to write such an unmitigated piece of trash.  Your letter reveals either an astounding unfamiliarity with Earth systems and their evolution - or a complete disregard for those systems.  

Did you ever stop to examine your own ideological blinders before writing such a purely political letter?  What ever happen to a little healthy self skepticism?  In any event, I've taken the time to point out the many falsehoods in your letter.  
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

I have emailed Professor Hayden and welcome his critique of my critique. {Hayden's words are unaltered and appear in Courier font.}  I have included many resources to support my claims. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Howard C. Hayden, Professor Emeritus of Physics 
October 27, 2009 
The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 
Dear Administrator Jackson:I write in regard to the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009), the so-called “Endangerment Finding.” 
It has been often said that the “science is settled” on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.
The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.
~ ~ ~ 
Hayden tries to trick his reader into assuming that global warming is based on "models" which is not true.  

First and foremost we have the understanding of greenhouse gases and the indisputable facts of their radiation absorption properties and society's injection of geologic levels worth of these greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. {You can learn about it here:–-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-two/}

As for climate models, they help climatologists understand how various components of our planet's climate system will react to various climate drivers under different circumstances.

Remember models are only tools, their successful operation depends on their users possessing enough education to understand how to use them, and who appreciate what information can be gathered from the models.  Climate models do have limitations, they are learning tools not crystal balls.  It's quite disingenuous to set impossible expectations and to exclusively focus on limitations while ignoring all that's being learned from them.

For a more realistic understanding of how scientists actually use climate models check out these links:

World Meteorological Organization Climate Models
- - - 
Frequently Asked Question 8.1
How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate Change?
~ ~ ~ 
For some information about why scientists know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas:

Why Carbon Dioxide Is a Greenhouse Gas
In making a case against CO2 as a greenhouse gas, the Galileo Movement relies on irrelevant facts while omitting pertinent ones
Aug 16, 2011 |By Douglas Fischer and The Daily Climate
- - - 
The IPCC explains... The Greenhouse Effect 
- - - 
Greenhouse Gases/Effect

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

HH writes:  Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive.We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.
~ ~ ~
First Hayden misleads - there is no "current cooling phase" - get real, our planet continues warming.  As for the "slow down" in the rate of surface warming, we live in a complex heat distribution engine.  Surface air temperature are not all there is, for instance consider our oceans.

Hayden hides the fact that climatologist are getting to understand the various aspects of year to year and decadal scale variations.

Global cooling - Is global warming still happening?
- - -
Ten Charts That Make Clear The Planet Just Keeps Warming
- - - 

Sun-dimming volcanoes partly explain global warming hiatus-study
- - - 

"If the science were settled" is another one of those rhetorical tactics that has nothing to do with understanding the situation.  Notice Hayden never tries to define what "the settled science" is.  Rather than defining it, Hayden chooses to ridicule it.  That is not the way of science or learning.

If you want to understand what is settled here's a good place to start:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

HH writes:  Let me next address the horror story that we are approaching (or have passed) a “tipping point.” Anybody who has worked with amplifiers knows about tipping points. The output “goes to the rail.” Not only that, but it stays there. That’s the official worry coming from the likes of James Hansen (of NASA- GISS) and Al Gore.
~ ~ ~
"from the likes of" - That's the stuff of drama and political harangues - has nothing to do with science or teaching.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

But therein lies the proof that we are nowhere near a tipping point. The earth, it seems, has seen times when the CO2 concentration was up to 8,000 ppm {more like 7,000 ppm}, and that did not lead to a tipping point.
~ ~ ~ 
What's this mean "not lead to a tipping point"?  

We need to go back to the dawn of complex life over 525 million years ago to find that <7000 ppm spike.  The world was quite the different place in every respect, yet Hayden pointedly ignores such details.

514 Million Years Ago
425 Million Years Ago
237 Million Years Ago


For some learning opportunities, see:

Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
- - - 
What's in a Number? New Carbon Dioxide Level Unseen in Human History
- - - 
Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis

TS.2.1.1 Changes in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Nitrous Oxide
- - - - - - -

Regarding tipping points Hayden reveals a gross disregard for the fact that Earth has gone through several tipping points that have radically rearranged life on Earth.  In fact, one of the greatest mass extinction events on Earth is directly related to CO2.

Evidence of mass extinction associated with climate change 375 million years ago discovered in Central Asia
- - - 
Timeline of a mass extinction
New evidence points to rapid collapse of Earth’s species 252 million years ago.
- - - 
CO2 Mass Extinction Of Species And Climate Change
By Andrew Glikson | 22 February, 2010
"Lost all too often in the climate debate is an appreciation of the delicate balance between the physical and chemical state of the atmosphere-ocean-land system and the evolving biosphere, which controls the emergence, survival and demise of species, including humans."
- - - 
Another link between CO2 and mass extinctions of species

Mass extinctions due to rapidly escalating levels of CO2 are recorded since as long as 580 million years ago. As our anthropogenic global emissions of CO2 are rising, at a rate for which no precedence is known from the geological record with the exception of asteroid impacts, another wave of extinctions is unfolding.Mass extinctions of species in the history of Earth include:
  • the ~580 million years-old (Ma) Acraman impact (South Australia) and Acrytarch (ancient palynomorphs) extinction and radiation
  • Late Devonian (~374 Ma) volcanism, peak global temperatures and mass extinctions
  • the end-Devonian impact cluster associated with mass extinction, which among others destroyed the Kimberley Fitzroy reefs (~360 Ma)
  • the upper Permian (~267 Ma) extinction associated with a warming trend
  • the Permian-Triassic boundary volcanic and asteroid impact events (~ 251 Ma) and peak warming
  • the End-Triassic (201 Ma) opening of the Atlantic Ocean, and massive volcanism
  • an End-Jurassic (~145 Ma) impact cluster and opening of the Indian Ocean
  • the pre-Eocene-Oligocene boundary (~34 Ma) impact cluster and a cooling trend, followed by opening of the Drake Passage between Antarctica and South America, formation of the Antarctic ice sheet and minor extinction at ~34 Ma.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

HH writes:  If it did, we would not be here talking about it. In fact, seen on the long scale, the CO2 concentration in the present cycle of glacials (ca. 200 ppm) and interglacials (ca. 300-400 ppm) { actually <180 - <300 ppm} is lower than it has been for the last 300 million years.
~ ~ ~ 
Right, and 300 million years ago humanity could not have survived on this planet anyways!  What's it got to do with the world we are leaving our children?

Hayden is trying to distract readers away from the very real problem of what we ourselves have done to our atmosphere over the past couple centuries.

Pumphandle 2012: Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide

NOAA CarbonTracker

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
HH writes:  Global-warming alarmists tell us that the rising CO2 concentration is (A) anthropogenic and (B) leading to global warming.
~ ~ ~
Simple mathematical evidence tells us that humans have been burning hundreds of thousands of gigatons worth of carbon based fuels.

Simple chemistry shows us that upon burning they release greenhouse gases.

Simple physics shows us that those gases have radiative properties that turn them into 'insulation' in our atmosphere.

Common sense tells us that those "manmade" greenhouse gases will act just as "natural" GHGs do - and that increasing their concentration will increase our atmosphere's insulating ability. 

A lot of fancy high tech gadgets, such as air to air missiles, prove that GHG knowledge is based in reality.

Earth observations prove that global warming is indeed happening.

- - - 
CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part One
- - - 
How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

HH writes: (A) CO2 concentration has risen and fallen in the past with no help from mankind.{1} The present rise began in the 1700s, long before humans could have made a meaningful contribution.{2} Alarmists have failed to ask, let alone answer, what the CO2 level would be today if we had never burned any fuels.{3} They simply assume that it would be the “pre-industrial” value.{4}
~ ~ ~ 
What an exercise in hand waving.
{1}  What do fluctuations over thousands and millions of years have to do with today?
{2}  Mankind has been impacting our atmosphere by more than fossil fuel burning, for instance land and forest clearing plus agriculture have all played their rolls.  Why does Hayden remain blind to all of that?
{3}  What does that have to do with the massive amounts of GHG that we KNOW we ARE injecting into our atmosphere?  Why do the Hayden's of the world try so desperately to ignore those important facts?
{4}  It is future sea levels we are worrying about dear professor!

- - -
Chapter 3
The Human Contribution
- - -
How Much Is Too Much?: Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

HH writes:  a. The solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water warms, and increases as water cools. The warming of the earth since the Little Ice Age has thus caused the oceans to emit CO2 into the atmosphere.
~ ~ ~ 
No climate scientist has ever claimed that mankind was the only source of greenhouse gases, or their fluctuations.  And scientists have certainly examined the full spectrum of other factors such the ocean's contribution to the CO2 cycle.

Hayden is being dishonest by implying smart minds haven't been working these questions.  

Ramanathan, V., 1981: The Role of Ocean-Atmosphere Interactions in the CO2 Climate Problem. J. Atmos. Sci., 38, 918–930.
- - -

Simulated response of the ocean carbon cycle to anthropogenic climate warming
Sarmiento, Houghes, Stouffer, Manabe - Nature 393, 245-249 | May 21, 1998
- - -
Hayden also ignores related issues of grave concern:

Long-term ocean oxygen depletion in response to carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels
Shaffer, Olsen, Pedersen

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

HH writes: (B) The first principle of causality is that the cause has to come before the effect. The historical record shows that climate changes precede CO2 changes. How, then, can one conclude that CO2 is responsible for the current warming?
~ ~ ~ 
This has all been explained quite well, here's a link to good lecture

Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It's not about a hockey stick

- - -
Climate change: How do we know?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

HH writes:  Nobody doubts that CO2 has some greenhouse effect, and nobody doubts that CO2 concentration is increasing. But what would we have to fear if CO2 and temperature actually increased?
  • A warmer world is a better world. Look at weather-related death rates in winter and in summer, and the case is overwhelming that warmer is better. 
~ ~ ~ 
This is childish reasoning!  We aren't just talking room temperatures - we are dealing with a global geophysical heat distribution engine, warming that system adds more heat and energy and moisture into the system.

Let's consider the most obvious, glaciers.  In a warming world those glaciers (read water reservoirs) will disappear.  Hayden seems oblivious to what a keystone 'mountain glaciers' are to regional hydraulic systems and the huge populations who depend on them.
- - - 
Why do glaciers matter?
- - - 
Melting Glacial Ice
"Water supplies can also be affected by warmer winter temperatures that cause a decrease in the volume of snowpack. The result is diminished water resources during the summer months. This water supply is particularly important at the midlatitudes and in mountainous regions that depend upon glacial runoff to replenish river systems and groundwater supplies. Consequently, these areas will become increasingly susceptible to water shortages with time, because increased temperatures will initially result in a rapid rise in glacial meltwater during the summer months, followed by a decrease in melt as the size of glaciers continue to shrink. This reduction in glacial runoff water is projected to affect approximately one-sixth of the world's population (IPCC 2007)."
- - - 

Then we have the expected increases in extreme infrastructure and life destroying weather events unfolding before our eyes, as climatologist have been warning us about but who's listening?

- - - 
New Report Connects 2012 Extreme Weather Events to Human-Caused Climate Change
by James Bradbury and C. Forbes Tompkins - September 06, 2013
- - - 
Special Report to the American Meteorological Society
- - - 
Special Supplement to the
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Vol. 94, No. 9, September 2013
- - - 
Current Extreme Weather & Climate Change

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

HH writes: 

  • The higher the CO2 levels, the more vibrant is the biosphere, as numerous experiments in greenhouses have shown. But a quick trip to the museum can make that case in spades. Those huge dinosaurs could not exist anywhere on the earth today because the land is not productive enough. CO2 is plant food, pure and simple. 
~ ~ ~
Dinosaurs didn't care how bad storms were, nor how high sea levels rose, nor how badly ocean acidification was disrupting the ocean's "food chain."
- - - 
Ocean Acidification

- - - 
GC44C. Special Lecture in Ocean Acidification

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
HH writes: 
  • CO2 is not pollution by any reasonable definition. 
~ ~ ~ 
The good profession ignores that too much of a good thing is what turns stuff into a pollutant.  In fact too much CO2 can be a poison!

The levels of CO2 in the air and potential health problems are:
  • 350- 1,000 ppm - typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange.
  • 1,000 – 2,000 ppm - level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air.
  • 2,000 – 5,000 ppm – level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air.  Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present.
  • >5,000 ppm – this indicates unusual air conditions where high levels of other gases could also be present. Toxicity or oxygen deprivation could occur. This is the permissible exposure limit for daily workplace exposures.
  • >40,000 ppm - this level is immediately harmful due to oxygen deprivation.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
HH writes: 
  • A warmer world begets more precipitation. 
~ ~ ~
Yes it does, but it's dumped more unpredictably and it mean bigger storms!  Worse global warming will shift global circulation patterns increasing our planet's desert belt

- - - 
The Water Cycle and Climate Change
- - - 
Physical Processes that Cause Drought
- - - 
Drowning and Drought - Extreme Weather Impacts on Economy and Society
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
HH writes: 
  • All computer models predict a smaller temperature gradient between the poles and the equator.
  • Necessarily, this would mean fewer and less violent storms. 
~ ~ ~
Perhaps in a nice neat lab bench experiment, but our atmosphere covers a huge complex globe and it comes under many different influences.  While the temperature gradient between the tropics and arctic is decreasing, the Arctic Ocean's ice cap is melting and becoming a heat absorption plate that is introducing evaporation and convection currents into the troposphere that haven't been present in geologic ages, in turn the jet stream is experiencing increasing meandering with it's accompanying extreme weather events.

Arctic Amplification (Extreme Weather): Jennifer Francis June 6, 2013

- - - - - - -
also see:
Climate Change Impacts - Polar Vortex & The Jet Stream - Global Warming - Weather Patterns
- - - 
Trade winds are also undergoing some ominous changes:

Unprecedented trade wind strength is shifting global warming to the oceans, but for how much longer?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

HH writes: 
  • The melting point of ice is 0 oC in Antarctica, just as it is everywhere else. The highest recorded
  • temperature at the South Pole is –14 oC, and the lowest is –117 oC. How, pray, will a putative few degrees of warming melt all the ice and inundate Florida, as is claimed by the warming alarmists? 

~ ~ ~
This is some desperation, still ignoring information doesn't make it go away.  Notice Hayden has no interest in answering his own question: Why would Antarctic glaciers melt?

NASA | Warm Ocean Melting Pine Island Glacier
Warm Ocean Rapidly Melting Antarctic Ice Shelf from Below
September 12, 2013
- - - - - - - 
Giant Antarctic glacier beyond point of no return

Published on Jan 13, 2014
Antarctica's Pine Island Glacier, one of the biggest single contributors to world sea-level rise, is melting irreversibly and could add as much as a centimetre (0.4 inches) to ocean levels in 20 years, a study said Sunday.
The glacier "has started a phase of self-sustained retreat and will irreversibly continue its decline," said Gael Durand, a glaciologist with France's Grenoble Alps University.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

HH writes: Consider the change in vocabulary that has occurred. The term global warming has given way to the term climate change, because the former is not supported by the data. The latter term, climate change, admits of all kinds of illogical attributions. If it warms up, that’s climate change. If it cools down, ditto. Any change whatsoever can be said by alarmists to be proof of climate change. 
~ ~ ~
Climate Change was a term that got pushed into public prominence because Republican strategist Frank Luntz observed that Global Warming was too frightening and wanted to tone down the seriousness of our situation. 

Beyond that focusing on such semantics reveals Hayden's dependence on rhetorical fancy dancing rather that rational scientific arguments to make his case.
- - -
Global warming vs climate change

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

HH writes: In a way, we have been here before. Lord Kelvin “proved” that the earth could not possibly be as old as the geologists said. He “proved” it using the conservation of energy. What he didn’t know was that nuclear energy, not gravitation, provides the internal heat of the sun and the earth. 
~ ~ ~
What a ridiculous rhetorical game.  Besides, Hayden resembles Kelvin's inability to recognize modern evidence way more than the global community of climatologist!

Where's the scientific reasoning?  Yanking emotional chains is politics, not teaching. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

HH writes: Similarly, the global-warming alarmists have “proved” that CO2 causes global warming. Except when it doesn’t. 
~ ~ ~
Now Hayden is doing the comedy routine, while revealing he doesn't recognize the difference between weather and climate.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

HH writes: To put it fairly but bluntly, the global-warming alarmists have relied on a pathetic version of science in which computer models take precedence over data, and numerical averages of computer outputs are believed to be able to predict the future climate. It would be a travesty if the EPA were to countenance such nonsense. 
~ ~ ~ 
Such a claim can only be made by someone who willfully ignores the observational evidence. 

Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis

Front Matter 0.8MB
Summary for Policymakers 2.3MB
Technical Summary18.1MB
      Supplementary Material0.3MB
  1. Introduction 4.5MB
  2. Observations: Atmosphere and Surface 38.3MB (Supplementary Material 1.5MB)
  3. Observations: Ocean 48.3MB
  4. Observations: Cryosphere 12.8MB (Supplementary Material 0.4MB)
  5. Information from Paleoclimate Archives 10.7MB
  6. Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles 23.8MB (Supplementary Material 4MB)
  7. Clouds and Aerosols 19.2MB (Supplementary Material 0.1MB)
  8. Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing 18.9MB (Supplementary Material 15.9MB)
  9. Evaluation of Climate Models 24.6MB
  10. Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional 10.4MB (Supplementary Material 1.3MB)
  11. Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability 14.1MB
  12. Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility 36.3MB
  13. Sea Level Change 32.9MB (Supplementary Material 0.1MB)
  14. Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change 10.6MB (Supplementary Material 1.9MB)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
HH writes: Best Regards,
Howard C. Hayden Professor Emeritus of Physics, UConn 
~ ~ ~
The irony is that this entire letter doesn't have a shred of scientific evidence or argument - the entire thing is based on rhetorical fancy dancing and an ideology driven logic confined within a vacuum where all uncomfortable facts and complexities are deliberately ignored.

None of what Hayden offered above has anything to do with teaching or learning about Earth's complex climate system.  Very sad indeed.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
also note:

Lindzen's Junk Science

Posted on 8 March 2012 by dana1981

This is a re-post from Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate regarding another Lindzen misrepresentation in the seminar discussed in Lindzen's London Illusions.  As noted by Skeptical Science reader WheelsOC, the graphic in question used by Lindzen in his London presentation appears to have been created by Howard Hayden and posted on Junk Science.  This suggests that the error discussed by Schmidt was actually made by Hayden and then uncritically reproduced by Lindzen (who also did not provide a reference citation for the faulty graphic in his presentation).


citizenschallenge said...

Recently I've received this bit of interesting information regarding Howard Hayden's scientific sloppiness. Check out the link:
~ ~ ~



“I concluded incorrectly that NASA-GISS had manipulated the data. I am making every effort to correct my error." (Howard Hayden)
~ ~ ~

Prof. Richard Lindzen’s email to

"Please accept my apologies for using the graph from Howard Hayden that purported to suggest that GISS had manipulated the temperature data. I asked Howard to check how he arrived at this conclusion. Here is his response:"

(HH) "Please accept my sincere apologies for misrepresenting NASA-GISS data. I downloaded temperature data from to make a graph in 2009. About a month ago, I went to the same file to get the more recent points and was surprised to find a considerably different data set.

"The formatting of the data set was the same, and I did not notice that the heading said that the data referred to meteorological stations only. As a consequence, I concluded incorrectly that NASA-GISS had manipulated the data. I am making every effort to correct my error."
~ ~ ~
and so on and so forth.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I myself can understand the mistake Hayden made all too well. I am guilty of plenty such oversights myself. After all keeping track of the flood of incoming information isn't easy.

The problem with the Hayden types is that although they consistently make elementary errors, they remain obstinately self-certain - they come off convinced they are smarter than full time professionals; people who would not make such elemental mistakes. Folks who understand levels of complexity the un-specialized don't even imagine exist.

Me, I know I'm a screw up, that's why I offer so many links to real information. It's got nothing to do with my personal opinion! It's about pointing out bull-poop when I see it - and then providing the resources for each individual to figure it out for themselves.

Each individual is responsible for how they themselves will digest and utilize the flood of information that is available.

citizenschallenge said...


citizenschallenge said...

It's been two months since I wrote this and sent Mr. Hayden an email. Unsurprisingly, he's another "skeptic" who refuses to defend their version of reality - instead going into hiding.

What I have to wonder is how do they manage to look themselves in the mirror, knowing they are peddled such indefensible garbage information.

citizenschallenge said...

This seems to be getting a lot of views recently.
FYI. Still no word from Howard Hayden.

So typical of self-certain bullies, bluster but no substance.

Unknown said...

So how many of you climate change scientist are not buying any items made from or by fossil fuels to save the planet? How many?
Are you not driving or flying and etc. to save the planet.

citizenschallenge said...

Can you explain what that has to do with honesty looking at and learning about what's happening to our planet from serious climate science ? ? ?
What does it have to do with deliberately lying about what scientists have actually said and done. Instead it’s always full on go for the throat dirty fighting

What's the matter with you? Why do you have to fantasize we're your enemy or some stupid stuff like that?

I live in Colorado, I like being able to drive across the state or to another state, driving through the great wide open expanses, and pulling into the next town to fill up my vehicle and belly and then hit the road again. Just like you, you silly. When I’m lucky enough fly, I’m a ten year old again fascinated by the whole operation and then in the air my head is flattened against the window in awe of country I’m flying over. Except that when I drive off or hop on a plan I do so with deep appreciation for how fortunate I am and the complexity behind making this luxury possible.

Our parents, grandparents and beyond strove to achieve all this for us, and you take it all for granted. Every think of what it takes to stock your local grocery store?

But you don't care about any of that. You don't care about healthy farm land or rivers and ocean. You know, the things that sustain our lives. Actually guess you don’t know.
Still you'll throw all that away out of spite and ignorance and hatred. I also imagine you don't possess a shred of self-skepticism either.

Thus with ignorant contempt you help destroy the future of our younger generations. So tragic, so stupid.

My deal is about honestly, truthfully conveying what scientists have learned.

I was born wanting to understand how my planet Earth functions and I've spent six decades actively adding to my understanding and appreciation. I can't for the life of me figure out why I seem to be so rare. Why is the world filled with so many ciphers such as E Varnado, people who are alive but have no curiosity no sense wonder, or fair play, or interest in constructive learning, no behaving in the spirit of Enlightened self-interest.

If you ever wanted to discuss the actual science and our global heat and moisture distribution engine please do return.