Skip to content

Ten Reasons Why We Don’t Believe You, Katharine

June 23, 2017

By Paul Homewood





Katharine Hayhoe thinks she knows why some of us don’t believe in global warming – apparently we don’t care!

Well Katharine, here are another ten reasons you forgot:


1) We don’t trust climate scientists.

The Climategate emails revealed just how untrustworthy the climate establishment has become.

We know that literally billions in grants are being shovelled their way, and that these grants would quickly dry up if they dropped their alarmism.


2) We don’t like being misled.

You, Katharine, have form in this respect, as you know.

It was you who claimed, in a magazine article in 2011, that increasing winter temperatures in Texas were a sign of climate change.

You came to this conclusion by starting your analysis in 1965, right at the start of a cold period.

You, of course, must have known that warming since then was just part of a cycle, and that temperatures have actually changed little since the 1920s.


Texas Winter Mean Temperatures


3) It was hotter in the 1930s

We are aware that temperatures across the US were considerable higher in the 1930s than in recent years.

Is it surprising that people are not in the least concerned about current climate?


4) It was warmer in the Middle Ages

Despite various attempts to disappear the MWP, evidence worldwide indicates that the climate was just as warm then as now, and that previous warm periods, such as the Roman and Minoan, were warmer still.

There is nothing unprecedented about current climate, so why should we be concerned?


5) The 19thC was the coldest period since the ice age

Ice cores show that the Little Ice Age was an exceptionally cold time. Why should we be surprised or concerned that there has been a small amount of warming since?


6) Cold kills

There can be no question at all that our current climate is beneficial compared with the cold of the Little Ice Age.

Or maybe you would prefer to return to that age of famine, cold, storms, floods and drought?


7) Extreme weather is not increasing

Despite climate scientists attempts to blame every bit of bad weather on climate change, there is no evidence that extreme weather is getting worse.

Droughts in the US, that were severe and widespread in the 1930s and 50s, have become much less of a problem since.

The US has now gone 11 years without a major hurricane, the longest such period on record.

The USGS can find no evidence that flooding has got worse.

And tornado activity has also diminished significantly since the cold years of the 1970s.


8) We don’t trust your data

Global temperature data has continually been adjusted to show more warming.

Yet the satellite data continues to diverge from surface data, and still shows temperatures have not increased since 1998.


9) Apocalypse never comes

For many years, we have been fed scare stories of apocalypse round the corner. These, of course, never materialise.

If climate scientists were to treat us with a bit of respect, honestly admitted that they have little idea of what is to come, and stopped trying to intimidate us with silly scares, you might find that we returned that respect.


10) Redistribution of wealth

Your attempts to treat us like children and trust the nice scientists ignore the issue.

Regardless of the science, the whole issue of climate change has been hijacked by politicians, the UN and a veritable army of vested interests.

People are not stupid, and know that developed countries have committed to transferring $100bn a year to developing ones, as part of the Paris Agreement.

Christina Figueres herself admitted that the goal of environmentalists is to destroy capitalism.



Hayhoe made her remarks at the Starmus Festival in Norway, billed as the world’s most ambitious science and arts festival.

Apparently Buzz Aldrin is also due to speak. Buzz, as you may know, is a self acclaimed climate sceptic.

Perhaps Katharine might like a chat with him!

  1. Broadlands permalink
    June 23, 2017 7:00 pm

    According to NOAA, since the ENSO- inspired record year of 1998 the winters in the contiguous US, including 2017, have been trending colder at –0.41°F per decade.

  2. Ian Miller permalink
    June 23, 2017 7:25 pm

    In as much as a blanket of CO2 greenhouse gas is said to hold in heat at the earth’s surface, thus warming the planet, surely this same blanket equally will insulate the planet from heat entering the atmosphere from the sun ?

    If this CO2 blanket will HOLD IN as much fossil fuel generated heat, as HOLD OUT heat, then CO2 emissions can only have a broadly neutral effect on Climate, contrary to what the ‘authorities’ who wish to curtail us all, – would desperately try to tell us.

    Let’s be clear, If we in the UK wish to fund public services, the NHS, the police, the public service pensions shortfall, while simultaneously reducing the deficit, we will most certainly need to be financially responsible and ditch this grossly expensive, unreliable ‘renewable energy’ White Elephant which was fraudulently set up to stop ‘global warming induced Climate Change. Having NO effect on moderating world temperatures, our current Energy Policy serves to impoverish us all through misappropriation of resources !

    The current taxpayer funded televised media’s default position on Climate Change urgently needs to be reset and the ‘swamp drained’..

    • tom0mason permalink
      June 23, 2017 8:02 pm

      The other point is IF CO2 can ‘hold the heat’ in our atmosphere, how long does it ‘hold’ it for? A day? A week? A second? or a millionth of a second?
      I suggest if you wish to know look up how CO2 laser operate.

    • John F. Hultquist permalink
      June 24, 2017 2:28 pm

      The above comment by Ian would be great if the first 2 paragraphs about CO2 were deleted.
      For starters, CO2 is not a blanket, and it doesn’t hold heat.
      CO2 is a radiatively active gas. Beyond that, things get really really complicated.

    • ScottM permalink
      July 3, 2017 1:53 am

      The atmosphere is transparent to most of the visible, UV, and short IR wavelengths from the Sun, so the answer to your question is “No”. But the Earth’s surface emits longer wavelength IR, a significant portion of which are absorbed and re-emitted by greenhouse gases – principally water vapor, with CO2’s influence on the rise.

  3. Jack Broughton permalink
    June 23, 2017 7:47 pm

    M/S Hayhoe claims that people despite being convinced about AGW do not support the crazy actions proposed because of their laziness / lack of care for the future. I guess that 97% of believers believe that.

    The man in the street has good reason to be suspicious of all snake oil salesmen, especially when they have successfully denied the opposition any rights of reply at almost every level. It is amusing that America, who kicked-off the whole madness is where the “science” is now being dismantled.

  4. June 23, 2017 8:40 pm

    The ten more reasons could easily be extended to 100 reasons.

  5. June 23, 2017 8:44 pm

    I wonder who is funding all these jet-setters to go to this boon-doggle. Think of all those planet-destroying emissions that they don’t seem to care about.

    • John F. Hultquist permalink
      June 24, 2017 2:34 pm

      In addition to salaries, costs, overhead and related things, most research contracts include funds for publication of results, and travel to meetings to toot one’s horn.
      The budgets for these things should be part of the record in file cabinets and/or stored electronically. While I know the information is there, I’ve got other things to do.

  6. ronhave permalink
    June 23, 2017 9:01 pm

    A great list. Should be convincing.
    Message is great.
    Trump is the wrong messenger.
    This is not political, it’s science, plain and simple
    If you load this message with right wing vitriol, fair-minded scientists and public won’t listen.

    • Climate Otter permalink
      June 23, 2017 10:20 pm

      I’m not aware of any ‘right-wing vitriol’ where Trump is concerned. None. Nada. ZILCH.

      • June 24, 2017 12:38 pm

        Thank you!! Trump has come to the common sense conclusion after seeing facts. It does not take a PhD in science to arrive there. I have a PhD in science and am called a “denier.” So much for that degree.

    • Keitho permalink
      June 24, 2017 2:49 pm

      I don’t think you can categorise Trump as right wing. He strikes me as being non-ideological and instead very pragmatic.

      I know there is a media constructed entity called Trump that is called a right wing extremist but that’s just a ridiculous beasty that certainly isn’t the President Trump we are very fortunate to have.

  7. June 23, 2017 9:38 pm

    This may be part of a new soft sell approach. Today outspoken alarmist Sarah Myhre published an article saying she is just pointing to the risks, and not advocating policy. They see that the Paris accord has been discredited as costing a lot and achieving very little. So they are moving to the “climate change is dangerous” meme.

    This is consistent with a theme out of IPCC AR5 to emphasis climate risk as the best way to convince the rubes. I put up a post today explaining how this works and the thinking of people like Hayhoe and Myhre.

    • nigel permalink
      June 24, 2017 9:52 am

      “…climate risk…”

      There is some risk of an imminent ice-age now that the sun-spot cycle has “shut-down.” But this would destroy mankind. On the precautionary principle*, we should as a matter of urgency multiply all “greenhouse gases” at least tenfold!

      The precautionary priciple, without sound limiting, leads everywhere and nowhere.

      * As per the very wise White Knight in “Through The Looking Glass” who made sure that his horse wore iron anklets – in case of crocodiles biting.

  8. AndyG55 permalink
    June 23, 2017 9:43 pm

    Merkel, at her press conference, said,

    “This Paris climate accord is not just some accord or the other.

    It is a central accord in defining the contours of globalization.”

    You would think, given the purported dire consequences to the world she would have said, “central to saving life on the planet”.

    A pretty WEIRD response, “central accord in defining the contours of globalization.”

    • Europeanonion permalink
      June 24, 2017 6:32 am

      Perhaps being the leader of a country that is one of the foremost producers of motorised vehicles she may see herself as governing one of the leading producers of pollutants and curtail that industry’s output?

      Bring back the privately funded scientist and the diversity of concerns. It would appear that independent minds are too few and far between. We have lost polymaths and produced a clique of adventurists who refuse to take science where it leads, adopting political adjudication instead.

    • Keitho permalink
      June 24, 2017 2:55 pm

      Well, that is a very bald statement of intent. Who but this festering elite want globalization under one government populated by the festering elite itself?

      These people treat us as though were just an audience without agency and allowed only to cheer their actions. Just look at what happens when we fight back using the ballot box.

      • Keitho permalink
        June 24, 2017 2:55 pm

        As somebody famous once said, if voting changed anything they wouldn’t allow it.

  9. tom0mason permalink
    June 23, 2017 10:32 pm


    I notice that Big Fat Al is not pushing the science carp now but divisively pushing moralizing politics and pulling the color issue out to justify green politics. Typical left-wing ignorant elitist Dimocrat using deception, dishonesty and misrepresentation, this time about the climate, as a method to divide people for an opportunistic political purposes. —

    “The climate movement should be seen in the context of the great moral causes that have transformed and improved the outlook for humanity,” he told the Ashden green energy awards ceremony. “It was wrong to allow slavery to continue, it was wrong to deny women the right to vote, it was wrong to discriminate on the basis of skin colour or who you fell in love with.

    “When the central issue was thus framed in stark relief because of who we are as human beings, the outcome became foreordained,” Gore said. “We chose what was right, and now in this case it is clearly wrong to destroy the prospects of living prosperously and sustainably on a clean earth when we bequeath it to our children. It is wrong to use the sky as an open sewer, it is wrong to condemn future generations to a lifetime haunted by continual declines in their standard of living, and give them a world of political disruption and all the chaos that the scientists have warned us about.”

    Hold your nose and read more of this rubbish at

    • Paddy permalink
      June 24, 2017 6:31 am

      There is some rubbish in our current church magazine by a representative of a “chariddee” calling itself Eco Congregation Scotland. All the usual apocalyptic rubbish. You might be interested in investigating this organisation, Paul.

    • Stuart Brown permalink
      June 24, 2017 10:13 am

      I used to like reading the “New Scientist”. On 20th May they went independent and the subsequent magazines have been so filled with Green stuff, I’ve cancelled my subscription. I’m still getting them though for the moment and the latest one (24 June) nearly went in the bin unopened.

      In the 8 page section on how to live with Climate Change there is a sidebar on how to talk to Climate Sceptics written by Fred Pearce. I must be one of Free market idealogue, Christian idealogue, Traditional conservative (that’s me, I guess) or We’re doomed brigade.

      People like me “…. can be persuaded with science. Point out that this is no fad. The greenhouse effect is 200 year old physics. And climate models say more or less the same thing as chemist Svante Arrhenius calculated using pen and paper over a century ago”

      So there.

      • Graeme No.3 permalink
        June 24, 2017 11:51 am

        “On 20th May they went independent and the subsequent magazines have been so filled with Green stuff” what year are you refering to? I gave it up in the early 1990’s when it stopped being scientific.

      • Stuart Brown permalink
        June 24, 2017 12:14 pm


        Me too. I had fond memories of DREADCO 🙂 so got it more recently for my then teenage son. Since he’s gone off to the Netherlands to do his Masters, I have been getting them come to me instead, but enough’s enough.

      • June 24, 2017 12:41 pm

        You can throw The National Geographic into that mix. They got a head start in the 1970’s. I have a set from my family to 1915, but told them some years ago that I wished to cancel my lifetime subscription purchased by my late parents. At least their garbage no longer comes to my mailbox.

  10. Bruce of Newcastle permalink
    June 23, 2017 10:42 pm

    The other reason for Katherine is that the data supports the sceptical position. The data fits very well with the Sun driving about half of the warming last century, the ocean cycles causing about a third (due to the choice of start and end dates for the IPCC “century”) and CO2 at most about one sixth.

    Which is why real world ECS is about a sixth of the GCM derived value – pretty close to Lindzen’s median TCR value. Which means CO2 is stone cold harmless.

    There are many papers supporting this view if she’d only read them. Or even look at the global temperature data herself with blinkers off.

    That is what scientists like she and I are supposed to do.

    • ScottM permalink
      July 3, 2017 2:04 am

      Ocean and solar influences are highly cyclic, but the last 40 years (after the decline of particulate and aerosol induced cooling in the 70s) have seen an increase in temperature in spite of declining solar input. The best estimates put CO2’s influence over that time frame at about 100 to 110 percent.

      The 0.14 K per decade increase in temperature over that period suggests a transient climate sensitivity of about 1.7 K, and an ECS that is higher by an amount not precisely known, but likely to be between 2.5 K and 3 K.

  11. June 23, 2017 11:47 pm

    11. Just plain bad science

    Here is an example:

    Here is why it’s bad science

    Also the attribution of changes in atmospheric CO2 to emissions is based on an assumption although there is no empirical evidence for it

    Believe it or not, we are being asked to fossil fuels without any empirical evidence that doing so will have an effect on warming.

  12. June 24, 2017 12:12 am

    I don’t believe in apocalyptic climate change precisely because people like Hayhoe are promoting it.

    • ScottM permalink
      July 3, 2017 2:06 am

      Ah, so is everything else you believe based on ad hominem as well?

  13. Dr. William Clayton permalink
    June 24, 2017 12:40 am

    You had me at number one and could have stopped there! Personally, as a social scientist, I find it repugnant that these so-called “honest scientists” manipulated the information to the extent that they did only to gain additional funding. I have said it before about these people and I will say it again: Shame on you! Thanks, Dr. Bill

  14. Stonyground permalink
    June 24, 2017 6:01 am

    Why are the alarmists so keen on only using “solutions” that don’t work? Electric cars, solar and wind and other Heath Robinson ideas? The money that has been wasted on these things could have been spent on nuclear power stations and high speed electrified railways. This would have brought actual benefits to people’s lives and genuinely reduced CO2 emissions.

    • John F. Hultquist permalink
      June 24, 2017 2:43 pm

      “Heath Robinson”

      The corresponding cartoonest in the U.S. is Rube Goldberg.

  15. June 24, 2017 9:18 am

    Why should anyone be expected to ‘believe’ in man-made global warming?

    It’s up to science to demonstrate whether it’s true or false. Still waiting for the demonstration that it’s true. All we get is conjecture and assertions.

  16. NeilC permalink
    June 24, 2017 10:27 am

    Paul, your excellent post will be wasted on her as she probably can’t count to 10

  17. CheshireRed permalink
    June 24, 2017 11:10 am

    We’re often told ‘only climate scientists can understand climate science’, so here’s another 10 reasons from a layman’s perspective; rhetorical questions, if you like.

    1. If correct then the Pause is actually very good news indeed, implying much reduced climate sensitivity by showing no warming for 20 years and also killing the ‘locked in, thermal inertia’ theory too, but alarmists react to it with absolute fury – the exact opposite of how human nature dictates we react when receiving good news. This reveals there are other motives at play.

    2. If human-caused CO2 REALLY IS causing planet-wide catastrophe…why are we planning & building c2,400 brand new coal-fired power stations around the world in the coming years? Why hasn’t coal been banned outright with NO exceptions?

    3. Those new-build coal pants will have a life-expectancy of around half a century. It flies full in the face of climate alarmism to allow them to be built and emit CO2 for a further 5 decades.

    4. If AGW is real…why have 90% of flights not been immediately cancelled? We don’t need to go on holiday, we don’t need to a low-key business conference or to a European away match we can watch at home on telly. This is a no-brainer, yet not only have flights not been cancelled but the air travel industry continues to expand! Supposed essential solutions to the theory are thus flatly contradicted by our actions.

    5. If AGW is real…why haven’t domestic cars been restricted to a max of 1.0 engines? Nobody needs a 5.0 4×4!

    6. If AGW is real why aren’t we collectively investing hundreds of billions into R & D for thorium, fusion and so on?

    7. If ‘sea level rise’ is a genuine threat how come front-line ocean properties the world over continue to sell in record numbers at record prices? (often with a mortgage!)

    8. If rising temperatures are a genuine problem how come nobody retires to Iceland but millions retire to warmer climes in Florida or Spain?

    9. If the science is settled why do alarmists so studiously avoid ANY sort of serious debate? After all they could win the debate hands down – in the process humiliating their opponents if they chose to, right?

    10. Finally…repeated time-sensitive predictions of ‘an ice-free Arctic’, ’50 million climate refugees by 2010′ and the now-legendary ‘kids won’t know what snow is’ have ALL failed to materialise, all being proven wrong. At what point do we accept spouting failed predictions isn’t going to cut it?

  18. treghotel permalink
    June 24, 2017 11:21 am

    A brilliant article Paul.I only wish that the mass of common sense peoplw could read it.Not many people I know are aware of your blog.
    Please keep it up.

  19. CheshireRed permalink
    June 24, 2017 12:14 pm

    Good post, Paul.
    Tony Heller has consistently called out Katherine Hayhoe’s work time and again but another kick up the arse for her is well-deserved. Cherry-picking is her stock in trade, showing only what she wants in order to ‘prove’ her case. It’s pretty despicable because not only is it flatly contradicting the scientific method but she KNOWS it is and knows it often hides a totally different reality, yet she continues anyway. Many would call it f r a u d. It’s designed to confuse the ordinary punter and thus help drive bogus ‘consensus’ public opinion.
    She’s a proven liar and seems entirely typical of the climate cartel alarmist w@nkers.
    Note how endless red flags keep going up; on their own very few could be said to ‘disprove’ AGW theory but collectively the weight of evidence against just keeps mounting up.
    Trump could hammer these charlatans by removing Gavin Schmidt, but that’s another story.

  20. June 24, 2017 2:26 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  21. June 24, 2017 3:59 pm

    Can anybody tell me where i can find raw temperature data for the U.S. that hasn’t yet been manipulated by the global warming alarmists? Thanks all.

  22. June 24, 2017 4:01 pm

    Reblogged this on and commented:
    I’m a global warming skeptic, thus this reblog 🙂

  23. June 24, 2017 4:23 pm

    Excellent comments by all on this thread.

    Yes, one would think if the alamists really had a case to make that they would be eager to join in the argument with skeptics, but just the opposite happens. I guess that says it all.

  24. June 24, 2017 4:49 pm

    In passing, Ms. Hayhoe states that the science is ‘the fundamental science behind it (AGW) is very simple, and very old.’ She’s right – well, depending on how you define ‘old’ and ‘very’. For her, of course, the problem is that it all points to conclusions that are the diametric opposite of her stated conclusions.

    What, I am trying to recall, is the term commonly used for women who sell themselves for money?

  25. RAH permalink
    June 24, 2017 4:57 pm

    11. We don’t trust YOU! You work as Associate Professor in the Political Science Dept. at Texas Tech. Kind of says it all.

  26. Denis Rancourt permalink
    June 26, 2017 2:00 pm

    Great post Paul. Thanks.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: