“Smokescreens.” This, apparently, is the fancy new euphemism used by climate alarmists to describe what we on the skeptical side of the argument prefer to call “facts.”
The word appears in an interview given by Katharine Hayhoe, a professor at Texas Tech where she is director of the Climate Science Center, and a leading member of the climate alarmist establishment.
She was a co-author, for example, of the 2014 National Climate Assessment produced during the Obama era. She also featured prominently in the first episode of the global warming propaganda documentary series Years of Living Dangerously.
Here she is, talking to someone calling themselves ‘Sierra Club’, at EcoWatch.
Hayhoe vehemently advises against engaging with the “smokescreens” skeptics tend to offer as the reasons they couldn’t possibly agree with or act on the issue of climate change.
“There’ll be no progress that way,” she insists. “It’s a lot easier for people to say, ‘I have a problem with the science’ than it is to talk about what the real problem is.”
Hayhoe might not realize this but she could scarcely have provided more damning evidence of the political nature of “climate science.”
If climate science were robust and real, it would be more than capable of standing up to questioning and debate.
But because it’s not really about science at all, only about propaganda used to push political outcomes, Hayhoe is only capable of recommending this response when asked challenging questions: change the subject.
What about when you get stuck? Say you’ve landed on shared values—you and a climate denier agree the weather has been wild, but they just insist, “Oh, it’s just part of the natural cycle.” What then?
Here’s where you pivot and move on, beyond what they disagree on, to something you both agree on. You might offer one phrase of dissent—perhaps, “According to natural cycles we should be cooling down right now, not warming.”
But then, before the conversation becomes a game of whack-a-mole, change the subject. Try, “Did you know that China and India have more solar energy than any other countries in the world? I’m a little worried the U.S. is falling behind; aren’t you worried, too?”
At this point, you’ve moved the conversation beyond what they don’t agree on. Because whether it’s a natural cycle or not, a lot of people are worried about losing the fight in the nuclear energy field. You want to acknowledge what people have to say but not to engage.
Even when she’s changing the subject, she can’t get her facts right – as Paul Homewood notes here.
Katharine Hayhoe was listed by Time as one of the ‘100 most influential people of 2014’. She has been described as “perhaps the best communicator on climate change.”
I don’t mean to be ungallant. But the phrase does rather come to mind: “Is this seriously the best they’ve got?”
Read more at Breitbart
Former UN climate chief Christina Figueres (sp?) stated that climate change had nothing to do with climate. It’s all about redistribution of the world’s (read: the USA’s) wealth and the destruction of (read: the USA’s) capitalism. She was being honest with us. Therefore those promoting the global warming fraud appear to be ignorant dupes of the warmist propaganda or a knowing part of Figueres’ stated goals. In either case, their comments should be ignored.
Professor Hayhoe just another fake scientists the Obama administration embraced a charlatint and con artists just like Al Bore,Leonardo DiCaprio and Bill Nye
cLIEmate UNscience is just a Smoke Screen for global wealth redistribution. There Fixed!
When the facts are against them it has been standard liberal practice to change the subject for decades. As this article shows, they are still using the tactic. I’ll repeat one of my past posts. I’m not sure of the date but it might have been the late 1970’s or early 1980’s.
A pro-gun control news reporter was interviewing the president of the National Rifle Association. The reported confronted the NRA president with the fact that Europe, with stricter gun control, had less serious crime. The NRA president accurately responded that the difference was better explained by different demographics than access to guns. At that point the reporter accused the NRA president of being a racist and the rest of the interview was arguing about that. The reporter was very successful in changing the subject to avoid data that went against his cause.
The new reality . …My opinion out weighs your facts .
Everybody is a victim . Ever listen to radio these days ?
The ultra-liberal globalist cabal has inadvertently revealed that climate change is simply identity politics. All the press about coming climate catastrophe is an attack on humanity, making us clamor for solutions and search for perpetrators that must be “brought to justice”. “Save the Earth” is their battle cry but power and money is their true goal. Facts are “smokescreens!?!?!? The climate alarmist establishment is nothing but a “smokescreen” machine; another example of accusing their opponents of doing what they already do……
Right you are R Johnson . Climate alarmism is a smoke screen for
globalists and ultimately communists . I guess the science is settled and denier marketing plans have run their course .
The lied about DDT and CFC’s they have lied about the Rain Forests they have lied about the Polar Bears they have lied about the Northern Spotted Owl and Marbled Murrelet they were caught planing Lynx Hairs on rubbing posts in Idaho and Nevada and when one small Bird was declared Endangered after going up in a Airplane about counting trees The Sierra Clubs book CLEAR CUT THE TRADEGY OF MODERN FORESTRY was from photos taken by Lite Hawk from the air Lets face it the entire modern Eco-Wacko movements based upon Lies and Deception