Texas Tech Climate Scientist Hayhoe on Climate Change

Open Email to Editor in Chief Lubbock Avalanche Journal:

Dear Editor,

Your Friday, April 25 issue featured headline, "Tech scientist on Times 100 list". This was followed by a collaborative story by Blake Uirsch, with the sub headline, "People/Climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe named among magazines top influential people". The story describes the Times 100 list as that of people who are using their ideas, visions, and actions to transform the world and have an effect on a multitude of people. In short, they are people who are effective communicators. The subjects of their communications need not be necessarily advantageous for world progress.
It is on that last basis, that I challenge the position of climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe, as she effectively touts that significant disastrous global warming is caused by the activities of mankind.
In the article, she is quoted as saying that 97% of climate change scientists agree that climate change is happening due to the choices people make every day. She goes on to say that, "The simple truth is that the scientific debate is over and now it's time for all of us to take action".
I don't doubt that Katherine Hayhoe is a very intelligent person, but many intelligent persons have been known to be wrong. In this particular case, Dr. Hayhoe has apparently not properly looked at the history of naturally induced climate change, nor considered a true scientific analysis of the Earth's heat balance.
If she had looked at the historical data on climate, she would have found great variations over centuries even prior to any possible effect from mankind.
If she looked at the heat balance of the earth, she would have found that the infinitesimal increase in available heat from the burning of fossil fuels is insignificant with respect to Earth's heat input from the sun.
The only possible position for argumentation is the claimed, by some scientists, absorbance of heat by the carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels. That position is only theoretical and could be resolved as factual or not by some simple laboratory work, which somehow seems to escape the 75% of said scientists who are convinced of significant climate change from fossil fuel burning.
In summary, Catherine Hayhoe appears to be a great communicator but her scientific capability can be sorely questioned. In my judgment, she now falls into the category of pseudo-scientists, which are those who have had good scientific training, but their emotions and subsequent rationalization, usually based on money, have reduced their scientific integrity to approximately zero.