Read here and here. The "bimbo" is rather famous for displaying her idiocy with inappropriate remarks (i.e. implied threats) regarding experts who disagreed with her -- hey, maybe that's why she eventually lost her cushy job.
Her new job appears to be promoting the faux science of climate models, which just about everyone now knows are a total joke, except for those individuals who have a strong contempt for empirical, objective, testable science, like the bimbo.
This week, she announced that her models have secretly told her that the northern U.S. may experience less freezing during future March months, some 50 to 90 years from now. She felt obligated to the world to share the climate model make-believe "predictions" - lucky us. Unfortunately for Heidi though, the empirical, objective science just keeps mocking her and her models.
"If Climate Central’s press release theory were correct, we would expect to have already seen an increase in March temperatures, and an increase in number of years above freezing....Conclusion: Based on the NCDC data, there is no evidence that increases in CO2 over the last 30 years have affected March temperatures in the north central region of the USA or moved the freeze line north. Once again, we see a case of scientists trusting climate models ahead of reality."
"The alarmists at Climate Central (slogan: “Sound science & vibrant media”) have an interactive map showing the area projected to be above freezing in the coming decades. They say “US temperatures have been warming over the last century, and climate scientists expect much more of the same in the future....average March temperature for Minnesota from 1970 to 2009....has had only one March above freezing since the mid 1980s and a declining trend since the mid-1970s....If only their science was as sound as their media are vibrant."
Here's what James Lovelock, who formulated the Gaia Hypothesis, thinks of the bimbo's favored climate model predictions:
“We do need scepticism about the predictions about what will happen to the climate in 50 years, or whatever,” said Lovelock. “It's almost naive, scientifically speaking, to think we can give relatively accurate predictions for future climate. There are so many unknowns that it's wrong to do it.”"