We all know that the now infamous “97% consensus” is based on shonky data analysis by John Cook, but that doesn’t stop the president of the Sierra Club from using it, even when it means a standoff with a Senator in a congressional testimony. Today, Texas senator and Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz questioned Sierra Club President Aaron Mair in a contentious testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Via the Daily Caller:
But on one question in particular, Mair would not deviate from his rehearsed answer.
When asked about the 18 year pause in global warming, as documented by satellite data, Mr. Mair denied it exists. “So if the data are contrary to your testimony, would the Sierra Club issue a retraction?” Cruz asked.
“Sir, we concur with the 97 percent scientific consensus with regards to global warming,” Mair responded.
It gets better:
When Senator Cruz pressed the environmentalist on whether he would change his testimony should the Sierra Club obtain the publicly available data showing the “pause,” Mair would only respond, “We concur with 97 percent of the scientists that believe the anthropogenic impact of mankind with regards to global warming are true.”
Cruz then asked again if Mair was unwilling to answer the question. The Sierra Club chief replied, “We concur with the preponderance of the evidence — you’re asking me if we’ll take 3 percent over the 97 percent? Of course not.”
And here’s the money quote from an exasperated Ted Cruz:
“You know, Mr. Mair, I find it striking that for a policy organization that purports to focus exclusively on environmental issues, that you are not willing to tell this committee that you would issue a retraction if your testimony is objectively false under scientific data. That undermines the credibility of any organization.”
I’ll say. Watch the testimony:
Added: h/t to Ryan Maue
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
These organizations did have an actual purpose when the pollution in the late 60s and 70s was getting to be a really big problem and they did do much to help get it cleaned up and for people to be aware of our environment. These days they are only looking out for their positions, jobs, political motivations, etc. It is a shame that what was once an organization which looked out for the environment for the environment itself, is now just a political organization looking out for it’s own financial stake with little regard for the environment.
It’s all about money and political position these days. Whatever lies and avoiding of answers they have to do in order to continue in their BS money grubbing is worth it to them to stay a viable, money sucking organization.
Makes “Big Sierra Club” seem like “Big Government”. Both seeking only their own growth and power on the backs of taxpayers.
At some point, our pollution problems were essentially dealt with.
But not wanting to lose jobs, the Green movement went into Phase II. Following the law of diminishing returns, we spent ever increasing amounts of money chasing ever decreasing amounts of effluents, obtaining ever decreasing benefits/dollar.
Now we’ve entered Pase III, where unlimited funding is chasing nonexistent pollutantion problems.
Zero benefits / infinity dollars = human extinction (And wasn’t the the Green goal all along?)
Oh, there you go again. You capitalists complaining about the spending of infinity money on zero benefits.
BUT – you will one day realize that you can’t put a pricetag on zero benefits.
And that’s something that the capitalist mentality will never understand…
(sarc.)
“..you can’t put a pricetag on zero benefits.”
LOL
I’m stealing that!
…as is the problem with much of environmentalism, once you have succeeded, you tend to make yourself redundant.
The Sierra Club has never been about “Environmental Issues”, it is all about wealth distribution and Population Controls.
Isn’t that the goal of a successful Manager? At least that was what I was taught. Train and develop your staff so you become redundant and can move on to new challenges. Guess they missed that course.
Baby
Bathwater ?
We all find some things unacceptable right ?
I didn’t try too hard. Looked for low hanging fruit. I just typed in creosote spill in China and I saw this link.
http://www.marinergroup.com/oil-spill-history.htm
I like oil/coal and fossil fuels in general because they are a high density energy source. I don’t like them in my water.
How about you ?
Are you willing to leave it up to the profiteers to decide ?
Knute,
Are you trying to conflate climate change alarmism with actual pollution and contaminated water?
Negative Men
I was replying to a baby … Bathwater comment. One can see the charade of CAGW and validity of real issues at the same time.
OK, cool. Just checking.
Back in the early seventies when I was doing a fair amount of backpacking Appalachian trails, I received a Sierra Club trail camping cookbook for a gift. Nice looking plasticized (weatherproofed) cookbook.
Shortly thereafter while getting ready for another camping outing, I cracked the book checking recipes for any ingredients I would need to include in my pack; red wine and chicken, white wine and clams, lobster bisque… Big disappointment. Forty plus years later the book is still pristine; no reason for it to go camping, not a good enough cookbook for the kitchen.
From that moment on, I’ve never believed a word out of Sierra Club nor ever sent them another cent. Another decade later and the Audubon Society came out against fishing. Afterwards there was an ever increasing list of alleged green organizations that definitely are not.
Add in the recent Pebble Mine news about EPA false environmental shenanigans.
If they claim environmental, critter or nature welfare, doubt them!
After volunteering to do some hiking trail clearing in the Santa Cruz (CA) mountains with a Sierra Club group, we were invited to a get together at the Woodside home of a prominent local Sierra Club Officer.
Very nice house sort f circular with a balcony all around it, and high wooden beams holding up the roof.
Biggest pile of redwood lumber I have ever laid eyes on in my life.
That was my final association with the Sierra Club.
g
Wait, you mean the “Do as I say, not as I do” crowd is a led by a pack of rank hypocrites?
For the love of Pete!
To a large degree, govt was solving a problem that it had created when it decided to usurp riparian rights in order to favor economic growth, and of course big campaign donations.
Cruz, a true legal eagle, might have gone for the jugular and asked something innocuous like “Mr Mair, which temperature dataset does the Sierra Club consider the most accurate and reliable? Take your time. You don’t know? Well, may I ask, respectably, why did your organization not send someone here who knows something about the subject at hand? Sir, may I ask, what are your qualifications to discuss climate science above, say, an 8th grade level?”
I’m surprised no-one called racism: white guy armed with facts attacks defenseless black guy.
As one who suffered through Mr. Mair’s answers in the video, we already know how he would have answered your question:
“Sir, we concur with the 97 percent scientific consensus with regards to global warming,”
Come on Ted, you can’t score points for punching out an empty suit. Give him the back of the hand and move on.
I disagree that they had any purpose. They are mass murderers because they had enough pull to create a world-wide ban on DDT. Millions of people have died of malaria because of this. It is a crime against humanity. Their lie that DDT could cause cancer in humans was one of the deciding arguments in this case. For reasons unknown the use of DDT during the Second World War and in its aftermath was never brought out. It so happens that American troops during the war and refugees after the war were all dusted with DDT. There is no record of any serious problem from this mass dusting of human beings. And why were they dusted? Because Europe by then was full of lice. Germans had built some steam cabinets to kill lice with heat in the clothing and baggage of people coming from the east but the lice still got through. DDT was the only thing that worked against them and was responsible for delousing a continent. Not a word about that came out in the hearings because to my knowledge nobody died or got cancer despite the millions that were dusted.
In fact, they are the most long lived and healthy into old age generation ever in history…up until the next one that were exposed to far more varieties of chemicals.
What does not kill you makes you stronger.
It is called hormesis.
And, BTW, it explains the Keith Richards effect.
The worse “they” say it is for you, the better it really is for you?
http://www.epictimes.com/2015/10/susannah-mushatt-jones-116-year-old-says-bacon-is-secret-to-longevity/
Hmm I do not know, maybe Keith was literally pickled into preservation.
@Menicholas:
“What does not kill you makes you stronger.”
I’ve always wondered what Christopher Reeve and other quadriplegics thought of that inane statement.
I can’t speak for Mr Reeve (RIP), nor presume to know what others who suffer feel, but I can reference my friend of 20 years (not quad, but bi). He wishes the auto had seen him a split second earlier. Also, that indeed, he misses his athleticism and his nymphomanic head case of an ex girlfriend. He learned to enjoy educating himself. Mostly though, he wants to walk again someday and misses the independence that comes with it. He agrees that we learn more from pain than pleasure but thinks it’s rather stupid to think one would wish pain on themselves.
“Germans had built some steam cabinets to kill lice with heat in the clothing and baggage of people …”
If they ever separate you from your baggage and clothing and ask you to step in the showers, RUN!!!
Why isn’t the source of the 97% consensus questioned?
Most people don’t know that “97%” is based on 75 out of 77 scientists and the 77 came from a much larger sample that was culled until they got an “acceptable level” of consensus. The vast majority of those 75 scientists were from the US, too! An honest evaluation of the original sample would have had it in the single digits.
Oops—looks like my numbers are slightly off–it’s 77 of 79 scientists.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle
Warmistas have conjured up new 97% surveys. It must be a significant marketing number
http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp
BlueGreen Alliance, Washington, D.C.
Board of Directors Co-Chairs:
Leo W. Gerard, International President of United Steel Workers and from Canada.
Michael Brune, Executive Director, Sierra Club.
United Steel Workers members stand to benefit from all the steel infrastructure needed for solar projects, wind projects and transmission line towers.
http://www.bluegreenalliance.org and follow the links to the Board of Directors.
You seem to be under the impression that the SC was and is only concerned about pollution which is far from the case. It has also been concerned with habitat destruction, species extinctions and other damage to wildlife populations, sprawl, erosion, deforestation, damming of rivers, etc.
They are now a “front group” aka show pony. The real activist work is being done by 5th column (behind the scenes) NGOs. Collusion.
The current crop learned it by watching how industry did it.
Come on scientistas, put down the book. Go for a walk. Look up, not down. See the bigger picture.
Pay attention to a few basic starter rules.
1. What your attention is being drawn to is not the thing your opponent prizes.
2. If a champion of your cause meekly wounds the opposition when a throttling should have occurred, pay attention. They are likely playing both sides.
3. Find and pay attention to the things your opposition says to its major donors. The taste of the money gets them excited (both sides).
4. Track and identify the asset allocations of the 1% of the 1% on both sides.
The real product of the Sierra Club is Fear.
H. L. Mencken said it best:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Mencken
The Sierra Club has a HUGE structural incentive to exaggerate environmental dangers. The day that that organization is no longer able to frighten people, is the day it will cease to exist.
Excellent post.
Another big “concern” of the Sierra Club is that Americans still have affordable energy. The Sierra Club/Obama partnership is doing its best to wipe out the coal industry right now. After that, they are going after oil and natural gas:
http://sierraclub.org/beyond-fossil-fuels
No, they aren’t looking to wipe it out. They are looking to depress the asset’s value then step in and control it. (ie. flow the money of Soros)
SC is a smart organization. They know alternative energy is not ready to supply the world with what it needs.
I don’t know – Mair may have been referring to the Doran/Zimmerman 97% consensus. Most likely, he doesn’t know which one he’s referring to.
I think Cruz should have recited the two questions in the Doran/Zimmerman poll and state that he fully agrees with the 97%, and then gone back to the satellite record.
Had he done that, then Mair would look like a fool to keep repeating that he agrees with the 97% because he’d be agreeing with Cruz.
Rick, He looked a fool anyway.
I agree, he looked like an arrogant & rather ignorant fool masquerading as a knowledgable person! He failed! The whole show on his part of referringto an aid, demonstrated that he was taking some semi-llegal stance, is the guy a bloodsucking lawyer, per chance, no offence to lawyers everywhere! (Jurassic Park).
I thought he was genuinely befuddled, and had no idea what to say, and had to be told. He may have misheard the dufus instructing him, and that is why he said something about the 1940’s.
He did “something”. I’m still letting it sink in. What did the easily baited see ?
Cruz’ public image is that of a kind of scary looking fringe guy. Piercing eyes, angular face, more white than latino. Lather that with bible thumping and he has a narrow appeal. People don’t forget he was willing to shut it all down to make his point. That scares most people. It just does.
The other guy was kind of an unassuming wonk. He’s black. Dresses nice. It’s easy to see him as an underdog. People are drawn to underdogs.
If Cruz hurts the harmless fella he turns off a whole lot of people for being an aggressive prick. Smarty pants bullying. Ivy guy pounces on underdog.
There’s more but that the basic gist.
It’s also theatre. Not the Spanish Inquisition with consequences. Playacting. Let’s you think they (both sides) are moving the ball.
Ric, why not add some of the other 97% studies?
As Legates et al., 2013 pointed out, Cook defined the consensus as “most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.” Cook then relied on three different levels of “endorsement” of that consensus and excluded 67% of the abstracts reviewed because they neither endorsed nor rejected the consensus.
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local Universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; (and so forth). [Note only government scientist, private sector need not apply]
This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey
With 3146 individuals completing.
In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.
the AMS survey Stenhouse et al., 2014.
In this survey, global warming was defined as “the premise that the world’s average temperature has been increasing over the past 150 years, may be increasing more in the future, and that the world’s climate may change as a result.”
Questions –
So answering the questions –
1) most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic?
2) When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
3) Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
4) Regardless of the cause, do you think that global warming is happening?
5) How sure are you that global warming (a. is /b. is not) happening?
Answers and questions use generalized words of most, think, significant, contributing and no values or significance is asked for. No where is proof or dates or amounts or data of +/- estimates required and did you see CO2 anywhere?
Do these questions really provide the answer that; stopping man-made, catastrophizing, CO2 control knob, ever increasing (global warming / climate change / disruption / weirding ) [pick 1 or more], which can only be prevented by higher taxes, more regulations and a loss of personal freedom will actually keep us all from floating down the River Styx in a handbasket?
Well heck, when you put it that way…
The main point of the Doran/Zimmerman poll is summed up in two simple questions, they could have been passed to Mair during testimony, and that would have destroyed his attempts at relying on that 97%.
While you gave it only four lines, that’s nowhere near enough to get someone to understand why the Legates/Cook 97% paper is bogus. Plus there’s no way Cruz could have used that to force Mair’s hand.
Cruz could have used Doran/Zimmerman and be very confident that Mair or his aide would try to muddy the waters with Legates/Cook.
As for your closing question, umm, can you restate that clearly?
Mr Mair said at one point that ” 97% of ALL the world’s scientists agree with that “consensus” ”
Wasn’t it something like 37 scientists took that position ??
g
“Wasn’t it something like 37 scientists took that position ??”
Exactly right sir.
Proving that he had no actual knowledge of the source of the contentions or, evidently, that all such 97% contentions have been roundly and thoroughly rebuked, debunked and discredited.
If Mr Mair was briefed to ‘make it look like you don’t what you are talking about and that the global warming scare is a conspiracy’, he couldn’t have done a better job. An entertaining video.
Alarmists have often claimed that ‘deniers’ should be taken through the courts. If this is an example of the case FOR scarey manmade global warming, then the true sceptics should have little to worry about.
Truly pathetic testimony from the Sierra Club representative.
I was not aware that Cruz was so well informed on the reality of the climate ho@x.
Ted Cruz is the ONLY candidate running in this election who is as completely and fully informed about the global warming scam as are the readers of this blog. Even Trump would rather just buy them off, and most of the other candidates won’t talk about it. (Forget about the Democrat’s; “Climate Progress” is run by Hillary Clinton’s paid staff, seriously)
Ted Cruz is the only politician today who will stand up and bluntly tell the truth of the matter.
He essentially invoked the Fifth Amendment. Too bad there was a time limit on questioning, Cruz might have forced him to repeat that robotic 97% mantra for days, until the witness cracked under the weight of his own ridiculousness.
Sir, I “concur” 100%
How much is Mair paid?
IRS Form 990 for 2013 shows him as unpaid, giving an average of 2 hours per week of his time. Apparently serving as a board member.
President at that time was David Scott, paid $20,174.
The position of president appears to be a figurehead, which perhaps explains his performance before Senator Cruz. Surprised that the Sierra Club wouldn’t put forward a better spokesperson.
They went for ethnic minority(to demonstrate that not all Sierrra Club members are White elitists) not ntelligence
It’s all about the money & self-importance / power. This has always been the rule when dealing with people who don’t know what they are talking about.
Jimbo on October 7, 2015
at 2:39 am
It’s all about the money & self-importance / power.
____
yes, Jimbo, it’s all about Chauvinism.
____
No more abberations to Stalinism, Fascism, Feminism or Atlas Shruxism needed,
plain truth or ‘that only supplies to over 16 years old’.
US wakes up in a grown world.
ready to go?
Hans
You know what gets me? They will quote this 97% and go with it and disregard nature’s 96% CO2 contribution and blame it on our 4%.
What got me was that nonsense about the pause referring to something from the 1940s.
How completely uninformed are these clowns?
They do not even know the basics of where the debate currently stands.
Reminds me of when Suzuki was on that TV program in Australia, and was more or less show to be a completely uninformed jackass. No, I take that back…nothing more or less about it.
The man was exposed as a know-nothing, for all to see…reciting talking points in favor over a decade ago…having likely never even looked at another word on the subject since.
That is what this testimony appears to show to me…that many many people who one might suppose are informed, are no such thing…they do not have the first idea of what they are talking about.
For any who might have missed the Suzuki Roast…this is a classic and epic takedown of the man and any claims he might have made to being an expert on anything:
https://youtu.be/1mIVZnnqm7o
Thanks for that link.
Still listening to the video…”intergenerational crime”? *SMH* (many, many thanks for this!)
This fool must also believe in fairies at the bottom of his garden? Just proves that his group has SFA respect for data over their religious beliefs. But you have to ask, what group of morons would elect him as their president in the first place?
Mair is a coached puppet. Cruz did pretty well making him look like a tool.
I would have pointed out that a number like “97%” is ridiculous: you couldn’t get 97% of Italians to agree that the Pope is Catholic.
But all things considered, Mairs was obviously stonewalling because he hasn’t got a clue about the issues. He sounded like a Mafia bag man taking the 5th.
Yes, one would be hard pressed to find 97% of any group of any sort of people to agree on anything.
I would wager that 97% of scientists would not agree that Elvis is really dead.
Call to the hospital. ” What is his condition? Oh, no change…still dead”. One of the best lines in an old movie spoofing the spy genre.
Their pay and position is at stake:
https://pgtruspace.wordpress.com/2015/08/13/climate-change-is-now-a-1-5-trillion-industry/
Federal Government grants in hundreds of billions of dollars a year are at stake. They must keep this gravy train rolling. These NGOs are at the head of the trough hogging down on our tax dollars.
Bureaucrats are shoveling as fast as they can to feed these beasts that they work WITH to grow their Empires.
Bureaucrats always destroy the society that they manage, ALWAYS! It is their nature to grow in size and power until everything collapse. The Sierra Club is just one of the parts of this cancer that is draining the life from our society. We Don’t Need Them!…pg
“I would rely on the union of concerned scientists…”. Anthony, did Aaron consult Kenji?!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/26/kenji-sniffs-out-stupid-claims-by-the-union-of-concerned-scientists/
Haha …that’s what popped into my head too…
“Anthony, did Aaron consult Kenji?”
By the answers he gave he probably did not.
Hilarious! 🙂
Well heck, when you put it that way…It is too bad that Cruz did not ask him to quote the admission requirements for that exclusive bastion of scientific veritas.
Let’s also not forget that the UCS demonstrated pretty much beyond doubt lately how reliant they are on character assassination in support of their so-called ‘science’: “Union of Concerned Scientists – hoisted on their own petard” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/09/union-of-concerned-scientists-hoisted-on-their-own-petard/
“The Onion Of Concerned Scientists” as it were.
Unicorn Scientists perhaps.
Here is a link to the “Become a Member” page of The Union of Concerned Scientists.
Obviously they use the terms lightly.
Note that the requirement… the only requirement for membership in that organization is a check for 10 trillion quatloos (That is $25, American).
Heck, for an extra 10 samolians they will toss in a copy of their paperweigh…I mean book.
Yep, an exclusive scientific organization alrighty, more than reliable enough to base expert testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on:
https://secure3.convio.net/ucs/site/Donation2?df_id=1420&1420.donation=form1&s_src=HPdropdown
PS, no credentials needed for membership, scientific or otherwise.
+1
Well. That was pretty painful to watch.
Looking at this congressional testimony, the beast in me came out as I just wanted to throttle this absolute fool who kept on repeating “”The 97%, the 97% , the 97%………”He obviously had not got a clue about what Ted Cruz was talking about. I hope Ted Cruz has one of those Japanese dolls that you go home to and punch the daylight out of to get rid of your frustrations. Ted Cruz earned every cent he gets paid by holding his tongue and not telling Mr Mair what he thought of him!
Cruz should have asked Aaron to name the scientists who support the consensus, and name the scientists who disagree with the consensus. Given the number of scientists who ended up complaining their work had been misinterpreted by Cook…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/
Good point, Eric. Whenever someone purports to be a knowledgeable spokesman, asking for a name or two is an effective tactic. I wonder what Mair would have responded, if Sen. Cruz had pressed him?
I agree – Cruz blew it when he allowed that “97%” claim to go unchallenged
He only gets a few minutes, time is not unlimited.
And he knows that the 97% fallacy takes more than a one liner to debunk effectively.
It is so ingrained, somehow…
I believe he called it a “bogus study”, though he did not elaborate.
He did mention it was based on a discredited study so I think he got it in.
Interesting, When asked if he knew what the pause is Mr Mair replied that it was the “40s” (1940s)
This was after consulting an aid. He would have been better off saying he didn’t know.
It is not a smart thing to lie to the Judiciary committee in a stupid fashion.
michael
But of course there was a ‘pause’ in the 1940s. Well prior to the endless adjustments, a noticeable fall in temperatures. It is just that this period is not referred to as the ‘pause’ but it is a period that is equally troubling if CO2 is the primary driver of temperatures and if Climate Sensitivity to CO2 is high.
Today, sceptics concentrate on the pause, but equal weight should be given to the post 1940s cooling, and of course, going hand in hand with that is the endless revisions to the land based thermometer record which have the effect of smoothing out the fall in temperature, and make it look as if temperatures have generally risen from the 1930s 9albeit at different rates).
However, I do accept that he made an error in referring to the 1940s and this just shows that he knows little of the current state of the science; he is obviously not interested in the science and what it shows. he is a politician and therefore concentrates on other matters. The science is not relevant to his position, it is PR and centres on what politicians can be/are being duped into believing/accepting Witness the summary for policy makers which is far more certain than the underlying scientific reports upon which those summaries are supposedly based (the fallacy being that the summary is written before the underlying scientific report is written!!! If that does not give the game away, it is difficult to see what will).
Cruz was nice in not pinning him re the even hotter records in the 30s when co2 was far lower..
restrained of him, but a pity not to mention it.
absolutely loved it regardless:-)
the fellas a figurehead bluffer and sure made to look the buffoon he is.
almost as fun as the Guam tipping point one.
almost
richard verney “October 7, 2015 at 12:40 am
But of course there was a ‘pause’ in the 1940s.”
True, but the good Senator stated “last eighteen years” “are you familiar with the pause?”. The last eighteen years, not 1940s. Does Mr Mair live under a rock? Later he (Mair) stated that the pause had been refuted.
So which is it? The last eighteen years, or the 1940s, Now was he under oath?
michael
“Does Mr Mair live under a rock? Later he (Mair) stated that the pause had been refuted.”
He said that the pause had been refuted “long ago”, which is impossible as the pause had not begun long ago.
Ya gotta love that ” Cruz ” missile !!!!!
Cruz Missal.
==========
+1,000!
t found the video stream entertaining, and Mr Mair’s response was typically that of a politician, declining to answer the question put, or answering with an answer that is apposite to a wholly different question. I guess that is not surprising since Mr Mair is a politician, just not an elected one.
Given that Mr Mair makes so much of the ‘97% consensus, it would have been interested to see what Mr Mair knows about the scope of the consensus. he was never pressed on that.
What the senator failed to ask is whether the 97% of the scientists who consider that there is AGW accept that on the basis of the satellite data there has been a ‘pause’ in global warming.
It seems to me that it is possible to consider that there is such a thing as AGW and at the same time accept that global warming has paused, or has paused on the basis of one particular data set.
Anyway, the testimony of Mr Mair simply reinforces the view that this is a belief based dogma, not a scientific issue.
If they get federal dollars, cut off the flow. Defund them.
Good idea. If the science is settled, why bother funding it?
I was impressed that the men sat behind Mr Mair did not smile or laugh, I think they got close to it at times!
Mr. Mair is on mission:
8 Sept: CV Independent: James Edward Mills: A Deeper Shade of Green: An Interview With Sierra Club President Aaron Mair
(This piece originally ran in High Country News)
http://www.cvindependent.com/index.php/en-US/news/environment/item/2484-a-deeper-shade-of-green-an-interview-with-sierra-club-president-aaron-mair
It is quite possible that quoting the 97% is the new ………
NAHNAHNAHNAH,,FINGERS IN MY EAR CAN,T HEAR YOU ,NAHNAHNAHNAH!!
Do you think the advisor he turned to for inspiration is now between jobs?
Ted Cruz did well and although it’s not my place to say, he would make an excellent president.
I agree, although it’s unlikely for several reasons.
To my shame this was the first time I have heard him speak. (hey, I’m in Greece – we got our own problems) I thought he came across very well, don’t know anything about his politics but presence-wise I agree about him being president material.
Amazing, enlightening and depressing all at the same time.
Hmmm, when I saw this I sent it to all my “climate change” websites and all my Facebook “friends” and many email contacts. I did send it to WUWT…
Whenever I show any global warming stuff on Facebook, i rarely get any likes or comments except for maybe 2 people…
Phil
That’s not really a bad thing; it shows that most average people couldn’t care less about it.
But it does demonstrate why those of those who DO care have to stop a small minority from hijacking the government to enact their agenda.
He’s just following the standard procedure when under interrogation – admit nothing, deny everything.
Pointman