Sierra Club would rather quote bogus 97% mantra than address facts

Sierra Club President Aaron Mair before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday October 6th, 2015
Sierra Club President Aaron Mair before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday October 6th, 2015

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

0 0 vote
Article Rating
315 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dahlquist
October 6, 2015 11:05 pm

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.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Dahlquist
October 6, 2015 11:56 pm

Makes “Big Sierra Club” seem like “Big Government”. Both seeking only their own growth and power on the backs of taxpayers.

LarryFine
Reply to  Dahlquist
October 7, 2015 12:53 am

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?)

indefatigablefrog
Reply to  LarryFine
October 7, 2015 5:20 pm

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.)

LaryyFine
Reply to  LarryFine
October 8, 2015 12:25 am

“..you can’t put a pricetag on zero benefits.”
LOL
I’m stealing that!

thingadonta
Reply to  Dahlquist
October 7, 2015 4:01 am

…as is the problem with much of environmentalism, once you have succeeded, you tend to make yourself redundant.

A C Osborn
Reply to  thingadonta
October 7, 2015 4:14 am

The Sierra Club has never been about “Environmental Issues”, it is all about wealth distribution and Population Controls.

Reply to  thingadonta
October 7, 2015 7:06 pm

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.

Knute
Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
October 7, 2015 7:35 pm

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 ?

Menicholas
Reply to  thingadonta
October 7, 2015 8:30 pm

Knute,
Are you trying to conflate climate change alarmism with actual pollution and contaminated water?

Knute
Reply to  Menicholas
October 7, 2015 8:39 pm

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.

menicholas
Reply to  thingadonta
October 8, 2015 11:00 am

OK, cool. Just checking.

Reply to  Dahlquist
October 7, 2015 4:58 am

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.

…“serious concerns as to whether EPA orchestrated the process to reach a predetermined outcome; had inappropriately close relationships with anti-mine advocates; and was candid about its decision making process.”…

If they claim environmental, critter or nature welfare, doubt them!

George E. Smith
Reply to  ATheoK
October 7, 2015 1:10 pm

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

Menicholas
Reply to  ATheoK
October 7, 2015 2:30 pm

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!

MarkW
Reply to  Dahlquist
October 7, 2015 6:33 am

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.

brians356
Reply to  Dahlquist
October 7, 2015 10:28 am

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?”

Billy Liar
Reply to  brians356
October 7, 2015 11:22 am

I’m surprised no-one called racism: white guy armed with facts attacks defenseless black guy.

TYoke
Reply to  brians356
October 8, 2015 9:58 am

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,”

chapprg1
Reply to  brians356
October 21, 2015 1:32 pm

Come on Ted, you can’t score points for punching out an empty suit. Give him the back of the hand and move on.

Reply to  Dahlquist
October 7, 2015 6:39 pm

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.

Menicholas
Reply to  Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak)
October 7, 2015 8:35 pm

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.

Reply to  Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak)
October 7, 2015 9:05 pm

@Menicholas:
“What does not kill you makes you stronger.”
I’ve always wondered what Christopher Reeve and other quadriplegics thought of that inane statement.

Knute
Reply to  effinayright
October 7, 2015 10:15 pm

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.

Reply to  Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak)
October 8, 2015 10:20 am

“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!!!

Jack
Reply to  Dahlquist
October 7, 2015 11:21 pm

Why isn’t the source of the 97% consensus questioned?

RockyRoad
Reply to  Jack
October 10, 2015 7:36 pm

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.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Jack
October 10, 2015 7:53 pm

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

Knute
Reply to  RockyRoad
October 10, 2015 8:18 pm

Warmistas have conjured up new 97% surveys. It must be a significant marketing number
http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp

Barbara
Reply to  Dahlquist
October 8, 2015 9:51 am

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.

Reply to  Dahlquist
October 8, 2015 6:13 pm

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.

Knute
Reply to  Stuart Hurlbert
October 8, 2015 7:31 pm

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.

TYoke
Reply to  Stuart Hurlbert
October 8, 2015 8:59 pm

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.

Knute
Reply to  TYoke
October 8, 2015 9:18 pm

Excellent post.

Mkelley
Reply to  Stuart Hurlbert
October 9, 2015 3:09 pm

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

Knute
Reply to  Mkelley
October 9, 2015 3:24 pm

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.

Editor
October 6, 2015 11:11 pm

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.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Ric Werme
October 7, 2015 1:06 am

Rick, He looked a fool anyway.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Stephen Richards
October 7, 2015 2:09 am

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).

Menicholas
Reply to  Stephen Richards
October 7, 2015 4:49 pm

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.

Knute
Reply to  Stephen Richards
October 8, 2015 9:31 pm

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.

DD More
Reply to  Ric Werme
October 7, 2015 8:31 am

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

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

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 –

Regardless of the cause, do you think that global warming is happening?
2a./2b How sure are you that global warming (a. is /b. is not) happening?
How sure are you? –Extremely –Very sure –Somewhat sure –Not at all sure -Don’t know –Not at all sure –Somewhat not sure – Very not sure – Extremely not sure

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?

menicholas
Reply to  DD More
October 7, 2015 10:51 am

Well heck, when you put it that way…

Editor
Reply to  DD More
October 7, 2015 11:44 am

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?

George E. Smith
Reply to  Ric Werme
October 7, 2015 1:15 pm

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

Menicholas
Reply to  George E. Smith
October 7, 2015 2:34 pm

“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.

oakwood
October 6, 2015 11:12 pm

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.

menicholas
Reply to  oakwood
October 7, 2015 5:43 am

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.

wws
Reply to  menicholas
October 7, 2015 8:04 am

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.

brians356
Reply to  oakwood
October 7, 2015 10:16 am

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.

Reply to  brians356
October 7, 2015 8:46 pm

Sir, I “concur” 100%

nc
October 6, 2015 11:20 pm

How much is Mair paid?

Juan Slayton
Reply to  nc
October 6, 2015 11:46 pm

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.

arthur4563
Reply to  Juan Slayton
October 7, 2015 5:32 am

They went for ethnic minority(to demonstrate that not all Sierrra Club members are White elitists) not ntelligence

Jimbo
Reply to  nc
October 7, 2015 2:39 am

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.

Time – Feb. 02, 2012
…..TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking…..
==============
Politico – Apr 8, 2015
Micahel Bloomberg’s $30 million donation to Sierra Club…..
….The exercise paid off, culminating in a financial pledge Wednesday that will make Bloomberg and his allies a $110 million benefactor to the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign…..
==============
BigGreenRadicals – July 11, 2014
…..Not bad enough for the Sierra Club, however. . Despite its strident divestment advice and general blustering against conventional energy, its pension holds $22.1 million in index funds that include major fossil fuel companies, according to an audit of the Club’s 2012 financial statements by the accounting firm Grant Thornton….
The Sierra Club seems to exploiting a loophole in its own policy of not investing in conventional energy. True, the Club does not own any direct individual or hedge fund investments in conventional energy, and its foundation is “actively divesting” from fossil fuel companies. But the Club’s pension fund still earns value off of energy investments that are indirectly owned in broad index funds that include multiple companies.
For example, the biggest holding in the Russell 1000 Value is Exxon Mobil and the fifth biggest is Chevron.

johann wundersamer
Reply to  Jimbo
October 7, 2015 5:39 pm

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

4TimesAYear
October 6, 2015 11:23 pm

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%.

menicholas
Reply to  4TimesAYear
October 7, 2015 5:50 am

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.

Menicholas
Reply to  4TimesAYear
October 7, 2015 2:38 pm

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

exSSNcrew
Reply to  Menicholas
October 7, 2015 3:30 pm

Thanks for that link.

4TimesAYear
Reply to  Menicholas
October 7, 2015 11:16 pm

Still listening to the video…”intergenerational crime”? *SMH* (many, many thanks for this!)

Neville
October 6, 2015 11:24 pm

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?

October 6, 2015 11:24 pm

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.

menicholas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 7, 2015 5:53 am

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.

JimB
Reply to  menicholas
October 7, 2015 8:31 am

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.

October 6, 2015 11:25 pm

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

Admin
October 6, 2015 11:37 pm

“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/

Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 7, 2015 12:18 am

Haha …that’s what popped into my head too…

Eyal Porat
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 7, 2015 3:20 am

“Anthony, did Aaron consult Kenji?”
By the answers he gave he probably did not.
Hilarious! 🙂

menicholas
Reply to  Eyal Porat
October 7, 2015 11:18 am

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.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 7, 2015 8:30 am

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/

brians356
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 7, 2015 10:19 am

“The Onion Of Concerned Scientists” as it were.

Keitho
Editor
Reply to  brians356
October 8, 2015 9:22 am

Unicorn Scientists perhaps.

Menicholas
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 7, 2015 5:01 pm

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.

4TimesAYear
October 6, 2015 11:51 pm

comment image%3Foh%3D9f80000761888cd251b06a910184da74%26oe%3D569C6A8D&size=1602%2C797&fbid=464109137071487

4 eyes
Reply to  4TimesAYear
October 7, 2015 3:18 pm

+1

Jimmy Haigh
October 6, 2015 11:54 pm

Well. That was pretty painful to watch.

James Fosser
October 6, 2015 11:55 pm

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!

Admin
October 7, 2015 12:05 am

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/

Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 7, 2015 4:42 am

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?

arthur4563
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 7, 2015 5:34 am

I agree – Cruz blew it when he allowed that “97%” claim to go unchallenged

menicholas
Reply to  arthur4563
October 7, 2015 6:52 am

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…

Ken L
Reply to  arthur4563
October 8, 2015 2:20 am

I believe he called it a “bogus study”, though he did not elaborate.

Keitho
Editor
Reply to  arthur4563
October 8, 2015 9:25 am

He did mention it was based on a discredited study so I think he got it in.

Mike the Morlock
October 7, 2015 12:12 am

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

richard verney
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
October 7, 2015 12:40 am

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).

ozspeaksup
Reply to  richard verney
October 7, 2015 4:39 am

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

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  richard verney
October 7, 2015 12:07 pm

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

ulriclyons
Reply to  richard verney
October 9, 2015 3:36 am

“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.

Marcus
October 7, 2015 12:28 am

Ya gotta love that ” Cruz ” missile !!!!!

kim
Reply to  Marcus
October 7, 2015 5:16 am

Cruz Missal.
==========

Reply to  Marcus
October 7, 2015 7:34 am

+1,000!

richard verney
October 7, 2015 12:29 am

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.

LarryFine
October 7, 2015 12:44 am

If they get federal dollars, cut off the flow. Defund them.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  LarryFine
October 7, 2015 2:40 am

Good idea. If the science is settled, why bother funding it?

October 7, 2015 12:45 am

I was impressed that the men sat behind Mr Mair did not smile or laugh, I think they got close to it at times!

pat
October 7, 2015 12:50 am

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

RogueElement451
October 7, 2015 1:03 am

It is quite possible that quoting the 97% is the new ………
NAHNAHNAHNAH,,FINGERS IN MY EAR CAN,T HEAR YOU ,NAHNAHNAHNAH!!

Robin Hewitt
October 7, 2015 1:06 am

Do you think the advisor he turned to for inspiration is now between jobs?

Scottish Sceptic
October 7, 2015 1:08 am

Ted Cruz did well and although it’s not my place to say, he would make an excellent president.

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
October 7, 2015 4:47 am

I agree, although it’s unlikely for several reasons.

meltemian
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
October 7, 2015 5:01 am

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.

Timbo
October 7, 2015 1:20 am

Amazing, enlightening and depressing all at the same time.

October 7, 2015 1:44 am

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…

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
October 7, 2015 2:01 am

Whenever I show any global warming stuff on Facebook, i rarely get any likes or comments except for maybe 2 people…
Phil

wws
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
October 7, 2015 8:07 am

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.

October 7, 2015 1:59 am

He’s just following the standard procedure when under interrogation – admit nothing, deny everything.
Pointman

Chris Wright
October 7, 2015 2:32 am

Sounds like Ted Cruz would be a great American president, as he actually knows something about climate change.
Unlike Obama, whose statements about climate change are full of untruths, for example that climate change “is accelerating”.
Come to think of it, I’m amazed that the Republicans don’t use Obama’s provable climate change lies to attack him. Obama has given them a whole series of open goals….
Chris

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Chris Wright
October 7, 2015 2:51 am

Cruz is razor sharp on so many things. That’s why they don’t give him any relevant questions in the Presidential debates.

wws
Reply to  Chris Wright
October 7, 2015 8:09 am

All the other republican candidates want to buy off the global warmists, or use the scare to raise some money for other things they want to do. (ie, Trump) Cruz is the only one who will stand up and tell the trut about what’s going on.

October 7, 2015 2:39 am

“When asked about the 18 year pause in global warming, as documented by satellite data, Mr. Mair denied it exists.”
Global temperatures correlation shows R^2 of more than 0.8 and the PAUSE, with only one major ‘mother Earth’s’ attributes, and that is NOT the CO2 concentration but the much more powerful Earth’s magnetic dipole.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net//GT-GMF1.gif
Mr. Mair, dipole can move lump of magnetised steel, which 0.04% of CO2 can never do.
No consensus required, observational evidence is good enough.

richard verney
Reply to  vukcevic
October 7, 2015 5:19 am

How reliable is theCRUTEM4 data set?
If this data set is not accurate (because of the various problems with these data sets which have been the subject of many articles recently posted on WUWT), how would the correlation look?
Always, of course, bearing in mind that correlation does not establish causation.

Reply to  richard verney
October 7, 2015 6:03 am

Possibly a bit stronger, the GT 1940’s data were adjusted downward.

richard verney
Reply to  richard verney
October 7, 2015 6:43 am

The fit does not look particularly strong between 1870 and 1915, when temperatures were essentially flat, alternatively they rose between about 1885 and 1900 then fell somewhat before rising to the 1940s highs, and whilst there is some similarity in shape, the 1920s to about 1955 look rather problematic.
Of course, we have little grasp of the global temperatures before the 1920s (very few stations and poor spatial coverage), and as you suggest there has been considerable revisions to the temps between the 1930s and 1960s.
Whilst your plot is of interest, and whilst I would not rule out the Earth’s magnet field having some impact on climate, I consider that senator Cruz was right not to complicate matters and not distract by referring to your data.
In my opinion, enquiry at this stage should concentrate on just three issues. namely, (1) the temperature record and the lack of correlation with the rise in CO2 (not with the wider science in general), (2) the failure of model projections to correspond with the reality of hard empirical data, and (3) the policy response to CO2 reduction, namely that none of the responses (Cap & Trade, carbon Taxes, Renewables) actual result in any significant reduction in global CO2 emissions, at most they simply move around where CO2 is emitted as energy intensive industries relocate from the developed West to the Far East/developing nations. These policies simply outsource where the US and Europe emit the CO2 required for the consumer life style that their citizens require and take for granted, and simply add to the cost of everything without reducing global CO2 emissions. The policy response is a failure since it fails to meet its primary goal, ie., a reduction in CO2 emissions.

ferdberple
Reply to  richard verney
October 7, 2015 7:00 am

http://denji102.geo.kyushu-u.ac.jp/denji/student/omata/Potential%20energy.pdf
This paper calculates that the N-S switch in the polarity of the sun generates an 8×10^14 J change in the potential energy of earth’s magnetic field.

ferdberple
Reply to  richard verney
October 7, 2015 7:06 am

The policy response is a failure since it fails to meet its primary goal, ie., a reduction in CO2 emissions.
======================
The policy response fails because there is no practical alternative to fossil fuels if we are going to lift all 7+ billion people on earth out of poverty, because in the end an expensive alternative will create more poverty, reversing the huge gains made in the past 20 years.
the fears over CO2 are largely fears that we will run out of oil if we don’t find an economical alternative. fracking has provided this alternative.

ferdberple
Reply to  richard verney
October 7, 2015 7:20 am

of course all this may change quite soon. Putin has judged that Obama is all talk, with no stomach for a fight, and has returned to cold war policies that we haven’t seen in 30 years. Syria is the next step in destabilizing middle east oil supplies, and returning Russia’s economic and political might. The Keystone decision may well turn out to have been a major blunder, in a long line of major blunders.

richard verney
Reply to  richard verney
October 7, 2015 8:01 am

ferdberple.
I substantially agree with you. If one is (rightly) concerned about CO2 and if it is (really) necessary to reduce this, then presently there are only 2 alternatives.
First, go nuclear and we can carry on enjoying the lifestyle to which we are accustomed, although energy may cost a little more (and with it the price of everything else goes up).
Second, go back to the life style that we enjoyed in the early 20th century, ie., give up all consumerism that we take for granted; no car, no central heating, no tv, no cellphone, no fridge, no electric cooker, no microwave, no convenience food shopping etc. etc. In fact go back to a life of servitude (because farming will become inefficient and all jobs will become labour intensive as we will not have heavy machinery to do the donkey work) and with it forego all the benefits of better health, medical care, accept a lower life expectancy, increase death in childbirth, increased infant mortality etc. In fact accept the standard of living as that enjoyed by most Africans.
But there is no problem with fossil fuels. There is plenty of coal, enough for a thousand years and as South Africa demonstrated it is easy (and not that expensive) to extract oil, make plastics etc from coal. Whilst crude is convenient, it is not the be all and end all, it is merely a step less in the refining process such that it costs less to turn it into something really useful.
You are right about fracking. Of course, this has meant that the US no longer has the same interest in the Middle East since it is no longer beholden to their oil. Personally, I consider that Putin is doing the right thing (he was right on Libya which is now a failed state, and he was right when a few years ago he claimed that there are no moderates in the Middle East and the ‘people’ that the West were arming were bad, and now we see that they are ISIL). I accept that his actions may have a geopolitical impact on the price of oil, and if it has this then this as far as Russia is concerned this would be an added bonus.
Personally, I consider that the dramatic fall in oil prices was engineered to exert pressure on Russia because of Ukraine. Reagan used a similar policy to bring down the Soviet Union, and I consider that what we have seen is a repeat of that tactic.
Anyway, I guess the public is never particularly well informed, since the MSM is not open and has its own biases and may be it is the sock puppet of government or other vested interests. What is clear is that we live in dangerous times, more so for Europe than for the US. The European way of life, and their long standing historical culture is under real threat.

BFL
Reply to  richard verney
October 7, 2015 9:02 am

Now if someone could just predict what the sun’s magnetic field was going to do in the future.

Reply to  richard verney
October 7, 2015 10:16 am

richard verney October 7, 2015 at 6:43 am
“I consider that senator Cruz was right not to complicate matters and not distract by referring to your data.”
Hi Mr. Verney
I was actually addressing Mr. Mair of Sierra Club and not Senator Cruz, it would be great if either one was aware of the graph, but even if they were, I doubt that they would take much notice.
My comment is just raising a ‘point of information’, and for time being it should be taken as such (the bit about lump of steel, should not be taken to seriously).
I personally do not think that the Earth’s dipole has a direct effect on the temperature changes, although some effect of ‘Svensmark’ type or on the circulation of charged particles in the stratosphere or further above, should not be totally dismissed for the time being.
So why is the graph there?
Dipole is a sum of the intensity at the poles, with the recent changes mostly notable in the N. Hemisphere whereby balance between two extremities Hudson Bay and the Central Siberia is altering. I don’t know what is going on in Siberia, but the Hudson Bay has still strong isostatic postglacial uplift going on at about 3m/century. The uplift may be reflected in the short term fluctuation of magnetic field and more importantly in the Arctic fresh water inflow from N. Canadian plains. with the fresh water changing salinity and THC in the Arctic and N. Atlantic.
Here is graph I did in 2011 (I need to update some time)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AT-GMF.gif
Therefore magnetic dipole is most likely only a good proxy for some other mechanism, perhaps one described above; I doubt that it is just a coincidence.

Reply to  richard verney
October 7, 2015 11:16 am

Hi Mr Berple
From the article: “If the interplanetary magnetic field has the value of 5 nT in northward direction and changes its direction into southward with constant value 5 nT, the magnetic dipole of the Earth decreases its potential energy by
DU = mDBz = (8 ´1022 A× m2)(10nT)= 8 ´10^14 J
This amount of energy should be released by some ways.”
It is geomagnetic storms that give a strong kick to the Earth’s field. As you can see from this link during last few days the changes are of order 200nT, so the energy released according to the above formula would 3.2*10^17 J.
The equivalent calculates as the energy of an earthquake of 8.5 magnitude, hitting the Earth every one of the last 6 days.

Reply to  richard verney
October 7, 2015 11:34 am

“What is clear is that we live in dangerous times, more so for Europe than for the US. “
I hope that Russians are just demonstrating their military prowess and have taken opportunity for a bit of live action: see here

Keitho
Editor
Reply to  richard verney
October 8, 2015 9:30 am

And never forgetting you can’t have causation without correlation.

johnmarshall
October 7, 2015 2:40 am

Sen. Cruz should have asked the “97% of how many” question. Mair really squirmed, it was good to see. Cruz might make a good President.

Reply to  johnmarshall
October 7, 2015 5:03 am

Cruz would make a great president. But as usual, the Democrat/Media coalition is maneuvering to get the lame Meg Whitman nominated. After seeing her lose the California governor’s race despite spending $160 million to Gov. Moonbeam’s $12 million, they are positioning her to be the successor to the über-lame John McCain, a classic loser.
You would think the Republicans would wake up and see what’s happening after a string of weak candidates that were put in place by the opposition. You can’t win by copying the other side. You have to provide a different point of view.
Americans have consistently self-identified as being Conservative over being Liberal by a 2 – 1 margin. But both parties keep offering only liberal candidates. After the Obama debacle, Republicans would win decisively with a true conservative. But they’re very slow to learn the basics.

Pat
Reply to  dbstealey
October 7, 2015 5:27 am

Yeah… sure. A man who believes god told him to run, who also believes that the Earth is 7000 years old, that the rules of the bible trump the rule of law, that doesn’t understand the concept of separation of church and state or how the supreme court actually work… yeah, that guy would make a GREAT president…
Good luck with that.

MarkW
Reply to  dbstealey
October 7, 2015 6:47 am

It really is fascinating how some people would rather believe lies. I guess it’s easier than actually looking up the truth for yourself.
As to whether Cruz is a young earth creationist, I have no idea and couldn’t care less.
As to whether he believes that God told him to run, I have no way to confirm that, and once again couldn’t care less.
Unless you are one of those atheistic bigots who goes about declaring that anyone who doesn’t believe as you do must be an idiot, I don’t see how you should care either.
To a believer, of course the rules of God trump the rules of man. It goes without saying that this is the case.
It is the liberals who don’t understand the separation of church and state. Read the first amendment, assuming you can. It declares that govt shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Look up the difference between “respecting” and “affecting”. Then you can apologize for being an idiot. The first amendment states that the govt has no business telling churches how to run their business. It says nothing about people of faith not being allowed to try and affect what laws are passed. That’s the bigotry created by those who can’t win the debate honestly, so they seek to outlaw their opposition.
So the man who argued cases in front of the Supreme Court doesn’t know how the Supreme Court works?
I suspect that it is you who doesn’t know how the Supreme Court works, or would rather seek to reshape the Supreme Court so that it works they way you want it ot.

wws
Reply to  dbstealey
October 7, 2015 8:19 am

excellent reply, MarkW. It is always amazing to see how much hatred practicing Christians get from atheists. I would add one thing, as to why someone would say that the rules of the bible trump the rule of law: if you are a believer, with respect to your personal behavior, then yes, they should absolutely trump manmade laws. (remember that nowhere does that book command believers to use force to tell OTHER people what they must do, that is what governments do. All you can do is to govern your own behavior)
People who take the position that man’s law is the highest good forget that the Holocaust was completely legal, under the laws of Germany at the time. The Armenian genocide was legal, the massacre of the Cambodian people by Pol Pot was “legal” under the law at the time. The only people who stood against those things were those who believed that there are Higher Laws than man’s law that must be followed.

BFL
Reply to  dbstealey
October 7, 2015 8:40 am

Well Islamics on the street asked if they should obey American law or Sharia pointed out that Sharia law was the higher order because it came from God. Gee just what interpretation to follow and whose God to save me???

Reply to  dbstealey
October 7, 2015 8:40 am

@Pat,
Your reply was pure deflection. You did not answer a single point I raised. Instead, you misdirected into irrelevance. Furthermore, it would be hard to imagine anyone worse than the current occupier of the White House.
As pointed out by MarkW, you do not understand the Supreme Court, or the 1st Amendment. And your fabricated concern about Sen. Cruz’ religious beliefs is not only wrong, but you completely disregard the stated beliefs of the current president.

JimB
Reply to  dbstealey
October 7, 2015 8:41 am

Mark W: Okay as far as you went. But also look up the word “establishment”, which is the key to the intent of the Amendment. That is where the Supreme Court also went astray…
JImB and old retired lawyer

Frank K.
Reply to  dbstealey
October 7, 2015 8:43 am

Most previous presidents have believed in God, Pat. Is belief in God a bad thing now? Is that what the radical left wingers now demand of their presidential candidates?
“…that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Abraham Lincoln
The Gettysburg Address
November 19, 1863

Reply to  dbstealey
October 7, 2015 8:54 am

JimB, you wrote:
…look up the word “establishment”, which is the key to the intent of the Amendment. That is where the Supreme Court also went astray.
Not just the court, but the Administration, when it directed NASA to make “Muslim outreach” its priority. That officially establishes a particular religion in government, no?
Next, @Pat:
Your comment @8:34 below is contradicted by President Obama’s forcing a specific religion on a government agency. Is that A-OK with you? And you still haven’t answered anything in my original comment.

BFL
Reply to  dbstealey
October 7, 2015 9:10 am
Eyal Porat
October 7, 2015 3:14 am

Wow! Just WOW!
I am truly speechless.

Knute
October 7, 2015 4:16 am

Something smells rotten in Denmark when it comes to this issue in congress. Mr Cruz attacks (dips his toe into the fray) the now well known flawed and corrupt 97% claim. Why isn’t congress as zealous on the issue as they are concerning others such as benghazi ? Why not a parade of skeptics from across the globe testifying ? Theatre I say, but why ….. what fix is in … ? Are too many members attached to the tit of alternative energy ?
Perhaps fearful that they will be grilled in counter ?
Something is amiss.
Meanwhile problems worthy of pursuit fall between the cracks. Look over here, not over there creates the magician’s illusions.
http://interactive.fusion.net/river-of-death/?3

SAMURAI
October 7, 2015 4:46 am

Consensus is an utterly meaningless concept in science.
The ONLY criteria capable of confirming or disconfirming a hypothesis is whether or not hypothetical projections match and describe reality. If they do, then the hypothesis is confirmed, if they don’t, then the hypothesis is disconfirmed.
Political hacks and grant-grubbing scientists obfuscate the fact that CAGW is already a disconfirmed hypothesis by abandoning the Scientific Method and and replacing it with a pseudo-science by vote…

Reply to  SAMURAI
October 7, 2015 5:06 am

Exactly. If their predictions are wrong, their hypothesis was wrong. Period.

richard verney
Reply to  SAMURAI
October 7, 2015 5:14 am

Agreed, but bear in mind that when you say that the hypothesis is confirmed, it does not mean that the hypothesis is proved correct; it merely means that the hypothesis could be correct in the sense that it is not obviously wrong.
If empirical evidence does not accord with what the hypothesis predicted (and I would use predicted rather than projected) then the hypothesis is obviously wrong. Again that does not necessarily mean that all aspects of the hypothesis are wrong, but it does mean that some essential part of the hypothesis is wrong such that the hypothesis, at the very minimum, needs reworking and refining to see whether it can withstand the test against the empirical data.

MarkW
Reply to  SAMURAI
October 7, 2015 6:49 am

Einstein was quoted once as stating that it didn’t matter how many agreed with him, or disagreed with him. It would only take one to prove him wrong.

October 7, 2015 4:47 am

This IBD article is related, I think:
Walter Williams: Global Warmers Want Just One Thing — Control (10/06/2015).
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/100615-774313-the-agenda-of-global-warmers-is-to-control-everyones-lives.htm?p=full

ImranCan
October 7, 2015 4:57 am

Senator Cruz did a pretty good job. Basically he used this mini debate to ram home 2 very good points :
1) there hasnt been any global warming in nearly 2 decades
2) it is very clear who it is that is actually in denial
And that idiot Mair was the perfect foil …. Allowed cruz to make these ponts about 10 times in a row. Brilliant

October 7, 2015 5:06 am

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:

It is clear that the alarmist rely on rhetoric only.
97% is bogus. 97% is bogus.
Answer the question. Where is the warming?
There is no warming.

Pat
October 7, 2015 5:20 am

I understand that most people, and I include this site, will be willing to use most information available to support or bolster their position. And that’s mostly okay.
But on this here website, in this case, we have a mostly scientific discussion, on a mostly scientific website, about mostly scientific studies that sometimes spillover into the political realm just as the main subject does.
But frankly a video, any video, no matter how well it supports the sites position, starring Ted Cruz, a man who claims God told him to run, urging people to vote by God’s values, that claims our rights come from God’s values, who is running for president but has obviously never read the line about separation of church and state in that pesky constitution he pretends to support, who obviously believes the Earth is 7000 years old… that man? On this here website? I don’t really care what he’s involved with… he should have no place on ANY website that has anything to do with science, unless you’re completely hypocritical and have no ethics that is…
Sorry… I have to be disappointed.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Pat
October 7, 2015 5:28 am

“…this here website…” really, Pat, really?
We are supposed to disregard that which is before our eyes and give credit to your long moan of a personal attack against Sen. Cruz by an anonymous troll who uses the phrase “this here website” not once, but twice?

Pat
Reply to  Alan Robertson
October 7, 2015 6:04 am

Yeah sure, attack me, not my argument.
Ever heard of “ad-hominem”?
That being said, I am actually a foreigner, so my “attacks” on M. Cruz have absolutely nothing to do with my political allegiances, as I obviously have no say in your country’s politics. My “attacks” on M. Cruz are solely based on my opinion that a man who believes the Earth is 7000 years old, and believes god speaks to him has NO place what-so-ever in ANY scientific discussion. Period.
I simply believe that a high ethical behavior precludes someone from using such a person’s arguments without the high risk of losing one’s credibility, due to the obvious hypocrisy of using “scientific” quotes from person holding such dubious “scientific” views as M. Cruz does in any kind of scientific discussion.
Further more, as to your attack on my grammar and vocabulary choices, may I bring to your attention the fact that being a foreigner to your country, English is actually my second language. Therefore when you will be able to point out the failures in my grammar in another language, without the use of a translation tool, in impeccable form… please go right ahead. Unless you are willing and able to accomplish that…please refrain from making yourself look even more foolish and direct your energies to more productive endeavors.
Merci.
Passer une bonne journee.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Alan Robertson
October 7, 2015 6:36 am

Pat,
Being a foreigner, you are forgiven your English usage gaff. However, your sole argument was an ad hominem attack against Sen. Cruz and apparently, an attack on anyone who holds spiritual/philosophical positions dissimilar to your own. That hardly puts you in a position to plead protection. You still are using the techniques of obfuscation and misdirection that we have seen so many times before, from any number of anonymous trolls. You continue to point the finger at yourself.

John Endicott
Reply to  Alan Robertson
October 7, 2015 6:47 am

Yes Pat, we here at this site have heard of ad-hominem. And we need look no further than your post on October 7, 2015 at 5:20 am to find an example of such. People in glass houses Pat….

MarkW
Reply to  Alan Robertson
October 7, 2015 6:51 am

Pat, you didn’t present an argument, all you did was use lies and innuendo to try and discredit Cruz.

Pat
Reply to  Alan Robertson
October 7, 2015 8:26 am

MarkW
Lie?
I presented a lie?
Maybe you should rethink your definition of a lie.
I did no such thing. What I presented was an opinion. You’re welcome to address the points I constructed that opinion on, which is that someone with the beliefs he holds is not in a position to have a scientific opinion and should not be used as an example.
That’s my opinion. You can criticize my grammar all you want, that’s a waste of time and will certainly not change my opinion one bit, because you didn’t even address it, you chose to attack me FOR my opinion instead of attacking why I have that opinion. You lost already.
You present arguments that believing the bible is the actual word of God doesn’t discredit a person in a scientific setting, then you have have something. You argue that my opinion doesn’t matter because my grammar is poor and I don’t like someone… you’re wasting your pixels,.

MarkW
Reply to  Alan Robertson
October 7, 2015 10:45 am

@Pat, it really is sad, you no longer even know when you are lying.
Pathetic.

Marcus
Reply to  Pat
October 7, 2015 5:33 am

To Pat….
Who do you think you are , GOD ????

Pat
Reply to  Marcus
October 7, 2015 6:06 am

Yes Marcus, I am.
Had a few minutes to spare, thought I’d troll the Internet for a bit. You know… just hanging…
😉

Patrick B
Reply to  Pat
October 7, 2015 6:32 am

“never read the line about separation of church and state in that pesky constitution ”
Well, Pat, I’ll tell you whose legal ignorance is showing… (for non-Constitutional scholars in the crowd, there is no line in the US Constitution that states there shall be separation of church and state; in 1962, Justice Potter Stewart wrote that jurisprudence is not “aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the ‘wall of separation,’ a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution.” The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”)

Pat
Reply to  Patrick B
October 7, 2015 6:48 am

I have an excuse. I’m not American and don’t live in the US.
So… sorry about that I guess.
The rest… well sure. The Earth is 7000 yeas old and a magic being in the sky rules all.
Good luck with that.

MarkW
Reply to  Patrick B
October 7, 2015 6:53 am

What is it about atheism that turns it’s adherents into unthinking bigots that feel compelled to spew their hatred everyone they visit?
PS: Since you admit to not being an American, why is it that you repeatedly claim to know more about our constitutions than sitting Senators?

Frank K.
Reply to  Patrick B
October 7, 2015 8:49 am

I forgive Pat because that what my God would have me do. 🙂
Pat, please read more about the history of the United States of America before posting here on an American website about presidential politics.

JimB
Reply to  Patrick B
October 7, 2015 8:57 am

The concept arose from a line in a letter written by Thom. Jefferson about a “wall of separation” between church and state. Not in the Constitution. As the First Amendment should be understood it simply forbids the government from *establishing* a religion a la mother England.

BobM
Reply to  Patrick B
October 7, 2015 6:56 pm

I see a lot of misunderstanding about the First Amendment here. That is quite common, as the Supreme Court has completely turned around its original intent from being pro-religion to being essentially anti religion.
Nearly all of the Colonies/States had official established religions at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. States were free to support the religion/church of their choice. The Constitution was a listing of powers given to the new Federal government and those not listed were reserved to the States. The First Amendment prohibits the Federal government from interfering in any way with the existing State supported religions.
The famous Thomas Jefferson phrase “wall of separation of church and state” was in no way meant as the prohibition it is made out to be today. He had nothing to do with the writing of the Constitution, being in France as US Ambassador to the French monarchy at the time. Some fifteen years after the adoption of the Constitution, writing in response to a letter from the Danbury (CT) Baptist Association, he wrote:
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
He clearly referenced the Congress and Federal legislature and was in favor of the First Amendment’s prohibition of Federal interference in State laws regulating religion. That was what the Connecticut Baptists had written to him about in the first place, as Connecticut’s established state religion was the Puritan Congregational Church which was supported by state taxes while their church was not. Jefferson was sympathetic and wished the states would treat all religions fairly, but that was their business. He continued his letter:
” Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
This was not some anti-religion statement, nor even an argument to remove religion from state affairs at all, but confirmation of the restriction on the Federal Congress, while allowing the States that had them to continue to support their established religions, though he wished in a fairer fashion.
Some 140 years later his quote was abused by Justice Hugo Black in applying the First Amendment’s Federal prohibition toward religion to the States, with several generations now believing, incorrectly, that our government was not meant to have anything to do with religion.

MarkW
Reply to  Pat
October 7, 2015 6:50 am

Wow, you really hate it that people of faith are permitted access to the political process.
Why do you insist on being such an unthinking bigot?

Pat
Reply to  MarkW
October 7, 2015 8:34 am

I did no such thing!
Let me repeat.
I said he has no place IN A SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION.
He should never be used or quoted IN A SCIENTIFIC CONTEXT.
As far as I know, this is mostly A SCIENTIFIC WEBSITE.
I don’t know where you get to political thing. Is it my error about the constitution? Which I’ve already admitted to and was stupid anyways? Yeah… that was a stupid comment, you’re right.
Oh and you made the assumption/accusation that I’m an atheist, and then used that to calling me a bigot.
That is a classic straw man… thanks for trying.

Reply to  MarkW
October 7, 2015 9:04 am

Pat,
Your comment is contradicted by President Obama when he officially endorsed a specific religion — Islam — for a government agency when he gave NASA its marching orders: Muslim outreach, rather than science, is now the government’s priority.
Do you approve of that?

Reply to  MarkW
October 7, 2015 9:11 am

Pat – what should count in a scientific discussion are the arguments, not the credentials of those who present them, nor the disagreements we may have with them in other, separate debates.
In this particular debate, Cruz clearly was the voice of reason, whereas his opponent simply embarrassed himself. Whether Cruz managed to embarrass himself in other debates is neither here nor there. I have embarrassed myself in scientific debates more than once, and maybe so have you.

Pat
Reply to  MarkW
October 7, 2015 11:04 am

FINALLY! Michael Palmer wins.
Thank-you for FINALLY coming up with a valid and reasoned argument as to why my stated opinion was out of place. Darn I was about to give up completely but you swoop in and save the day!
Thank-you.
That being said. You raise a valid point. My opinion on the culprit was/is impeding my judgement and I dismiss where I should be wary instead.
Yeah, you’re probably right.
I’m just uncomfortable with the idea, really. That’s all. Not the idea that you’re right, the idea that I could agree…with… eww…
To everybody else throwing political ideology at me… well… you guys should really go listen to some classic George Carlin… he had a clear message for you.

Menicholas
Reply to  MarkW
October 7, 2015 2:49 pm

Everyone here is well aware that the person is not the argument. You were the only one confused about that.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
October 7, 2015 2:56 pm

Indeed. Pat really should learn the first rule of holes.

Reply to  Pat
October 7, 2015 8:16 am

Pat, where on Earth did you find any statement by Senator Cruz saying that he was a ‘young Earth’ Creationist? Senator Cruz’s father, Rafael, is a religious fundamentalist, but he is not Ted Cruz. Have you confused the two?
Senator Cruz is clearly well-informed on the climate debate, and doubtless on science generally. He is also a Constitutional scholar and as Solicitor-General of the State of Texas has argued cases before the Supreme Court of the United States.
As for your complaint that Sen. Cruz believes that “our rights come from God’s values,” I might note that our Founding Documents aver that human rights come not from government, but from Providence, i.e. they are innate. From the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. . .

Senator Cruz not only holds to the beliefs and convictions of our Founding Fathers, he is correct in doing so.
Maybe you should learn a little about the country you are living in.
/Mr Lynn

Frank K.
Reply to  L. E. Joiner
October 7, 2015 8:52 am

Pat is a foreigner and apparently doesn’t know very much about American history or politics (or simply regurgitates what he reads and hears from foreign media sources). As for myself, I would likewise refrain from discussions of European or Asian politics on foreign websites…

Menicholas
Reply to  L. E. Joiner
October 7, 2015 2:50 pm

Exactly Frank.
Imagine the presumption!

menicholas
Reply to  Pat
October 7, 2015 8:28 am

Pat, you may not know it, but when foreign psuedo-communist liberals like you express such obvious crap-your -pants horror at the thought of Cruz being elected President of the United States, it is only a mark of distinction and badge of honor for the man.
You know nothing. Not about him, or his beliefs or his politics…except what you have been told…that his victory would be bad for people of your ilk.
Which it would…and is an excellent reason people here should vote for him.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  menicholas
October 7, 2015 9:11 am

I smell a rat. While going out of his way to throw out common French idiomatic phrase(s), his remarks sound more like they’re straight out of Pravda, or any other Ministry of Truth.

Pat
Reply to  menicholas
October 7, 2015 11:07 am

Oh I’m a commy now… wow… this is getting delicious!
Do I eat babies and puppies too? Hmmm?
No no! Wait… I’m secretely the owner of a large windfarm! Yeah yeah… that’s the ticket!

Reply to  menicholas
October 7, 2015 11:38 am

OK Pat, forget about President Cruz. Instead, think about President Trump. ☺

Pat
Reply to  menicholas
October 7, 2015 1:43 pm

dbstealey
THAT’S NOT EVEN FUNNY!!!!!!
Ok, maybe a little bit.

Menicholas
Reply to  menicholas
October 7, 2015 2:52 pm

Get back to us in about 13 months Pat with how hard you are laughing then.
If you still have a country then.
You have all just allowed a Trojan Horse inside your gates over there.
Just an FYI.

Knute
Reply to  Menicholas
October 7, 2015 6:01 pm

“If you still have a country then.
You have all just allowed a Trojan Horse inside your gates over there.
Just an FYI.”
Knute replies
America was duped. Wolf in sheep’s clothing, but alas don’t gloat. Bush duped them too with Iraq for starters and the faux credit crisis.
Ever wonder why the faux credit crisis extended over two administration without much change in tactics ? Do you think that was just America that pulled off that little doozie ?
Clinton planted his own seeds of disaster for the credit crunch and then there was daddy Bush but the years go by and I can’t quite remember his dupe dujour.
Oh, and then there was Reagan who famously opened the floodgates to 30 years of “prosperity”. Really, prosperity ? He singlehandedly escalated the borrow now, pay later death spiral that is pretty much choking the current boom/bust cycle of the global economy. If you got in early, you got it good.
Don’t gloat. There will be a reckoning for all this hooey and very few of us will come out without a couple of deep wounds.
And no dont go all anarchist. Don’t go claim a cave. Just be eyes wide open. We are men (and women) stuck trying to figure out how not to kill each other, promote our particular gene pool, hopefully laugh alot and then die.
But please, don’t gloat. Unless of course, your gene pool subconsciously drives you in that direction.

Menicholas
Reply to  menicholas
October 7, 2015 3:03 pm

“Oh I’m a commy now… wow… this is getting delicious!
Do I eat babies and puppies too? Hmmm?”
So, wait Pat…are you saying you are miffed that someone would make judgments about another person based more on supposition that facts or actual knowledge?
Outraged that someone could get you all wrong, and state so out loud?
Take heart…we all feel your pain.
Anyway, Pat, your syntax seems to have improved very quickly and dramatically.
And your lugubrious tones of this morning seem to have brightened considerably, i must say.
I do not have a smellputer, but if I did, i suspect the odor of troll would be evident, and wafting from your every post.

Pat
Reply to  menicholas
October 8, 2015 1:09 pm

You are clearly wasting your time.

Knute
Reply to  Pat
October 8, 2015 2:38 pm

Of course it matters that Cruz is way more into the Bible to both believers and nonbelievers.
Despite our vaunted impression of our objectivity we are far more biased in our reactions to stimuli. That stimuli hits the easy button of decision making.
It’s amazingly tiring to spend your day actively looking for fallacy in order to insulate yourself from the wild gnome of bias. Couple that with a busy world and you really just can’t do it alone …. consistently.
So I get it. Cruz is a bible thumping wacko to some and that clouds their sense of bias. In their eyes, the level of PROOF that a white wall is white would probably require a multiple independent validation process.
Even then, they might even be tempted to put on rose coloredd glasses to deny he was right about the wall being white.
We all do it. Pats trigger is a bubble thumper. Your’s maybe trust that’s too easily given to a long tenured and we’ll published professor.
Humans are complicated.

JimB
Reply to  Pat
October 7, 2015 8:54 am

Lemme see. Except for the bit about running for President, your criticism of Senator Cruz would equally apply to Galileo, Darwin, and probably the greatest scientist of the ages, Isaac Newton. But that is all beside the point: what does the science actually indicate? And I do not consider a massive computer program that does not predict global temperatures accurately to be “science”. Particularly when we had the “readme” leak.

Alan Robertson
October 7, 2015 5:22 am

Sen. Coons’ (Dem.- Delaware) remarks near the end of testimony seemed like a mild attempt to rescue the Sierra Club’s Mr. Mair. Since Sen. Coons whole campaign platform centered around creating jobs, by taking the President’s (and Sierra Club’s) side on the issue of Climate Change, Sen. Coons is actively working to destroy jobs.

jgriggs
Reply to  Alan Robertson
October 7, 2015 7:58 am

I am not aware of what platform Senator Coons ran on as I am not from his state or even that part of the country, but if it is true that he ran on the platform of creating jobs (and I have no reason to doubt your statement) then Senator Cruz’s followup statement makes perfect sense. The EPA and the Sierra club are supporting legislation that could (and will, if passed) cost Americans their job. The numbers can be disputed but the fact remains that the more regulation the EPA is allowed to heap on the American populace the more jobs we will lose. At a time when we need to be creating jobs to grow our economy it is amazing to see so many contradictory policies coming from this administration (Obama) and his supporters.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  jgriggs
October 7, 2015 9:05 am

Sen. Coons remarks were very mild and might also be construed as just an attempt to move the proceedings along. The Senator devotes very little time on his website to “climate” rhetoric and his website’s “Jobs” page, does not mention climate change, or global warming. However, on his “Environment” page, he does devote space to repeating the usual “sea level rise, extreme weather” memes. Whether his website’s climate change remarks reflect his true beliefs, or a compulsory “go along to get along” Democrat party/supporter appeasement, the fact remains, he’s in a position of power and his acquiescence to the statists’ climate rhetoric, at whatever level, is disturbing.
I’m not from the East coast, either.

VicV
October 7, 2015 6:18 am

The Peter Principle in action.

MarkW
October 7, 2015 6:30 am

The purpose of the 97% lie, was always to shut off debate because the warmists know that they can’t win an honest debate.
I can’t tell you the number of people I have talked to, when presented with honest data, retreat to the, “If 97% of scientists believe this, I’d be crazy not to” line.

FAH
October 7, 2015 6:32 am

Give him a break – Mr. Mair was only speaking from his area of expertise: Non Degree graduate work in Political science, BA – history and sociology. His CV is available here:
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1233/ML12335A534.pdf

Billy Liar
Reply to  FAH
October 7, 2015 1:16 pm

I read that too. He is obviously a happy and successful local environmental activist who has done much good work in his life but utterly ill-prepared for the position in which he found himself. He would have done better to admit his ignorance to the Committee rather than trying to bluff it out with limited help from the benches behind him.

Alan McIntire
October 7, 2015 6:47 am

That settles it for me. I’m supporting Ted Cruz in the Republican Primaries.

menicholas
Reply to  Alan McIntire
October 7, 2015 7:05 am

He has made me reconsider as well.

TonyG
October 7, 2015 6:54 am

just following comments

Gary Pearse
October 7, 2015 7:17 am

I agree that Cruz sounded like he would be a pretty good chief. I note some criticizing that he’s a religious guy who believes the earth is 7000 yrs old. Okay, I’m a geologist and I disagree with that, but is it worse than the belief that we have to destroy civilization, create mass starvation and hand over government to a new world order of misanthopic tyrants and burreaucrats to design and monitor our daily living plans.
Do we want someone who passed with honors out of the rigged lefty education that was created new world order elites? I would go for a principled man like Cruz or even mop-haired, shoot-from-the hip, iconoclastic Trump. I hope voters look for someone unafraid to dump the whole, too-big-to-fail, progressive horror show planned for humankind. If you want a P.C. go-with-the-program, democracy-and-free-enterprise-are-killing-us type who accepts that the planet is 4B+yrs old, then how about H. Clinton or even Holdren?
Someone prepared to crash the whole ugly edifice to the ground is what you really want.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 7, 2015 7:22 am

P.S. Please don’t let the climate of fear created by the elites make you afraid of a major change to things. Go for it!!

menicholas
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 7, 2015 8:07 am

Exactly Gary.
We need a demolition expert, not a housekeeper to tidy things up a bit.

wws
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 7, 2015 8:25 am

It’s a lie to say that Ted Cruz is a young earth creationist. Since he is a practicing Christian, he terrifies atheists who throw every slander at him that they can invent.

Jeff Pitts
October 7, 2015 8:06 am

Reminds me of something…comment image

Jeff Pitts
Reply to  Jeff Pitts
October 7, 2015 8:06 am

With the roles reversed

Ron Cohen
October 7, 2015 8:07 am

Cruz should have asked Mair’s opinion on the 97% “flat earth” or “witches float” believers back in the middle ages.

TonyG
Reply to  Ron Cohen
October 7, 2015 11:02 am

Better, plate tectonics.

Joel Snider
October 7, 2015 8:12 am

The whole point of the ‘97% consensus’ is so alarmists can quote it.

October 7, 2015 8:21 am

I am concerned about Pat’s charge (above) that Senator Cruz is a young-Earth Creationist. I suspect Pat has confused the Senator with his father, who is a religious fundamentalist. See my comment in response to Pat, here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/06/sierra-club-would-rather-quote-bogus-97-mantra-than-address-facts/#comment-2043883
/Mr Lynn

MarkW
Reply to  L. E. Joiner
October 7, 2015 10:49 am

Even if he was a young earth creationist, so what?
It’s not like he going to get congress to pass a law requiring everyone else to believe that.

Pat
Reply to  L. E. Joiner
October 7, 2015 11:10 am

You really shouldn’t concern with my opinions, they are really, REALLY irrelevant.
I assure you, concerning yourself with it is 100% a waste of your time.

Reply to  Pat
October 7, 2015 11:45 am

So why do you post these opinions?

Pat
Reply to  Pat
October 7, 2015 2:04 pm

Because this is the Internet. Further more, this is an anonymous comment section. I mean, I’m very very open to discussion, in fact I INVITE reasoned arguments, but very very few people brought up valid arguments to what I stated. (some did though, which is good). Really… what happens here should still be taken with a grain of salt and some humour. The latter being sorely missing from the great majority of people who attacked me for simply stating offhanded comments that were negative about, what I would now have to assume from the virility of their response, “their home boy”…
That being said, I know the pull to “correct the Internet” is difficult to resist, and I understand how one could strongly disagree with what I think… but “concern” is, in my opinion, somewhat of an overreaction. Not as much an overreaction as calling me a hateful crap spewing, god hating bigot (as some have done).But you know… I’ve been called worse by better educated people… 😉
This is, unfortunately, the way any kind of political subject gets treated. With anger and hard feelings instead of an actual discussion between adults. That’s unfortunate, and a reflection of the success of the divide and conquer strategy that’s been used against the American people for decades now. On one side if you disagree you’re an idiot who doesn’t understand what’s being done for you, on the other side if you disagree you’re at best an ideologue out to steel my hard earned money to hand it out to foreigners and freeloaders, and at worse out to grab control.
Both are equally wrong, stupid and counterproductive. But for some reason, emotions stop people from seeing that. Ah well… that’s unfortunate.
Have a nice day, or evening, or whatever time this finds you if it does at all.

Menicholas
Reply to  Pat
October 7, 2015 5:12 pm

Get real, dude, it was your over the top denunciations that provoked the response that you got…nothing else.

Doug
October 7, 2015 8:57 am

I’m one of many in the 97% (I believe we have enough AGW to be a measurable academic curiosity of little importance).
I find it scary that he knew nothing of the pause, and that his expert advisors told him it occurred in the 1940’s and has long since been refuted.
We should, however, brace ourselves for an interruption to the pause with the current El Nino. Gad, that will be a media fiasco.

Billy Liar
Reply to  Doug
October 7, 2015 1:23 pm

Yes, but what about the following La Niña?
The real problem is that certain climatologists have been adjusting the temperature of the 1998 El Niño down such that a pretty average one now will look like the hottest evah.

Editor
Reply to  Billy Liar
October 7, 2015 2:43 pm

The MSM will ignore the trailing La Niña as best they can, of course.

Menicholas
Reply to  Billy Liar
October 7, 2015 5:27 pm

Every year will def be the hottest evah until and unless there is such a degree of cooling that no one, not even a “climate scientist”, can deny it.

Menicholas
Reply to  Billy Liar
October 7, 2015 5:28 pm

Which may not be very long from now.

Gary H
October 7, 2015 11:39 am

Cook’s survey of abstracts – did not seek to find out the view of which scientists accept the pause, or not; rather it was about (incorrectly performed at that) whether or not they believed there was a human footprint in GW.
Answering Cruz’s question about the 18 yr pause by quoting Cook’s survey is beyond, off base.
Surprised Cruz didn’t catch that.

Menicholas
Reply to  Gary H
October 7, 2015 5:29 pm

I think he more than caught it, and was very canny in making the man parade his foolishness quite openly.

Davod
October 7, 2015 11:43 am

skeptical science.com appears to refute the 97% of scientists agree naysayers with a number of reports including one dated 2013.
Has anyone refuted the skeptical science rebuttals?

Reply to  Davod
October 7, 2015 12:02 pm

Davod,
If you sincerely want to learn, just put ‘97%’ into the search box (upper right sidebar).

Editor
Reply to  Davod
October 7, 2015 6:31 pm

From my guide to WUWT, on the right side nav bar, you can work your way over to http://wermenh.com/wuwt/cat_97_consensus.html and see links to 76 articles (including this one).

Gary H
October 7, 2015 12:08 pm

Included in Aaron Mair’s prepared statement:
“To those expressing concern about the health and well-being of low income families and
communities of color, we invite you to join Sierra Club in supporting not just robust enforcement
of our country’s air and water protection laws, but other initiatives and measures that would lift
up and protect people of color and the working class. We would welcome your public support for
racial justice and equality and would urge you to join us in expressing support for the Black
Lives Matter movement . . .”

Christopher Paino
October 7, 2015 12:36 pm

That video actually changed my opinion of Senator Cruz. Not all the way, but I definitely have more respect for the man.
And Mair was evading the questions and should have been held in Contempt of Congress.

October 7, 2015 1:54 pm

From the National Park Service website:

A recent survey of climatologists reveals that 97% of those scientists think that global climate change is occurring presently and that human activity is the primary cause…
Let’s be clear. Climate change is happening all around us, and human activities are accelerating it. The evidence is overwhelming, and the theory of global warming is sound. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which conducted the survey above, consists of thousands of scientists from all over the world who specialize in difference aspects of climate science. A separate study by the National Academy of the Sciences drew the same conclusions.

The National Park Service tells us the IPCC conducted a survey of thousands of climatologists in which 97% thought human activity is the primary cause of climate change.
Surely a government institution as respectable as the National Park Service wouldn’t lie to American taxpayers and their children…would it?

ECB
Reply to  verdeviewer
October 7, 2015 5:14 pm

Yes.

willhaas
October 7, 2015 1:55 pm

Scientists never registered and voted on the matter. Science is not a democracy. Theories are not proven through a voting process. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. It does not matter how many scientists are on either side of the AGW issue. What matters is the nature of the scientific arguments. I for one feel that Man;s burning up of our very finite resources of fossil fuels is not a good thing and I would like to add AGW as an additional reason why but the AGW conjecture is just too full of holes. Here is some science that the Sierra Club failed to present.
The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O which averages around 2% is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.
Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface. which is mostly H2O, to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.
A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.
The AGW conjecture talks about CO2 absorbing IR photons and then re radiating them out in all directions. According to this, then CO2 does not retain any of the IR heat energy it absorbs so it cannot be heat trapping. What the AGW conjecture fails to mention is that typically between the time of absorption and radiation that same CO2 molecule, in the lower troposphere, undergoes roughly a billion physical interactions with other molecules, sharing heat related energy with interaction. Heat transfer by conduction and convection dominates over heat transfer by LWIR absorption band radiation in the troposphere which further renders CO2’s radiant greenhouse effect as a piece of fiction. Above the troposphere more CO2 enhances the efficiency of LWIR absorption band radiation to space so more CO2 must have a cooling effect.
This is all a matter of science.

Chris in Hervey Bay
Reply to  willhaas
October 7, 2015 4:30 pm

“I for one feel that Man;s burning up of our very finite resources of fossil fuels is not a good thing ”
See Queensland coal reserves, good for another 500 years at current consumption rates.

willhaas
Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay
October 7, 2015 4:38 pm

500 years is not all that long, I would hope that the human race goes no a lot longer than that.

Menicholas
Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay
October 7, 2015 5:44 pm

Would you have your wife and kids live in an unheated house when it is cold, or sit in the dark at night, or deny farmers the means to efficiently produce food, or forgo having fresh food shipped to your supermarket in Winter, so that people 600 years hence will have more coal oil, and gas, still in the ground?
The Universe, the Solar System, the Earth, and all of the space surrounding our planet is literally awash in energy, in great quantity and in many forms.
Low hanging fruit gets picked first for several very good reasons.
Besides, you left out all the parts about CO2 fertilization, and the Earth being a more hospitable place when it is warmer, and less hospitable when it is colder.
Considering that it never stays the same…one would have to logically conclude from the above that warming is a good thing. Otherwise it will be cooling…a bad thing.

Menicholas
Reply to  willhaas
October 7, 2015 8:04 pm

Will,
I appreciate your very long first comment, with the exception of the part addressed in your send much shorter one.
Being against something means being for something else. You cannot just be against things on general principle these days…you gotta have specific reasons.
Ok, maybe not gotta…but it helps to clarify what you think if you do.

October 7, 2015 2:04 pm

I was waiting for Cruz to state that “John Cook is a cartoonist and a FRAUD. Unfortunately I waited in vain. It should be used at every opportunity. John “the Cartoonist” Cook should be used at ALL times.

V. Schappert
October 7, 2015 2:25 pm

What bugs me about mainstream politicians (does Cruz count as “mainstream”?) is that they consistently miss opportunities to really blow up the AGW racket. For that exchange with the Sierra Club ignoramus, I would give Cruz a C+ or B- tops. While it was a good start, I feel like he was missing some obvious stuff. Like:
– Maybe stating the obvious to Mr. Sierra Club, something along the lines of: “You obviously don’t have anything to contribute to this topic, since the best you can do in response to a direct question is regurgitate a talking point over and over again. What’s your name? 97%. What’s your address? 97%. What are you doing here today? 97%. Are you sure? 97%. And you didn’t even come up with it yourself – you had to ask your staffer what to say. Now your talking point is “You agree with 97% of scientists on this.” So you have no independent expertise on the subject at all to offer, is that correct sir?
– And why let him get away with his lazy obfuscation. “I have here stack of papers from scientists who believe in anthropogenic global warming.” Here’s Dr. Lame-o with his paper “Explaining away the Pause with lame excuse number 1”, and here’s Dr. Flame-o with his paper “Why the Pause doesn’t disprove our sweet sweet models: Lame excuse number 2”. So these scientists admit there’s a Pause. But you haven’t heard about that then I guess? So what makes you qualified to give any evidence at all to this Congress?
– And above all, why let him give reiterate the 97% figure? Ask him where he got it from. 97% of what? Of all the scientists, ever? In the world? In America? Where did that figure come from? Was there a survey? What did you ask the scientists in your survey? Mr. Sierra Club obviously doesn’t know the answer to any of this.

Knute
Reply to  V. Schappert
October 7, 2015 5:41 pm

“What bugs me about mainstream politicians ….. is that they consistently miss opportunities to really blow up the AGW racket.”
Knute replies
They don’t ask because they don’t have to.
Congressional inquiries are not meant to resolve issues. They are meant to demonstrate that so and so has performed a theatrical role on BOTH sides of the aisle.
The 97% was the right cross that took science by surprise. Man bear was the marketer. CO2 regs the institutionalization. The healthcare battle the distraction. The pope is the naked girl who pops out of the cake. The happy little NASA satellite is the tool to measure what you owe. Oh those nasty little liars.
And before this administration we had Powell parading half cocked urgency for waging a war on Iraq. Oh those nasty little liars.
Have you ever considered that the two parties go easy on each other because they are both nasty little liars taking turns raking in the dough ?
It’s a wink and nod. You have your role, I have mine. Don’t beat me up too bad, cause I’ll remember that when it’s your turn in the hotseat.
Hilary gets an extra dose of abuse because I hear she doesn’t share the spoils well. In a crooked game, that makes sense.
Embarrassing your lower level political appointees is fair, because everyone needs a scapegoat … blood for the arena.
The only recent one with balls so far is Ms Kopacz of Poland. In fact, I think I’m falling in love.
Unwittingly, we appear to add to the fiasco.
Back to Doris and Frank.
Doris
“I’m worried about our son. He’s such a good lad, but what is he going to do with that doctorate in __________ .”
Frank
“Well, I heard he applied for a teaching position as an asistant _______.”
Doris
“Oh, that’s wonderful. Tell me more”.
Frank
“It’s something to do with developing software to evaluate the rate of error in temporal spatial distributions of worldwide CO2”.
Doris
:::: normally a die in her boots skeptic ::::
“Well Frank, I guess it’s better than him living with us”.

Menicholas
Reply to  V. Schappert
October 7, 2015 5:50 pm

No, if he said those things, you and me and people here would have known what he meant and who John Cook is, or why that matters…but the great masses would not.
He kept it in the realm of the general. He made the organization that the witness speaks for look silly, even if you knew nothing.

CodeTech
Reply to  V. Schappert
October 7, 2015 5:54 pm

The guy said the “pause” was something during the 40s. He has NO IDEA what he’s talking about, and was expecting the money to just be rubber stamped.

Menicholas
October 7, 2015 2:27 pm

Oh, and my new favorite word is “shonky”.
As in” I ain’t no shonky honky!”
Is this the opposite of “hinky?

CodeTech
Reply to  Menicholas
October 7, 2015 5:52 pm

It’s not the opposite.
If you do shonky work, something hinky is going on.

Menicholas
Reply to  CodeTech
October 7, 2015 8:00 pm

I did not know that.
TY

Knute
Reply to  Menicholas
October 7, 2015 8:07 pm

Shonky is definitely goin to catch on with rap culture.
His work was shonky
But cause he was no honky
Ain’t nobody gettin all bonkie.
::: heavy bass beat remix out of Sweden :::

Paul Westhaver
October 7, 2015 2:30 pm

Aaron Mair running around the kitchen and talking to the senate committee.

Steve P
October 7, 2015 4:02 pm

V. Schappert
October 7, 2015 at 2:25 pm
“mainstream politicians …consistently miss opportunities to really blow up the AGW racket.”
Yep. In other venues it’s called pulling your punches. Here Mair does the Rope-A-Dope routine pretty well, and Cruz looks like he’s beating up on the guy, so all the rubes will be impressed, but it’s just theater, or better yet: political circus.
I’m with Pat. I don’t want the bible believers in charge of anything beyond a church.
I rejected the ancient, but heavily edited scribblings already as a youth more than 50 years ago. There are no credible contemporaneous accounts to support the historicity of the mythical man known as Jesus Christ, but very good evidence that the modern myth was cobbled together at the 1st Council of Niceae in 325, under the direction of Emperor Constantine, who was in the cult of Sol Invictis.
If religion is a personal matter, it should be kept out of both politics, where it is a distraction, and science, where it is an embarrassment.
The agnostic does not rule out the possibility of a deity, but acknowledges his own limitations as a carnal being to understand the ways, means, and methods of any gods, dieties, angels, or spirits that might exist.
It’s a big universe, and our knowledge is limited. My opinion is that H. sapiens is far too flawed to be the preeminent sentient being in the cosmos.

Mick
Reply to  Steve P
October 7, 2015 10:26 pm

Coincidentally, societies greatest technological advances came at a time when religion was taught in public schools and guided government policy. I am not religious, it was driven out of me long ago, but I do see its advantages. Better than the direction that we are going in today. Marxists hate religion, and patriarchy.

wws
Reply to  Steve P
October 8, 2015 6:05 am

It would be wise not to let your own personal bigotry poison your chances to work with people who support the same goals you do.

richard verney
October 7, 2015 4:12 pm

I note that there is quite a heated discussion about whether someone who believes in God should or should not be entitled to comment upon scientific issues. There is no reason why scientists cannot hold a belief in God. It is a belief, not logic, and does not in any way impinge upon their ability as scientists.
Indeed, Sir Isaac Newton (who some would say was a not insignificant scientific mind) appears to have been religious and was a theological scholar of some note (having written many books upon the subject and upon the interpretation of the bible). And don’t forget that Feynman (who I think was an atheist) also considered that it was possible for scientists to believe in God, and belief in God was not in itself unscientific, since presently science cannot prove that God does not exist.
Attacking someone’s religious belief is an ad hom, nothing more than that. The issue here is did Senator Cruz raise a valid point, and did Mr Mair satisfactorily answer the point raised.

October 7, 2015 4:26 pm

“…god told him to run,…the Earth is 7000 years old…rules of the bible trump the rule of law…”
Anyone who watched the video would know Cruz’s appeal was to legit science, not biblical authority. Perusal of his quotes provides no suggestion he’s a religious fundamentalist:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/ted_cruz.html
Maybe Cruz’s “problem” from the troll perspective is his defense of the U.S. Constitution, the first amendment to which prohibits the Government from demanding adherence to Climatastrophist religion.

Harry Twinotter
October 7, 2015 4:34 pm

Aaron Mair was 100% correct in his testimony.
And he prevented Senator Ted Cruz from sidelining the discussion onto irrelevant topics as a distraction.

Menicholas
Reply to  Harry Twinotter
October 7, 2015 5:59 pm

Oh Harry!
Harry, Harry, Harry.
What are we gonna do with you.
You scamp!
Well, you chose your side and stand shoulder to shoulder with that nitwit, why should anyone else try to dissuade you?

Harry Twinotter
Reply to  Menicholas
October 7, 2015 6:38 pm

Menicholas.
Meaningless comment.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Menicholas
October 7, 2015 6:47 pm

How is that meaningless Harry?
You have the same opinion as a guy who looks like a fkwit when questioned on the satellite data record.
What does that make you?
The only thing standing between you and your realization that you are a fkwit too is your cognitive dissonance.
This guy’s testimony would be thrown out of a law court based on the Daubert case law. He’s not even allowed into the phony debate that never was.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Menicholas
October 7, 2015 6:49 pm
Reply to  Harry Twinotter
October 7, 2015 7:24 pm

Rashomon exemplified.

Harry Twinotter
Reply to  Harry Twinotter
October 7, 2015 11:30 pm

philincalifornia
Name calling. You demean yourself.
Why bring up a “law court” when the video was not about a law court?
Aaron Mair answered the Senator’s question, the Senator just would not accept the answer.

wws
Reply to  Harry Twinotter
October 8, 2015 6:32 am

you’re too dense to even understand what he’s talking about, aren’t you?
This was testimony in front of a governmental body, the only difference between this and a court of law is that the witnesses aren’t under penalty of perjury for lying. (ie, they’re not under oath)
What Mair gave as an “answer” was on the same level as someone chanting “hare krishna, hare krishna” endlessly whenever they asked a question. If you think that’s an answer, that says a whole lot about you.

Harry Twinotter
Reply to  Harry Twinotter
October 8, 2015 9:32 am

wws.
“you’re too dense to even understand what he’s talking about, aren’t you?”
An ad hominem argument! Never seen one of them before 🙂
Well it is a good thing the senator was not under oath then – he won’t get into trouble for his lies.
Try and spin it any way you want. The testimony is recorded for people to review any time in the future.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Harry Twinotter
October 9, 2015 5:51 pm

Yeah, poor Aaron, the equal opportunity stooge, didn’t know if he was having a sh!t or a haircut., Harry’s parrot chanting and lies notwithstanding.

Reply to  Harry Twinotter
October 8, 2015 6:29 am

Aaron Mair was 100% correct in his testimony.
Aren’t baseless assertions wonderful? They cover all possibilities. Just assert something, and voila! your position is staked.
Doesn’t matter how wrong it is, either.

johann wundersamer
October 7, 2015 4:44 pm

pure nervous break down.
Hopefully the Sierra Club can provide a Post Traumatic Service on his President.
Hans

u.k.(us)
October 7, 2015 5:09 pm

Ya well. just crank it up.

Mick
Reply to  u.k.(us)
October 7, 2015 10:28 pm

No thanks

u.k.(us)
Reply to  Mick
October 7, 2015 10:58 pm

It’s still a free internet.

CodeTech
October 7, 2015 6:01 pm

For point of interest, I consider blind faith in believing the AGW meme as far more disqualifying for government positions than I do someone believing in creation.
The science is out there, and easily found. If you want to let leftist political interests tell you what you believe, what right do YOU have to criticize Christians for their beliefs?
The fact is, NOBODY knows for sure what happens when we die. We all have our beliefs, but nobody KNOWS. Whereas, I KNOW that there has been no warming for 18 years despite predictions saying there should be, or fiddled data pretending there is warming where there isn’t.

Menicholas
Reply to  CodeTech
October 7, 2015 9:12 pm

Plus, no one really knows how the Universe came to be, or how life began, or why Humans but no other animals seems to have morality and all of the other things that make us unique on the Earth…or even what the nature and basis of consciousness even is.

Chris Schoneveld
Reply to  Menicholas
October 8, 2015 6:39 am

Morality has been found in other species as well. Read the book, “Can Animals Be Moral?”.

Chris Schoneveld
Reply to  Menicholas
October 8, 2015 6:41 am

Or do you believe that morality is taught (through religion etc.)?

Walter Sobchak
October 7, 2015 6:18 pm

The 97% is the most stunningly irrelevant statistic in the world.
In 1931 a book was published in Germany, Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein), a collection of criticisms of Einstein’s theory of relativity.
When asked about the book, Einstein retorted by saying “Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!”
Percentages of scientists are utterly irrelevant to the evaluation of scientific matters

Knute
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
October 7, 2015 7:06 pm

“The 97% is the most stunningly irrelevant statistic in the world.”
Knute
Ever wonder why it stuck ?
Maybe it appealed to emotions the way a phrase “most stunningly irrelevant statistic” does ?
Or maybe just like the ad hom “that fundamentalist bible thumper”
Be careful out there.
Your opponents are much better at weilding fallacy than you because they weild it with the the military execution of a successful advertising firm. Nothing a successful firm uses ever sees the light of day unless it has been tested in multiple focus groups down to your sub conscious reaction.
It’s their job to sell you something.

Reply to  Knute
October 7, 2015 7:12 pm

Ever wonder why it stuck ?
Because “97%” is repeated ad nauseum by believers in the ‘carbon’ scare. They repeat it so often that plenty of other mouth-breathers begin mindless head-nodding in unison.
I blame the gov’t .edu factories for eliminating critical thinking from the population. If people thought about it, they would realize that you couldn’t get 97% of scientists to agree on any hypothesis.

Knute
Reply to  dbstealey
October 7, 2015 7:42 pm

db
Eh, come on db. That’s too easy. Yeah alot of schooling sucks but give credit where credit is due. There are some very sophisticated mentors out there teaching how to tap into our subconscious needs. We as a people are not that stooopid and they as manipulators have gotten way better.
Try a book called Macachiavellian Intelligence by Dario Maestripieri.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  Knute
October 7, 2015 7:20 pm

Wait, you lost me, I’m sure you must have said something important.
Did I miss it ?

Knute
Reply to  u.k.(us)
October 7, 2015 7:48 pm

:: Assuming sarc :: and willing to play a round or too … warning please ignore if reading for value.
Nah, nothing to see here that your bias hasn’t already decided on.

Knute
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
October 7, 2015 7:20 pm

“When asked about the book, Einstein retorted by saying “Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!”
Percentages of scientists are utterly irrelevant to the evaluation of scientific matters”
Knute adds
In a perfect world you are right. Your last phrase is actually a bit of a take on the appeal to perfection.
Courts are faced with this problem all the time so they developed the Daubert Factors concerning expertise. They concluded that barring other stronger evidence, a theory that is generally accepted by peers is worthy of expertise.
Distasteful yes. I didn’t make it up. Courts have to deal with an imperfect world. Now, a good attorney will argue back that the above appeal to concensus needs to be only applied “when all other things are equal”. They typically are not, so he chips away until … if he’s really good he makes the Einstein case of the lone dissenter with solid evidence.

Menicholas
Reply to  Knute
October 7, 2015 8:20 pm

Yeah, well, as to expert testimony, people were falsely sentenced, and went to their death because some such experts made up everything they ever testified to…and they did it for money!
Now, if dispassionate experts will lie on the witness stand and send people to their death, or even just prison, why should one suppose anyone is above reproach?
Check it out:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/04/fbi_s_flawed_forensics_expert_testimony_hair_analysis_bite_marks_fingerprints.html
And also arson. The entire subject of forensic fire investigation was based on a bunch of made up nonsense, created out of thin air and whole cloth by some guy, decades ago, and repeated as the gospel scientific truth for generations. No one knows how many people were put to death or imprisoned based on lies by so called “experts…who were paid! Cameron Todd Willingham is the tip of the iceberg, that is for sure…an innocent father put to death after an unspeakable tragedy, accused falsely and railroaded by fake expert testimony.
Check it out, and pick up the research if you doubt it or want more on any of these stories:
http://www.texasobserver.org/fire-and-innocence/
I got more…much more…if you are unconvinced.

Knute
Reply to  Menicholas
October 7, 2015 8:34 pm

History is packed with examples of the courts being wrong and to help your case I’ll add corrupt. The courtroom is an endeavor of man and man is imperfect so nothing he does can be perfect and if so, only for an instant.
Science is also nothing more than an attempt to reduce uncertainty.
A child’s ego is petrified by a perceived lack of imperfect love. It’s often argued that it is the first death we experience. We survive, heal, accept the world and become adults. Nevertheless, that childhood experience for many makes them susceptible to the elixir of perfect things. It’s a subconscious hook, easily manipulated.

Menicholas
Reply to  Knute
October 7, 2015 9:16 pm

And when one of our institutions is corrupt, or even just wrong, we should all stand up and say so, and point at it, and force changes to be made.

Knute
Reply to  Menicholas
October 7, 2015 10:00 pm

Nicholas
I took a break from my other tasks to go back and reread the patterns of your past responses. Passionate and opinionated. Human. Take it as a grain of salt, but you’d be easier for me to read if you tempered your passions with less absolutes and more of an attempt to see both sides. Please maintain your passion/emotion but understand, at least for this reader, it’s easier to digest if it comes across in a more balanced and complete fashion. Grain of salt, moment in time.
Thanks

Merovign
October 7, 2015 6:28 pm

When a deliberate troll posts, the first person to point out why they’re a troll gets 5 quatloos, everyone else who responses LOSES 5 quatloos.
I though everyone knew that.

Menicholas
Reply to  Merovign
October 7, 2015 8:22 pm

That’s a slim wager there, Tex. Who won and who lost today, in your estimation? Curious minds want to know.

Steve P
October 7, 2015 7:33 pm

The 97% stat stuck at least partially because none of the many erudite and excellent wordsmiths who haunt WUWT has so far come up with a decisive one sentence rejoinder to strike it down.

Reply to  Steve P
October 7, 2015 7:36 pm

Steve P,
As one of the head-nodding mouth breathers, how would you like a one-word rejoinder to strike it down?
Sorry, I don’t wanna get snipped, but it starts with B…

Knute
Reply to  dbstealey
October 7, 2015 7:59 pm

dbbbb
Tsk tsk. ZzzzzzzZzzzzzzzZzzzz
Marketers have figured out that generating a male like aggressive response like b____s___t to an otherwise warm and fuzzy like the 97% actually pushes more believers towards the drivel.
Why, you ask (hopefully). Current culture has been taught that overt aggression is to be feared and indicates unacceptable behavoir … an a____h____e.

Steve P
Reply to  dbstealey
October 7, 2015 8:02 pm

dbstealey
October 7, 2015 at 7:36 pm
Steve P,
As one of the head-nodding mouth breathers…

I’m not necessarily surprised to see you lower yourself to slinging insults, dbstealey, but I hope you know it reflects very poorly on you.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 7, 2015 11:56 pm

Steve B: technically, that’s two words, unless you mean Baloney-in which case, no need for snipping 🙂

Steve P
Reply to  Steve P
October 7, 2015 7:46 pm

Somewhere, there must be a SEWAG* about how many practicing scientists there are on Earth. Over that, we have the number of scientists who are respresented by that 97% figure – just a few 1000 iznit? – And so, if someone can pull these numbers out of a credible orifice somewhere, we would have the actual very small percentage of the world’s scientists whose views are reflected by that 97% figure.
*Semi-Educated Wild Ash Guesh

Reply to  Steve P
October 7, 2015 7:52 pm

Not that nonsense again. You’re obviously unacquainted with statistics.
Go over to the sidebar and click on Dr. William Briggs, Statistician. He has thoroughly demolished that stupid argument.

Steve P
Reply to  Steve P
October 7, 2015 8:05 pm

dbstealey
October 7, 2015 at 7:52 pm
Tell us about it. In your words. Showtime.

Reply to  Steve P
October 7, 2015 8:15 pm

Tell us about it. In your words. Showtime.
No, Stevie, it’s not my job to try and educate you, that isn’t possible. But it’s easy to educate yourself, if you really wanted to. Just put ‘97%’ into the Search box. Plan on a few hours’ reading time to see how thoroughly that nonsense has been debunked, step by step.
Don’t take my word for it. There are literally hundreds of readers providing detailed information, including a peer reviewed paper or two that demolishes your 97% fantasy.
But none of it will convince you. I know you well enough by now that nothing can convince you or any eco-religionist of anything they don’t want to learn. You’re just here to run interference.
With that, good night. Enjoy your reading.

Menicholas
Reply to  Steve P
October 7, 2015 8:27 pm

Good on yah DB. I for one am sick of even being asked to do someone else’s homework for them.
Where did they go to school, them who think it is the teachers job to do the students research.
Nowadays, it is faster to search for yourself than to even ask for someone else to do it and post their results.

Steve P
Reply to  Steve P
October 7, 2015 8:34 pm

No. “Here go read this link” doesn’t get it, nor does appeal to authority. If you make an argument, you should be able to express the gist of that argument, in your own words, without too much delay.

Reply to  Steve P
October 7, 2015 9:06 pm

Steve P,
I’ve commented a few dozen times on this issue, so you’re not assigning me homework. You couldn’t be convinced anyway, your mind is made up and closed tight. The proof is that you refuse to look at what I pointed to. The info is all there. What you really want to do is argue. Find someone in your own class, I’m past that.

Steve P
Reply to  Steve P
October 7, 2015 9:34 pm

You’ve commented a few dozen times, but now suddenly, in your pique, you can’t comment any more? I’d think with all that experience commenting, the words would flow effortlessly, giving you ample opportunity to display your command of the subject.
In any event, it was an off-hand suggestion, and I’m wondering why you saw fit to attack me for trying to generate some interest in crafting a trenchant repartee to the “bogus 97% mantra.”

Knute
Reply to  Steve P
October 7, 2015 7:53 pm

Excellent !!!
The 97% stuck because it hits the easy button in the brain. It’s marketing.
If I say “ring around the collar”, I need to say no more if your old enough and American.
The marketers now have the added advantage of years worth of imprinting.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  Knute
October 7, 2015 8:32 pm

@ Knute,
Maybe sometime you’ll tell us what you really think, instead of what you’ve heard.

Knute
Reply to  u.k.(us)
October 7, 2015 8:44 pm

Right on uk.
I am the sum experience of the things I am aware of overwhelmed by the things I am not.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  Steve P
October 7, 2015 8:00 pm

Are you saying that only a sound bite will work ?
You underestimate them, haunting is just the start.

Steve P
Reply to  u.k.(us)
October 7, 2015 8:09 pm

And 97% isn’t a soundbite? In this case, fight fire with fire.Or ping with pong, if you will.

Knute
Reply to  Steve P
October 7, 2015 8:12 pm

1% is taken.
3% is boring.
“Sell out” still hits the right parts of the subconscious but you have to set it up.

u.k.(us)