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
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
Cruz is razor sharp on so many things. That’s why they don’t give him any relevant questions in the Presidential debates.
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.
“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.
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.
Possibly a bit stronger, the GT 1940’s data were adjusted downward.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Now if someone could just predict what the sun’s magnetic field was going to do in the future.
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.
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.
“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
And never forgetting you can’t have causation without correlation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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???
@Patrick Guinness,
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.
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
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
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, @Patrick Guinness:
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.
@dbstealey
Political correctness in action in Paris:
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/files/2011/01/paris-prayers-351×233-custom.jpg
Wow! Just WOW!
I am truly speechless.
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
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…
Exactly. If their predictions are wrong, their hypothesis was wrong. Period.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
“…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?
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.
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.
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….
Pat, you didn’t present an argument, all you did was use lies and innuendo to try and discredit Cruz.
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,.
@Patrick Guinness, it really is sad, you no longer even know when you are lying.
Pathetic.
To Pat….
Who do you think you are , GOD ????
Yes Marcus, I am.
Had a few minutes to spare, thought I’d troll the Internet for a bit. You know… just hanging…
😉
“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…”)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Everyone here is well aware that the person is not the argument. You were the only one confused about that.
Indeed. Pat really should learn the first rule of holes.
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:
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
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…
Exactly Frank.
Imagine the presumption!
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.
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.
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!
OK Pat, forget about President Cruz. Instead, think about President Trump. ☺
dbstealey
THAT’S NOT EVEN FUNNY!!!!!!
Ok, maybe a little bit.
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.
“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.
“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.
You are clearly wasting your time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Peter Principle in action.
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.
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
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.
That settles it for me. I’m supporting Ted Cruz in the Republican Primaries.
He has made me reconsider as well.
just following comments
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.
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!!
Exactly Gary.
We need a demolition expert, not a housekeeper to tidy things up a bit.
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.
Reminds me of something…
With the roles reversed
Cruz should have asked Mair’s opinion on the 97% “flat earth” or “witches float” believers back in the middle ages.
Better, plate tectonics.
The whole point of the ‘97% consensus’ is so alarmists can quote it.
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
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.
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.
So why do you post these opinions?
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.
Get real, dude, it was your over the top denunciations that provoked the response that you got…nothing else.
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.
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.
The MSM will ignore the trailing La Niña as best they can, of course.
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.
Which may not be very long from now.
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.
I think he more than caught it, and was very canny in making the man parade his foolishness quite openly.
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?
Davod,
If you sincerely want to learn, just put ‘97%’ into the search box (upper right sidebar).
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).
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 . . .”