We all know that the now infamous “97% consensus” is based on shonky data analysis by John Cook, but that doesn’t stop the president of the Sierra Club from using it, even when it means a standoff with a Senator in a congressional testimony. Today, Texas senator and Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz questioned Sierra Club President Aaron Mair in a contentious testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Via the Daily Caller:
But on one question in particular, Mair would not deviate from his rehearsed answer.
When asked about the 18 year pause in global warming, as documented by satellite data, Mr. Mair denied it exists. “So if the data are contrary to your testimony, would the Sierra Club issue a retraction?” Cruz asked.
“Sir, we concur with the 97 percent scientific consensus with regards to global warming,” Mair responded.
It gets better:
When Senator Cruz pressed the environmentalist on whether he would change his testimony should the Sierra Club obtain the publicly available data showing the “pause,” Mair would only respond, “We concur with 97 percent of the scientists that believe the anthropogenic impact of mankind with regards to global warming are true.”
Cruz then asked again if Mair was unwilling to answer the question. The Sierra Club chief replied, “We concur with the preponderance of the evidence — you’re asking me if we’ll take 3 percent over the 97 percent? Of course not.”
And here’s the money quote from an exasperated Ted Cruz:
“You know, Mr. Mair, I find it striking that for a policy organization that purports to focus exclusively on environmental issues, that you are not willing to tell this committee that you would issue a retraction if your testimony is objectively false under scientific data. That undermines the credibility of any organization.”
I’ll say. Watch the testimony:
Added: h/t to Ryan Maue
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
From the National Park Service website:
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?
Yes.
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.
“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.
500 years is not all that long, I would hope that the human race goes no a lot longer than that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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”.
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.
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.
Oh, and my new favorite word is “shonky”.
As in” I ain’t no shonky honky!”
Is this the opposite of “hinky?
It’s not the opposite.
If you do shonky work, something hinky is going on.
I did not know that.
TY
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 :::
Aaron Mair running around the kitchen and talking to the senate committee.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“…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.
Aaron Mair was 100% correct in his testimony.
And he prevented Senator Ted Cruz from sidelining the discussion onto irrelevant topics as a distraction.
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?
Menicholas.
Meaningless comment.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard
Rashomon exemplified.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
pure nervous break down.
Hopefully the Sierra Club can provide a Post Traumatic Service on his President.
Hans
Ya well. just crank it up.
No thanks
It’s still a free internet.
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.
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.
Morality has been found in other species as well. Read the book, “Can Animals Be Moral?”.
Or do you believe that morality is taught (through religion etc.)?
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
“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.
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.
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.
Wait, you lost me, I’m sure you must have said something important.
Did I miss it ?
:: 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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
That’s a slim wager there, Tex. Who won and who lost today, in your estimation? Curious minds want to know.
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.
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…
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.
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.
Steve B: technically, that’s two words, unless you mean Baloney-in which case, no need for snipping 🙂
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
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.
dbstealey
October 7, 2015 at 7:52 pm
Tell us about it. In your words. Showtime.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
@ur momisugly Knute,
Maybe sometime you’ll tell us what you really think, instead of what you’ve heard.
Right on uk.
I am the sum experience of the things I am aware of overwhelmed by the things I am not.
Are you saying that only a sound bite will work ?
You underestimate them, haunting is just the start.
And 97% isn’t a soundbite? In this case, fight fire with fire.Or ping with pong, if you will.
1% is taken.
3% is boring.
“Sell out” still hits the right parts of the subconscious but you have to set it up.
Doesn’t seem like your heart is in it anymore.
Like you’ve given up.
I got one:
Uh-uh!
I rather like my suggestion to repeat the two questions in Doran/Zimmerman. There’s a lot more explanation in those (yes, greater than one) two lines than there is in the 97% mantra Mair and others use. It is a good example of how the Emperors have no clothes, just a thin and very transparent vestment.
“Sir, we concur with the 97 percent scientific consensus with regards to global warming,”
This is the environmentalist’s version of taking the Fifth.
That’s certainly the way it sounded in the hearing. Just a more erudite (to use Steve P’s word) version of sticking his fingers in his ears and chanting “I can’t hear you.”
What it really says is “I’m using this sound bite but we (his aide too) have no idea what it means.”
The Sierra Club’s response
http://sierraclub.org/compass/2015/10/climate-denial-not-option-message-ted-cruz
Thanks for the followup reaction and link.
Reading the limited comments was also good.
CAGW was the con.
Check for the disenfranchised was the objective.
Obama told us that when he started.
Gave us lots of hints.
The youth under 25 and a solid 98% of blacks voted him in. They knew mostly that he would shake things up concerning wealth.
He waited for the rest of us to catch up.
Fascinating.
Mr Mair is telling you what it’s about.
Those that live up the hill have to give wealth to those that live down the hill. You’ve proven to be unwilling to do that, so we invented a reason to make it happen.
Check, your move.
It was all about wealth redistribution from the moment the politicians got involved Knute. The support from the ideological scientists was a bonus but the waverers could always be paid to get on board.
Like all do-gooders they claim it is for our own good while they take our cash and buy political power with it. All to make the world a better place of course, for them.
And then there’s NASA…
DB
Do you think the NASA emphasis on Muslim outreach is generally known among the populace ? You don’t ground the shuttle program without people noticing.
I think it is. But why no shock, no awe ?
No, WTF.
Why do think that is ?
Kunte,
Check mate,
Hard to get up this hill for me.
Great great great grandson of Apache Chief Mangus Colorados.
He and the Apache Nation of old fought the unlimited immigration of all outsiders for 300 years.
Out gunned, out numbered, out supplied, and not immune to the new germs.
Mangus and his band fought to the end. The end came as a result of often U S. (Buffalo Soldiers) attacking at dawn the women and children left in camp while the men sought food. The Buffalo Soldiers took the orders from the Captains to save bullets and just hit the Apache babies heads against rocks to kill them saving the bullets.
Now you tell me that from then to now my Apache clan (off reservation Apache) must redistribute what we have worked for from the 1880’s to now.
I am here to tell you our clan and many other clans, families, groups, areas, states, regions will fight for what we worked for now for these hundreds of years.
Now it is in the courts, the congress, the senate, the Pres. office.
I may end there, it may not, but sooner of later the lies nor an evil redistribution will not win.
Thank you for your attention.
APACHE PERSON
Thanks AP. I’d be proud to have the heritage you have and it sounds like you are.
What if your Apache tribe was identified as a group to receive distribution checks from carbon accounting ?
Would you take it, knowing that CAGW is just a hoax ?
Would Chief Mangus have taken it ?
Not a dime, not a nickle, we have never taken a dime from the govt. in our farming or ranching.
We grow our own feed for the cattle. The crops we use are not “regulated” and thus not subject to the rules of the U S D A. We do grow seed wheat and sell only to known good people and for cash only.
In fact none of my great uncles , 4 of them never had SS numbers, never paid income taxes, never had drivers lis. they did sell home made stuff from stills in Oklahoma and sold it to oil field roughnecks in Texas.
Lies kill souls, our souls are not for hire or sale.
Go, seek a safe place for your soul.
AP
You are part of an admirable community that would turn down corrupt money.
Please continue to inform blogs like this about the basic values that work well and the power of independence.
You are planting seeds and offering hope.
Agree w/Knute, fobdangerclose sounds like the kind of Americans I grew up with.
But that was outside the big city, and it was a different time. But there are still lots of real people still around, like this one (worth watching, really):
https://youtu.be/2kw2Xst5d5k
But now…
sun https://youtu.be/7QF05atqXNU
DB
Sunny TV
She’s actually pretty funny.
Dry wit w a bit of the faux twit repeating common lines of wrongheadedness.
George Carlin without the depression.
Thanks for the recommendation.
DB
Sorry, just saw the video of the farmer.
The link redirected me to Sunny first.
Salt of the earth type of guy. I’ll watch it whenever I lose confidence that normal people still exist. Behind every face is a story.
Great video.
Knute,
Glad you enjoyed them.
A “REAL” Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball on this “97% consensus” BULLSHIT says:
It is “COMPLETELY FALSE” and was “DELIBERATELY MANUFACTURED”!
“The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science” is a recently published book by Mr. Ball.
I guess the lying disinformationist and stupid SCUM of the earth Aaron Mair didn’t read the book!!!
I guess the lying disinformationist and stupid SCUM of the earth Aaron Mair didn’t read the book!!!
From his testimony, it appears that Mr. Mair doesn’t read much of anything.
Here is Mair’s target audience:
https://youtu.be/7QF05atqXNU
Spot on. The Sophomoric, uninformed idiots. Sweet girl tho.
And if things don’t work out for Mr. Mair at the Sierra Club, maybe he can enroll in the space program.
The site “EcoWatch” has just made an article about this, claiming that Ted Cruz was “bullying”. See here:
http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/07/ted-cruz-aaron-mair-climate-change/
I left the following comment on their post:
“BULLY? Are you serious? So using scientific fact to combat mindless, widely-debunked rhetoric is bullying? You’re joking, right?
If a skeptic had said that an activist was “bullying” him/her, it would be scoffed at. But when it’s vice versa, it’s justified? RIDICULOUS! The bias of “EcoWatch” is painfully obvious. Do you consider the 10:10 video (see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?… as a non-bullying tactic? If skeptics made a video like that, people would lose their minds! Oh, and the best part of all this? You complain about “bullying”, yet the title of the article calls Ted Cruz a “denier” (which comes from the term “Holocaust denier”). Hypocrisy is what this site specializes in, not science.”
____________________________________________________________________________________
Perhaps someone here on WUWT can make a post debunking EcoWatch’s bullying claim?
Ummm, okay I wrote a comment or two about this. Cruz was bullying him in the eyes of both the warmistas and fenceriders. The fenceriders view Cruz as an intellectual bully, smart, arrogant and a throat puncher. The warmistas are not the audience you are targeting anyway but you get to undermine them by targeting the fenceriders.
It’s called baiting the aggressor.
People don’t like conflict. Makes them have to chose to fight or flee. Sets off all kinds of hyperawareness moments and most of the times da peoples will side with the person who has been “attacked”. Didn’t use to be this bad, but culture has shifted and overt acts are frowned upon. You can half truth and weasel all you want but not throat punch. The phenom is called the feminization of warfare because of its subtle vs overt interactions.
Don’t shoot the messenger.
Cruz would have gotten more mileage out of the flashlight gee whiz technique. You play along, thank them for their passion and throw a bone for being half right then introduce how you feel, have felt and have found …. adding the facts the bull artists leaves out. Then you thank him for playing and congratulate the mutual dialogue.
You look good in the eyes of the fencesitter. You show yourself as reasonable and respectful annnnd get a chance to lay out the facts that were left out.
The fencesitter goes off to talk with their tribe and discusses that respectful gentle dude who made them think.
Again, I’m just telling you that these are some the new rules to the fantastical game of calling the BS.