Ted Cruz Slices and Dices President of Sierra Club

Share on GAB

ted-cruz-committeeDr. Ben Carson is well known for his surgical skill, but even he could not have held a candle to Ted Cruz on Tuesday as he totally dismantled Sierra Club President Aaron Mair.  Ted Cruz has handled cases before the Supreme Court and won.  On Tuesday, he gave a perfect example of how he did it.  Throughout his questioning of Mair, the Sierra Club stooge had to continually lean back in his chair and get talking points from his staff.

One of those talking points he kept alluding to was an alleged study that claimed 97% of all climate scientists agree that man made global warming (MMGW) is a major threat.  The problem is, that study was an utter sham.  Many of the articles they classified as supporting their theory were actually papers denying MMGW.  Papers written by noted scientists who oppose the theory of MMGW are categorized as if they were in support of the fanatics.  These include  Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin, all ardent skeptics.  Morner has proven that the seas are not rising.

The “study” was based on published articles and not the actual number of scientists.  As we all know, many publications refuse to print anything that opposes the view that lines the pockets of MMGW scientists feeding at the public trough.  Another main component of the (snicker snicker) study is they asked a question that really didn’t address the debate.  They asked if humans had any impact whatsoever on global warming.

The problem with that is every scientist believes there is impact of some sort but it’s the degree of that impact that’s important.  Let’s try a different question.  If it rains, will you get wet?  This question does not address how hard the rain is.  Skeptics would say yes because even a drizzle would get you wet.  The hoaxers could say it’s a monsoon and every person living within 100 miles of the coast will be swept away.  It’s important to understand the 97% myth to understand how thoroughly Ted Cruz crushed Mair.  Mair repeated the 97% report no less than 10 times.

Trending: ‘Fake History’ CNN uses blatant lie to help Democrats’ war against Electoral College

(CRUZ) “In your written testimony you said that the science behind climate change and its effect on minority communities ‘should not be up for debate.’ I’m curious. For the Sierra Club is this a frequent practice to declare areas of science not up for debate, not up for consideration of what the evidence and data show?” 

(MAIR) “If you are relying on the evidence and data, you know the science, the preponderance of the evidence are there.”

(CRUZ) “But that’s a different thing than saying we should not debate a question that the Sierra Club has declared this scientific issue resolved and there should be no debate.”

(MAIR) “Based upon the preponderance of the evidence the science is settled, but the thing is that anything is up for debate, Senator. We can debate.”

(CRUZ) “I would note that even the phrase ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ having been a practicing lawyer for many years means 51 percent…at least 51 percent is what the preponderance means. I would ask, for example, if you want to end debate, you don’t want to address the facts, how do you address the facts that in the last eighteen years the satellite data show no demonstrable warming whatsoever?” 

(MAIR) “Sir, I would rely upon the Union of Concerned Scientists, I would rely upon the evidence from our own NOAA officials; the data are there.”

(CRUZ) “Is it correct that the satellite data over the last eighteen years demonstrate no significant warming?” 

(MAIR) “No,”

(CRUZ) “How is it incorrect?”

(MAIR) “Based upon our experts, it’s been refuted long ago, “ Mair asserted confidently. “And it’s not up for scientific debate.”

(CRUZ) “I do find it highly interesting that the President of the Sierra Club, when asked when asked what the satellite data demonstrate about warming apparently is relying on staff. The nice thing about the satellite data is these are objective numbers.”

(MAIR) “Correct.” Mair answered.

(CRUZ) “Are you familiar with the phrase, ‘the pause’?” 

(MAIR) “The answer is yes, and essentially, we rest on our position,”

(CRUZ) “To what does the phrase ‘the pause’ refer?”

(MAIR) “Essentially it’s the slowing of global warming during the ‘40s, sir.”

(CRUZ) “During the 40s? Is it not the term that global warming alarmists have used to explain the inconvenient truth—to use a phrase popularized by former Vice President Al Gore—that the satellite date over the last eighteen years demonstrate no significant warming whatsoever? Global warming alarmists call that the pause because the computer models say there should be dramatic warming, and yet the actual satellites taking the measurements don’t show any significant warming.”

(MAIR) “But Senator, 97 percent of the scientists concur and agree that there is global warming. Anthropogenic impact with regards to global warming.”

(CRUZ) “The problem with that particular statistic, which gets cited a lot,” Cruz said, “is it’s based on one bogus study, and indeed your response…is quite striking. I asked about the science and the evidence, the actual data—we have satellites, they’re measuring temperature, that should be relevant—and your answer was ‘pay no attention to your lying eyes and the numbers that the satellites show; instead listen to the scientists who are receiving massive grants who tell us do not debate the science.”

(MAIR) “Sir, this is one of the national pastimes in America, and while we’re debating what 97 percent of the scientists have already settled, the 3 percent that, as I say, have invested in with regards to the carbon industry …you know, our planet is cooking and heating up and warming, so this is one of the reasons why…” )

(CRUZ) “It is the Sierra Club’s position that right now the earth is cooking up and heating and warming. Is that the Sierra Club’s position?”

(MAIR) “I’m saying I concur with 97 percent of the world’s scientists with regards to global warming and the anthropogenic effects of mankind with regards to climate.”

(CRUZ) “But sir, would you answer the question. Is it the Sierra Club’s position, as you just testified, that the earth is cooking up and heating and warming right now? Is that the Sierra Club’s position?”

(MAIR) “Global temperatures are on the rise, sir.”

(CRUZ) “I assume the Sierra Club would issue a public retraction if confronted with the facts that the data are precisely as I described that over the last eighteen years there has been no significant warming and indeed that is why global warming alarmists invented the term ‘the pause’ to explain what they call the pause in global warming because the data demonstrate what you just said—that the earth is cooking and warming—is not backed up by the data.”

(MAIR) “We are concurring with 97 percent of the scientists that absolutely say the opposite, sir,” Mair answered.

(CRUZ) “If the data are contrary to your testimony, would the Sierra Club issue a retraction?”

(MAIR) “Sir, we concur with the 97 percent scientific consensus with regards to global warming.”

(CRUZ) “I would like to repeat the question and get an answer, If the data are contrary to your testimony, would the Sierra Club issue a retraction?”

(MAIR)“We concur with 97 percent of the scientists, I believe, that the anthropogenic impacts of mankind with regards to global warming are true.”

(CRUZ) “So does that mean you’re not willing to answer the question?”

(MAIR) “We concur with the preponderance of the evidence and the science that 97 percent…. You’re asking me if we’ll take the 3 percent over the…”

(CRUZ) “I’m actually not asking about a survey among scientists, I’m asking about the objective data. The numbers.”

(MAIR) “The scientist groups rely upon their objective data and their analysis, and 97 percent have concurred and conclude that global warming is indeed a fact.”

(CRUZ) “Mr. Mair, I find it striking, that for a public policy organization that purports to exclusively focus on environmental issues that you’re 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 if you will persist in a political position regardless of what the science shows, regardless of the facts, regardless of the evidence, and regardless of the data. That is not consistent, I would suggest, with sound public policy.”

(MAIR) “Sir, you can pick whatever you choose, you can cherry pick whatever data you wish, but I concur with the 97 percent of scientists who concur that global warming is a fact.”

Watch the video here

H/T: The PC Graveyard


If you haven’t checked out and liked our Facebook page, please go here and do so.

Share on GAB


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.