His arrogance is only exceeded by his ignorance.
Liberty Quote
The difference between the two styles of debate, left-wing and right-wing, partly comes down to a differing view of civility, I think – for the right, civility is tolerating and even enjoying the bluster of one’s enemies. For the left, civility seems more to involve becoming offended on behalf of others.
— Timothy Train-
Recent Comments
- MatrixTransform on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Goanna on US post-election thread IX: We got so tired of winning that we stopped winning
- Winston Smith on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Goanna on US post-election thread IX: We got so tired of winning that we stopped winning
- Old Lefty on Bigotry
- Tom on Bigotry
- Winston Smith on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Clam Chowdah on Administration incites terrorist attack on Ohio cathedral
- Geriatric Mayfly on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Gibbo on Administration incites terrorist attack on Ohio cathedral
- Clam Chowdah on Administration incites terrorist attack on Ohio cathedral
- Leigh Lowe on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Old Lefty on Bigotry
- Salvatore, Social Distance Martyr on Bigotry
- Mullumhillbilly on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- m0nty on Bigotry
- Dr Faustus on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Armadillo on US post-election thread IX: We got so tired of winning that we stopped winning
- Some History on Administration incites terrorist attack on Ohio cathedral
- Dr Faustus on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Cassie of Sydney on Administration incites terrorist attack on Ohio cathedral
- Runnybum on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Robber Baron on Bigotry
- Lee on Bigotry
- calli on Administration incites terrorist attack on Ohio cathedral
- calli on Administration incites terrorist attack on Ohio cathedral
- Carpe Jugulum on Administration incites terrorist attack on Ohio cathedral
- Diogenes on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Cassie of Sydney on Bigotry
- Snoopy on Administration incites terrorist attack on Ohio cathedral
-
Recent Posts
- Administration incites terrorist attack on Ohio cathedral
- Bigotry
- It’s just the start with worse to come
- The Basement Insurrection
- Do the states have robust plans to pursue net zero?
- Unity: when leftists can hate and harm anybody unopposed
- The State vs. Pineapple
- 24 hours after Biden was sworn in as Confederate President…
- Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Music Maestro: January 22, 2021
- Vaping and combustible cigarettes are substitutes
- Not because she, say, allowed 820 people to die of coronavirus
- Jack Dorsey backs assassination of Donald Trump
- Biden restores re-education
- Australia will share the adverse economic fallout from Biden’s energy policies
- Denier gets cancelled
- 150 years on, Germany’s past shows fragility of freedom
- Mass arrests soon?
- CNN: Biden is pressing the nation to his healing groin
- We’ll just have to get used to the lies and the idiocy
- Cricket’s governing body drops ‘Australia Day’ from all promos
- Biden survivor speaks out
- Biden Inauguration Thread: January 21, 2021
- Meanwhile, in Russia…
- Cultural decline: Inaugural festivities then and now
- PDT farewell address
- 2020: Chuck Schumer urges mob to kill Supreme Court judges
- Incitement?
- 1776 Commission
- It’s Martin Luther King Jr Day in the United States
Archives
Pages
Blogroll
- 38 South
- ABC The Drum
- AEI Ideas
- Alex
- all right, all right
- Andrew Bolt
- Andrew McIntyre
- Andrew Norton – New
- Andrew Norton – Old
- Arnold Kling
- Aussie Macro Moments
- Becker – Posner
- Bill Mitchell – billy blog
- Bob McGee
- Cafe Hayek
- Calculated Risk
- Calling Bullshit
- Captain Capitalism
- Carpe Diem (New)
- Carpe Diem (Old)
- Causes of the crisis
- Chalk Bunny
- Charles Richardson
- Chicago University – Pro Market
- Chris Snowdon
- Club Troppo
- Confessions of a College Professor
- Consumer Choice Center
- Continental Telegraph
- Conversable Economist
- Coordination Problem
- Core Economics
- Cryptoeconomics
- Dan Wang
- Daniel Greenfield
- David Hart
- Diane Coyle
- Dick Puddlecote
- Econ Journal Watch
- EconAcademics
- Econbrowser
- EconLog
- Econofact
- Econometrics Beat
- Economic Education Initiative
- Essential Hayek
- Fama/French
- Fault Lines
- Fiscal Times
- Foundation for Economic Education
- Freedom and Prosperity Academy
- Greg Mankiw
- Grey Enlightenment
- Guido Fawkes
- Harry Clarke (Temporary)
- Head Rambles
- Homer Paxton
- How does your MP vote
- Institutional Economics
- International Liberty
- Islam and Liberty Network
- Jim Rose
- John Cochrane
- John Lott
- John Quiggin
- John Taylor
- Journal of Economic Perspectives
- Julie Borowski
- Keith Hennessey
- Legal Insurrection
- Liberty Law Blog
- Liberty Works
- Loaded Dogma
- Macrobusiness
- Mannkal Foundation
- Marginal Revolution
- Marius Kloppers
- Mark the Ballot
- Mark the Graph
- markedlymacrotoo
- Market Urbanism
- Master Resource
- Matt Ridley
- Menzies House
- Michael Oakeshott Association
- Michael Smith
- Michel Rauchs
- Miranda Devine
- Money Illusion
- MyGovCost
- Natural Order – Christopher Lingle
- New Economist
- Notes on Liberty
- Offsetting Behaviour
- Oliver Hartwich
- On Line Opinion
- Opinion Dominion
- Paul Johnson Archives
- Peter Fenwick
- Peter Martin
- Philippa Martyr
- Piled Higher and Deeper
- Pointman
- Political Calculations
- Potemkin's Village
- Poverty Cure
- Prick with a fork
- Principles of Forecasting
- Quadrant Online
- Queensland Economy Watch
- Quillette
- Raph Koster
- Reflections on Liberty and Power
- Retraction Watch
- Rhino economics
- ricardian ambivalence
- Robert Murphy
- Roger Kerr (archive)
- Rosemary Fryth
- Skepticlawyer
- Sound Money
- Spiked
- Sports Economist
- Statista
- Stop Gillard's Carbon Tax
- Streetwise Professor
- Stubborn Mule
- Taking Liberties (Simon Clark)
- Tax Foundation
- Tax Rambling
- TaxProf
- The Baseline Scenario
- The Black Steam Train
- The Marcus Review
- The Moronic Lodge
- The TaxPayers' Alliance
- The Visible Hand
- The Wentworth Report
- Think Markets
- Thomas the Think Engine
- Tim Blair
- Tim Worstall
- Truth on the Market
- Vox CEPR Policy Portal
- William Briggs – Statistician
Meta
Gold.
That sounds like it’s an Onion video and not a Senate hearing. Did the head of the Sierra club answer any relevant questions?
Cruz is excellent. The other guy is a putz and a liar who doesn’t even know his only and only subject
I’m liking a Trump Cruz ticket. Fiorina can be secretary of state.
The Earth is cooking up and heating and warming lol
What an idiot this is exactly what were dealing with its a religion. And we have a Prime Minister that believes in this shit and will sign us up to a useless treaty in December to give billions away to European carbon markets.
Shauno……..’give billions away to European carbon markets’……….and load the pockets of his mates with hefty commissions from those ‘trades’.
Wow! How cannot the most fanatical glowball waremenist not witness that and say to himself: “Well, it was nice while it lasted, but the scam is over”?
Shows you how “Stupid” these “Left Wing Looneys”really are.
Even the 97% number is bogus
Of course the ecoloons claim that Cruz was bullying their guy.
Wow, how embarrassment, thank you Steve for putting this up, though I really did find it hard to watch such arrogance and ignorance on display. Would Aaron Mair be regarded as a Global Warming pharisee or high priest of the religion of Gaia and is he authorised to sell ‘warmy indulgences’?
Just listened with the speaker on and my wife heard the whole thing. She used to wonder a bit why I was so bitter and twisted about these AGW dickheads, but she gets the point now. Great vid.
It sounded a bit like chickens coming home to roost!
Yep looks like you have to explain the really bogus 97% of scientists survey again simplistically and then get the people asking warmist questions if they know how this number was arrived at..
The fact is we are dealing with a belief system, one in which the advocates actually believe to be the case. It seems no different to having faith, and while scientifically the Sierra Club president seems to actually believe it, it is his lack of awareness that this belief could be wrong, based on the data, that is frightening.
It’s cognitive dissonance and the possessors of this absolute certainty in some or other dogma have always had the habit of killing or exterminating the causes of their emotional dissonance. Personally I would keep my head below the ramparts until this latest millennial manifestation passes. Battling the stupids on their own turf is not wise.
So even with irrefutable evidence to the contrary this High Priest to the Global Warming Racket would not reconsider the basis of is religion.
Amazing, isn’t it, how one senator can so easily make this liar look the complete fool, and the dickhead politicians will go on ever forward parroting the bullshit?
Ted Cruz knows his stuff, but can’t get past the religious zealotry of the Sierra Club President. I really hate that 97% bullshit. There are many articles on the internet that refute that number, but the guts of it is that a single researcher employed climate change activists to examine 12,000 scientific papers and count them if they agreed with AGW. Not only were there no acceptance / rejection criteria for the papers, but the whole religion is based on the views of “climate scientists”. How many climate scientists were there before 1970? Might as well do a study on the benefits of exercise amongst exercise physiologists, or on the importance of aboriginal culture amongst aboriginal historians.
Oh boy that Mr Mair is one big dumb bastard who looked as if he would prefer to be anywhere but in that room avoiding answering the questions.
I’m amazed that the 97% figure retains a zombie-like ability to appear in public without being nailed, once and for all.
What a farce.
Q. Despite that the data showing that you are up to your arse in alligators and indeed that your left leg has been torn off by an alligator, are you prepared to admit that your are in the swamp with alligators?
A. I support the 97% scientists that say world is warming.
Next question: With Cruz in a position of power, would he have the commitment to prosecute those who have fraudulently used federal funding to perpetuate a lie?
oh boy, painful to watch.
No he would morph into at best Tony Abbott at worst Malcolm Turnbull. No hope or change there
To take on your lead sentence, my favorite saying:
‘Ignorance plus arrogance, creates the perfect storm”
BG
This fuckwit is as bad as Suzuki when he had a Q&A to himself and did even know what the major temperature indices were.
Cruz says lying eyes, massive grants etc
I mean this fool is typical of alarmists; they are shitheads.
Delingpole –
You Don’t Have To Be Stupid, Dishonest And Semi-Literate To Be A Climate Scientist But …
“No (Cruz) would morph into at best Tony Abbott at worst Malcolm Turnbull.”
For any American looking to Cruz to be’the Messiah’ this will inevitably be the case given the the trail of disasters left behind by Obama’s administration, and those of his predecessors, and the kind of actions required to fix them in relatively short time (impossible, really).
But I think you’re being a little too cynical, Tinta, if I may say.
Cruz has demonstrated something no other candidate has, except perhaps for Trump. He’s perfectly cool with confronting many of fundamental problems afflicting his country – starting with the corruption of the “Washington Cartel”, which really is, I think, at the core of it.
Not even the other GOP “mavericks”, like Paul, Rubio, Trump and Fiorina, have been prepared to publicly call out their own party’s significant contribution to his nation’s demise.
Cruz is undoubtedly brilliant and seemingly fearless but I realise he won’t and can’t be a miracle worker, but personally I find him inspirational and by far the most principled and honest amongst the Republican bunch and light years ahead of the decrepit old socialists the Democrats have on offer.
Excruciating.
All contradictory evidence is clearly wrong and must be revised and massaged till it fits the political narative that capitalism is raping the planet.
When pointed to prehistorical periods that show significantly higher CO2 concentrations and an ice age the data must be wrong. When shown martian polar cars receding at the same time as earth’s polar caps the evidence is swept under the carpet. When shown evidence of no warming from satellite data, the evidence must be discarded.
A quote for the ages.
Not to mention early 1800’s higher CO2, 380-450 measured by chemical analysis.
97% of climate scientists say the chemists measurements must have been wrong.
When all else fails rewrite historical records.
I think the people who really believe this AGW scam are the useful idiots. The ones who go on pushing it, regardless of the facts, are either recipients of grants or they know (and approve) the agenda behind the scam – more power to international governing bodies. The ones behind that are the ones making the $$$money and grabbing the power.
And now we’ve got Mr. Turnbull, Greg Hunt and Julie Bishop for Paris. Poor us. Poor world.
John Cook at Queensland University devised the ‘analysis’ supporting the 97% consensus. Any close look at the methodology and inconsistencies employed will confirm it is a work of great folly, at best. Richard Tol has a series of excellent and very detailed posts deconstructing Cook’s work ( which even includes non peer reviewed papers from sociologists and psychologists who support AGW, purely speculative non hard science). Cook also created the alarmists favorite SkepticalScience website which devotes its energies to smearing the reputations of those who dare question any aspect of AGW.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/26/richard-tols-excellent-summary-of-the-flaws-in-cook-et-al-2013-the-infamous-97-consensus-paper/
Crikey, I nearly threw the laptop out the window! What a moron, but typical of the huge cohort of true believers.
You can make an Aaron Mair pause for thought, but you can’t make him think. For Mair there’s no thought of a pause. And that’s cause for thought.
It’s informative to consider the perspective of Eco-loons such as EcoWatch’s Cole Mellino:
By the way, Mellino claims to cite the NOAA as the source of his reduction of the global warming pause, when in fact he links to a Michael Mann opinion hosted on Mellino’s own EcoWatch blogsite.
Very little is certain in the climate debate. The one standout, however, is that anyone who quotes the “97% of scientists agree…” mantra in defence of an argument is a deliberate, dissembling liar.
No uncertainty. No exceptions.
Wowie.
That’s one big affirmative action Sierra Club appointee.
They’ll go back to merit next cycle, betcha.
The cost to Australian industry is certain.
What a great way to start my day! Priceless!
Insert the insipid and bog-ignorant Greg Hunt in place of Mair and you’d have a repeat of this parrot’s performance.
America would be in good stead with Senator Cruz. Not only can he debate, but knows what he talking about, more that can be said with our local politicians on this subject. I recall seeing a clip with him saying it only takes one finding with adverse results to disprove a theory irrespective of the many that support it; there have been so many with global warming I have given up count.
Did he really quote the “Union of Concerned Scientists” ???
Seriously??????
Anthony Watts has proved that all one needs to join that esteemed organization is a . . . . .
……..
credit card!
And you don’t even need to be human. His dog Kenji is a paid up member.
Cap & Trade.
Who knew doomsday could be capped, traded or taxed?
Ahahahahahahaha.
Destroyed.
What he was repeating with the 97% crap, is the modern equivalent of ‘I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me’
It was too sickening, I had to turn away.
Cruz has made his point, that video will no doubt pop up just as often as the Sierra Club prediction of all Arctic ice melting in 2013 by Paul Beckwith.
Learning from their mistakes is highly unlikely IMHO.
Mr Mair clearly states “… 97% have concurred and conclude that global warming is indeed a fact.” [07:10].
Which shows that he clearly has no idea where the “97%” bullshit came from. Some of the authors of the articles included in the “97% consensus” review by Cook have come out and stated that their article did not support AGW.
The “97%” was not a show of hands, nor a survey, nor a webpoll, etc. It was a conclusion drawn by one climate change alarmist based on 12,000 articles. I’m just going to refer to Dr Cook as Dr Wakefield II from now on.
Can we make sure Malcolm gets to see the video too!
Thanks for this Steve.
The Sierra Club, which came out of the “progressive” political movement in the US, has an interesting history of anti-humanism.
As far back as the 1890s they were opposing the construction of the dam which would eventually supply San Francisco with a reliable source of water, thus enabling it to expand into a modern city.
They must be one of the first examples of the Green movement.
Hi Ant yes that may be the case but it’s my default position these days having lived my life wishin’ ‘n’ hopin’ ‘n’ prayin’ for some good to be done for those who can’t raise a placard let alone a voice which they don’t have.
Yes wasn’t it Einstein who said exactly that when there were apparently 100 authors lined up against him? –
No wonder they call themselves “hipsters”. It’s a sugar-coated version of the scientifically correct term, “swampfilth”:
“debate is no longer necessary”
And true to form the guy refused debate and instead started chanting the discredited number of 97%. Why didn’t he just stuff his fingers in his ears and start yelling lalalalala
Lighter-skinned people would have been seen to be blushing.
Yes, you are right Tintarella, but it’s a good adage to borrow, pity more folk don’t understand its implications. If the experimental results do not support a hypothesis then it is invalid and must be scrapped or modified, but the AGW hypothesis rolls on irrespective since, apparently, 97% scientists agree that the science is settled. I believe Senator Cruz’s parents were both trained in science and were scientists, or taught it.
VIDEO: German couple new wave of political refugees – from eurosocialism
Why can’t a similar deer in the headlights moment be arranged for head of ACF here in Oz?
Oh that’s right the warmist temple of Parliament has been recently purged.
Wrong fred. My apologies.
It also shows we need to train every gun we’ve got on this 97% mumbo jumbo and utterly destroy it once and for all. It is utterly pervasive and been an astonishingly effective piece of propaganda for them but they are now completely reliant on it. It’s all they have got left.
Yes, it was good, wasn’t it, Mrs Do?
At least he has a deep resonant voice and can probably start up a Barry White tribute act once he has finished his current employment.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=NpPQBL7PNhs
Mr Barry White.
It has been, over and over. But the Soviet Union knew quite well that all you have to do is say the same thing repetitively and it will be ‘true’.
It was overtly produced by SkS’s John Cook of UQ, ex-cartoonist and now a climate science communication specialist (ie. a professional liar). Actual numbers are much much lower even with the extreme pressure on government academics to conform.
I’ve been demolishing Cook’s and the other SkS partisan writings for so long that I can’t recall any that have actually been scientifically correct.
Bruce I take your point but we have to find a way. Of course we are up against all the usual hurdles of a mainstream media determined to maintain it etc but there must be a way.
Kingsley – This one I saw today was fun:
Mark Ruffalo: Entire GOP Has ‘Turned Their Back on Science’
So the Incredible Hick has decided that half of the US are nutters. I wonder what he’d make of me, a conservative climate sceptical scientist.
I’d love to debate him!
Mark Ruffalo is an actor. He learns lines and plays let’s pretend I am a scientist.
His scientific credentials are zero.
What is the Sierra Club trying to achieve by asserting the certainty of catastrophist claims about AGW and its effects on minority communities to a US Senate subcommittee considering a bill to prohibit brand name drug companies from compensating generic drug companies to delay the entry of new general drugs onto the market?
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Greg Hunt knows he will be spared any such embarrassment. The IPCC is his magic mantra, data be damned. Nonetheless it would be interesting to know what data would cause him to reconsider his commitment to his anti-CO2 premiss. Surely he owes victims this much?
Despite all the “deer in the headlight” moments, particularly about the “pause” (when you’d think he might just be having a “Huh, could it possibly just be wrong after all” moment) he plows on with his stupid, utterly discredited 97% bulldust. He could not/would not even answer the simple yes/no question about the Sierra Clubs response in the event of being proven wrong by actual, real world data.
It seems some people are just too damned stupid to have cognitive moments, too stupid to recognise that there maybe something they don’t know or understand. The really frightening thing is that there are so many of these really stupid people in positions of power over us who are making decisions and commitments “on our behalf”.
Well, Cruz is very good and clearly made the point – two points actually – that this is all bullshit and that the grant vacuums have no intention whatsoever of paying skeptics the courtesy of even discussing it. It will be a cold day in hell before there will be any retraction. Cruz would make an excellent candidate. But the brain surgeon guy could possibly go one better and have all these cash hovers committed.
And another thing. Mari, or whatever his name is, used the term “cooking up”. Yeah, there’s been massive “cooking up” here.
That would have to be the theory that the furniture misbehaves when they’re not in the house. There’s hardly a soul who’d disagree with Bohr and Heisenberg on that score.
The planet is cooking up. Best be careful, lest your charred remains be later discovered baked into the concrete. This fellow is no doubt an affirmative action nominee.
The whole 97% of scientists claim is not only based on bogus research, it is simply an appeal to authority. In other words, ‘I can’t explain evidence that contradicts my view, so I will just fall back on claiming that most experts support my view’. You can’t just say ‘trust the experts’, the experts have to explain things.
100% of scientists believed in aether, phlogiston and chrysopoeia.
Sierra Club revenues are probably in the order of U$100 mill p.a. now.
And they are just one of a veritable army of green NGOs riding a tidal wave of trust fund donations, with the odd chugger ( charity mugger ) adding some small change along the way.
The trust funds of the US elites seem to do SFA for the actual poor ( Bill and Melinda Gates may be an exception ) and commit huge resources to shutting down industrial society. Tin foil hat stuff, but seems to be happening nonetheless.
And for a $100 mill pa organisation, the Sierra Club’s CEO is as dumb as a rock.
“Your special subject is knowing fuck all about climate science and global warming. Your two minutes start now…”
For once I agree with you. Science should be decided on evidence, mathematics, falsifiability and reproducability. An appeal to authority is a fallacy that should be lanced for the boil that it is.
The emperor is wearing a 97% fig leaf. It’d be great if some agency or individual like Judith Curry, or Jo Nova wrote a simple peer reviewed document clearly and concisely rebutting the ‘97% survey’ – just the science. Then got it propagated throughout the opinion leaders in the ‘sceptic’ community.
Trump’s success is built on cutting through this lefty bullshit, you get the feeling he enjoys it immensely. He and Cruz would be, maybe will be hard to toss, either in the Repub race or the main game.
From Dr Faustus at 9:09 am:
Look, really, to be fair that is precisely what I say when I receive emails from Lagos asking for my bank details so that they may deposit a hitherto unknown inheritance.
I mean, who am I to know that Obinnam Nwokolo Uchechhukwu and Partners is not one of Nigeria’s most prominent legal practices diligently going about the business of settling the estate of General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett KCB?
“Very little is certain …” – give ’em a sympathy-buck then Dr Faustus and see if you feel the same way in the morning.
Delightful contrast between one who thinks and one who is, well, since you ask, on the nose.
Rubbery Figures
Cook et al analyzed 11944 abstracts that were published and peer reviewed.
Positions taken on AGW:
Endorse AGW 32.6% (3896) 97.1
No AGW position 66.4% (7930)
Reject AGW 0.7% (78)
Uncertain on AGW 0.3% (40)
Total no. abstracts checked 11944.
67.3% of scientists’ abstracts reviewed showed no endorsement of Anthropic Global Warming.
Yet of the 32.6% that endorse AGW, only 97.1 % actually do. (!?!) How’zat for logic….”Not out,” says the umpire, “the hockey stick is still in play.”
Nevertheless, there is money to be made in them ET$$$$$, so, dumb denizens : “Repeat after me, 97% of scientists agree–except for the preponderance of evidence which you are not allowed to see.”
P.S. Matt Drudge is anti-Hillary and talking about dragging up lovers (not drag queens—e.g. Michael O’bama) and the lefties want him neutered. Take note Aaron Mair, Cruz looks like he just might get the preponderance of the say, if things go the right way….BTW, anybody see Greg….What?….Hunting with Jonathon Green….And Michael Kroger claims more people are joining the Liberals than are leaving.
Kingsley #1821126, posted on October 8, 2015 at 1:25 pm
To quote from a monthly media source:
Laughter: The Best Medicine
And he’s bloody lazy as well. Imagine the money he’s on, and he couldn’t be bothered getting across the company product.
Or too arrogant to care.
Giraffes?