Must see it to believe it

His arrogance is only exceeded by his ignorance.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy. Bookmark the permalink.

82 Responses to Must see it to believe it

  1. classical_hero

    That sounds like it’s an Onion video and not a Senate hearing. Did the head of the Sierra club answer any relevant questions?

  2. notafan

    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.

  3. Shauno

    The Earth is cooking up and heating and warming lol

  4. Shauno

    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.

  5. Barry J

    Shauno……..’give billions away to European carbon markets’……….and load the pockets of his mates with hefty commissions from those ‘trades’.

  6. Tom

    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”?

  7. clive

    Shows you how “Stupid” these “Left Wing Looneys”really are.

  8. Derp

    Even the 97% number is bogus

  9. Tintarella di Luna

    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’?

  10. Jannie

    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.

  11. Eddystone

    It sounded a bit like chickens coming home to roost!

  12. tiger

    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..

  13. Louis Hissink

    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.

  14. Ant

    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?

  15. Sydney Boy

    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.

  16. Robbo

    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.

  17. blogstrop

    I’m amazed that the 97% figure retains a zombie-like ability to appear in public without being nailed, once and for all.

  18. incoherent rambler

    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?

  19. adrian

    oh boy, painful to watch.

  20. Tintarella di Luna

    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?

    No he would morph into at best Tony Abbott at worst Malcolm Turnbull. No hope or change there

  21. To take on your lead sentence, my favorite saying:

    ‘Ignorance plus arrogance, creates the perfect storm”

    BG

  22. cohenite

    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.

  23. Ant

    “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.

  24. Zippy The Younger

    The fact is we are dealing with a belief system, one in which the advocates actually believe to be the case.

    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.

  25. Rabz

    Science is never “settled,” and certainly not on the basis of predictive models. And any scientist who says it is is no longer a scientist.

    A quote for the ages.

  26. incoherent rambler

    When pointed to prehistorical periods that show significantly higher CO2 concentrations

    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.

  27. Ellen of Tasmania

    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.

  28. 3d1k

    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/

  29. Biota

    Crikey, I nearly threw the laptop out the window! What a moron, but typical of the huge cohort of true believers.

  30. Leo G

    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:

    It’s painful to watch this Senate hearing as Senator and GOP presidential hopeful Ted Cruz (R-TX) repeatedly pushes Sierra Club President Aaron Mair on climate change. Cruz relies on classic denier arguments, saying satellite data shows the Earth isn’t warming and that there has been a “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming, which NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has refuted.
    Despite Cruz’s boorish and arrogant questioning, Mair maintains the Sierra Club’s straightforward position that they “concur with 97 percent of the scientists” who say that climate change is happening.
    After Cruz and Mair go back and forth for nearly 10 minutes—neither one yielding—Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) finally interjects that the hearing was supposed to be about federal regulations and their impact on minority communities, and yet Cruz chose to spend the time arguing over whether climate change exists.

    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.

  31. Dr Faustus

    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.

  32. Alfonso

    Wowie.
    That’s one big affirmative action Sierra Club appointee.
    They’ll go back to merit next cycle, betcha.

  33. incoherent rambler

    Very little is certain in the climate debate.

    The cost to Australian industry is certain.

  34. Ms Dolittle

    What a great way to start my day! Priceless!

  35. James of the Glen

    Insert the insipid and bog-ignorant Greg Hunt in place of Mair and you’d have a repeat of this parrot’s performance.

  36. Robert O

    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.

  37. Brendan

    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.

  38. handjive

    Cap & Trade.

    Who knew doomsday could be capped, traded or taxed?

  39. C.L.

    Ahahahahahahaha.

    Destroyed.

  40. What ever it takes

    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’

  41. Tel

    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.

    They’ll go back to merit next cycle, betcha.

    Learning from their mistakes is highly unlikely IMHO.

  42. Sydney Boy

    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.

  43. EJ

    Can we make sure Malcolm gets to see the video too!

  44. Roger

    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.

  45. Tintarella di Luna

    But I think you’re being a little too cynical, Tinta, if I may say.

    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.

  46. Tintarella di Luna

    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.

    Yes wasn’t it Einstein who said exactly that when there were apparently 100 authors lined up against him? –

  47. Tom

    No wonder they call themselves “hipsters”. It’s a sugar-coated version of the scientifically correct term, “swampfilth”:

    I think there is a way to measure not just the hipster influence on a city but to also to identify each city’s hipster hotspot. What part of Melbourne for example sits at the centre of the hipster subculture? One way to find out is to plot the location of hipster cafes, but this is an arbitrary approach. The mere presence of a cafe doesn’t deliver gravitas; hipsters clearly prefer some cafes over others.

    A better approach is to plot the location of cafes as voted by hipster patrons as the being the best of the best. The Zomato restaurant search engine and rating service provides not just information about different restaurants and cafes it also provides a way of identifying the hipster hotspots.

    Restaurant and cafe patrons rate a facility using a system of up to five stars with five being the best. By screening this search engine for cafes in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, and excluding results for any establishment with fewer than 500 votes (to ensure critical mass of coverage), those with four-or-more stars can be presented as being the best of the best as voted by patrons.

    Here is an up-to-date real time way of calibrating which cafes (as opposed to restaurants) local patrons (eg hipsters) regard as best in class. Hipsters’ rating of cafes is a good indication of the collective thinking of this entire subculture. And the results are devastatingly accurate in defining the boundaries of the closed hipster world.

    In Melbourne there are 12 cafes each rated by no less than 500 patrons as being worthy of more than four out of five stars. These cafes fall within a 1km radius of the intersection of Smith and Johnston Streets in Collingwood. The highest rated cafe, Bluebird Espresso with 4.6 stars is located in Johnston Street close the geographic entry of Melbourne’s Hipsterville. It’s almost as if at the very heart of hipster hot spots lies the most highly rated cafe. Indeed it could be said that hipster civilisation diminishes with distance from Bluebird Espresso.

    In Sydney it’s a remarkably similar story. The same methodology places Surry Hills and perhaps parts of Redfern as that city’s joint hipster hotspot. There are in fact 12 highly rated hipster cafes within a 1km radius of a few streets in Surry Hills. Bizarrely the head office for The Australian newspaper in Holt Street sits at the apex of the highest-rated hipster enclave. The No 1-rated cafe in Sydney according to more than 500 patrons is Café Cre Asion.

    In Brisbane hipsterville is located adjacent to the CBD in New Farm. There are seven highly rated hipster cafes within a 1km radius of the centre of New Farm. The highest rated cafe, Chouquette Patisserie with 4.6 stars, is located close to the geographic centre of Brisbane’s biggest hipster hotspot.

    My conclusion is that hipsters and hipsterism is a quite separate and distinct tribe; they don’t like integrating with the rest of us; hipsters attract like-minded people. Hipsters and their cafes cling together perhaps drawing inspiration or perhaps a sense of security from critical mass. If you are marketing apartment product to hipsters make sure the site is located within the hipster heartland.

  48. Cannibal

    “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.

  49. Robert O

    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.

  50. Cannibal

    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.

  51. Tom

    Tom
    #1821053, posted on October 8, 2015 at 12:10 pm

    Wrong fred. My apologies.

  52. Kingsley

    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.

  53. What a great way to start my day! Priceless!

    Yes, it was good, wasn’t it, Mrs Do?

  54. Zyconoclast

    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.

  55. Bruce of Newcastle

    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 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.

  56. Kingsley

    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.

  57. Bruce of Newcastle

    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!

  58. A Lurker

    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.

    Mark Ruffalo is an actor. He learns lines and plays let’s pretend I am a scientist.
    His scientific credentials are zero.

  59. Leo G

    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?

  60. Peredur

    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?

  61. Bushkid

    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”.

  62. And Another Thing

    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.

  63. And Another Thing

    And another thing. Mari, or whatever his name is, used the term “cooking up”. Yeah, there’s been massive “cooking up” here.

  64. Leo G

    “You’ve had a whole political party turn their back on the science that 97 percent of the world has accepted.” – Mark Ruffalo

    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.

  65. Monkey's Uncle

    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.

  66. Monkey's Uncle

    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.

  67. .

    100% of scientists believed in aether, phlogiston and chrysopoeia.

  68. Myrddin Seren

    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.

  69. motherhubbard'sdog

    “Your special subject is knowing fuck all about climate science and global warming. Your two minutes start now…”

  70. rich

    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.

    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.

  71. outsider

    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.

  72. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    From Dr Faustus at 9:09 am:

    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.”

    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.

  73. Austin Mangosteen

    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.

  74. JohnA

    Kingsley #1821126, posted on October 8, 2015 at 1:25 pm

    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.

    To quote from a monthly media source:
    Laughter: The Best Medicine

  75. And for a $100 mill pa organisation, the Sierra Club’s CEO is as dumb as a rock.

    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.

  76. Dr Faustus

    “Very little is certain …” – give ‘em a sympathy-buck then Dr Faustus and see if you feel the same way in the morning.

    Giraffes?

Comments are closed.