Ted Cruz To Sierra Club Head: What Would It Take To Change Your Mind On ‘Climate Change’?

This exchange is very illuminating when it comes to the Cult of Climastrology

(The Blaze) Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) repeatedly grilled Sierra Club President Aaron Mair Tuesday, asking whether his organization would issue a formal retraction if evidence contrary to his global warming testimony were provided to the environmental group.

Mair had testified during a Senate hearing that “our planet is cooking and heating up and warming.”

Cruz, who said that recent satellite data did not show a warming trend, asked Mair whether he would retract his statement if the data were given to him.

“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?” Cruz asked.

“Global temperatures are on the rise sir,” Mair replied.

“And I assume that the Sierra Club would issue a public retraction if confronted with the facts?” Cruz asked. “That the data are precisely as I described. That over the last 18 years there has been no significant warming. And indeed that is why global alarmists invented the term ‘the pause’ to explain what they call the pause in global arming because the data demonstrate what you just said that the Earth is cooking and warming is not backed up by the data.”

“We are concurring with 97 percent of the scientists that say the exact opposite, sir,” Mair replied.

As you can see in the video, and read at the link, Senator Cruz continued to ask questions to elicit any response in which Mr. Mair would repudiated his beliefs in anthropogenic climate change if provided with proof that ACC is a bunch of mule fritters. Mair would not say it. Cruz ended with

“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,” Cruz said. “That undermines the credibility of any organization.”

That’s ‘climate change’ belief in a nutshell: there is nothing that will convince 97% of Warmists that they’re beliefs are wrong. If, as some scientists suggest, the Earth goes into a slight cooling phase, similar to the 40’s through 70’s (which resulted in news magazines wondering if the Earth was headed for a new ice age), members of the Cult of Climastrology will have plenty of excuses, while at the same time blaming Mankind for the cooling while still claiming that destructive warming is coming soon. If the Earth went into an typical Holocene cool period, ala the Little Ice Age, or even a new glacial period, they would do the same.

Nothing will ever change their minds because this is not about science, but political belief.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

22 Responses to “Ted Cruz To Sierra Club Head: What Would It Take To Change Your Mind On ‘Climate Change’?”

  1. acethepug says:

    Political belief that, to the Left, is treated like religion (ironically, the Left MOCKS religion, except for the one system that will kill you for speaking out against it).

    Basically, the Left treats the climate issue with Faith, belief absent proof. The problem for them is, there IS proof, and it all proves their little modern day Indulgences Scheme a sham.

    Religion requires faith, since there is no objective proof to support it (indeed, that is the POINT of faith). But the same Left who laughs at Catholicism and Judaism treats the climate issue like a Golden Calf.

    It would be laughable if it didn’t directly impact the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

  2. John says:

    You think Cruz would dare treat the US Navy like that?
    Or the Pope?
    Russia wants a hotter world why do you want to help Russia?

  3. Phil Taylor says:

    Thank you for posting this link. If you notice it only goes to 2010. It shows a very slight warming of a couple of 100th’s of a degree.
    Satelitte data after 2010 shows less warming or slight cooling depending on the years you choose. El Nino years raise the overall average. Choosing years between El Nino years lower the overal adverage.

    RSS from 2010 to 2015 Trend: -0.168 ±0.934 °C/decade (2σ) (cooler)
    Uah Trend: -0.025 ±0.917 °C/decade (2σ) (cooler)

    If you go from 1985 or so when satelittes were first introduced you get:

    RSS Trend: 0.131 ±0.084 °C/decade (2σ)
    Uah Trend: 0.163 ±0.083 °C/decade (2σ)

    HOWEVER if you go from 1998 the warmest year on record according to satelites. (NOAA claims 2014) you get:
    RSS Trend: -0.029 ±0.181 °C/decade (2σ) Cooling,
    UAH Trend: 0.076 ±0.185 °C/decade (2σ) stagnant or warming,

    THE TEMPERATURE HAS NEVER BEEN HIGHER SINCE 1998. (17 YEARS!)

    See for yourself by going to Trend calculator at https://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php and add the years and land/based or satelitte data.
    IT’S FUN.

  4. bob smetters says:

    If Ted were shown evidence contrary to his statements on evolution and a whole lot of other things, would he retract them?

  5. Phil Taylor says:

    >If Ted were shown evidence contrary to his statements on evolution and a whole lot of other things, would he retract them?
    Good question.The answer is no. Why? …because he is religious. Religious people are faith based.

  6. Jeffery says:

    Phil,

    We’ve discussed this so many times. Plotting from peak to peak in a series, for example from 1998 to now, rather than looking at the overall trend is “cherry-picking”. It would be as if I picked 2000 to start my series and claimed that the Earth warmed 0.4C from 2000 to 2010, according to RSS.

    Cruz is playing semantic games to further his own career. “If the satellite measurement shows no warming since 1998 are you ready to admit there’s no warming???” The correct scientific answer is “no”. Why? Because the RSS is not the only dataset. All the others show continued warming. Arctic sea ice and the major ice sheets are melting. Sea level is increasing. Cruz is playing games.

    If you ask a professional Denier like Cruz, “Senator, if the overwhelming evidence supporting climate change itself doesn’t convince you, if the fact that 99% of climate scientists recognize the reality of AGW doesn’t at least make you doubt your Denialism a little, what would convince you of the reality of man-made global warming, Senator? You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

  7. Zachriel says:

    Phil Taylor: If you go from 1985 or so when satelittes were first introduced you get:

    That’s right. If you look at all the satellite data, you see a warming trend. You will also note that surface data closely tracks the satellite data.

  8. Phil Taylor says:

    Yes we have gone over this many times. The temperature goes in cycles.

    You cherry pick as much as I. Since 1998 the highest year recorded there has been little to know warming. Now we have been in a cooling trend these last several years. Since satelites, the temperature has changed very very little. Not as predicted by Climate change models. Satellite trumps ALL other data. The rest is incomplete.

    >2000 to start my series and claimed that the Earth warmed 0.4C from 2000 to 2010, according to RSS.
    Yes that is correct, but the difference is that 1998 is the HIGHEST temperature and therefore the temperature should climb from there. But it has not. This is obvious to anyone you does not support AGW.

    If someone claims that gold is at an all time high you look at the last highest price to see if it is higher or not. Not other times when it was lower.

    1998 temps are higher than now. Even 2014 temps according to NOAA is only about the same.

    > Arctic sea ice and the major ice sheets are melting. Sea level is increasing.
    This is NOT true and you know it. Your rational mind does at least. Arctic ice is currently growing. Yes it was melting. Now it is not. it is not as high as it was before but it is moving that way currently toward 1979 levels that was when the last cooling cycle ended.

    According to climate models it should be continuing to melt. Same goes for Antarctica. Only Greenland is currently melting and no doubt the trend wil reverse as well with time.

    There is no proof 97 percent of scientists support this. This is conjecture, and the 97 percent stat is bogus. no noe knows the actual number. All climatologists should take a vote, but that never will happen. Why? You yourself could not name three.

    > Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
    Shaming like this is the words of faith based minds when confronted by reality.
    They should have said “what is the temperature now and what was it 20 years ago. But they do not know it. They just believewhat they want to believe.”

    Regardless, with all you have learned on AGW, do you really think that the minute rate of warming as YOU contend is causing storms, doughts, floods hurricanes. Species extinctions etc . Really?..Do you really think that? Others I understand. They are the victems of propaganda. You know better than them. You are aware of the facts as well as I, and you are trying to contend that the minor differences in temperatures is signifiant. Why? Do you think taking money from those that earned it and giving it to people that have not will solve this problem?
    Are you willing to pay fines for not meeting C02 reduction quotas knowing full well that those quotas are impossible to measure?
    Really? They why not now. Send Sierra Club 1000.00. That should help. I’m feeling cooler already.

  9. Phil Taylor says:

    From an earlier post by Michael (LibertyCommand.org)

    In 2013, Arctic sea ice coverage was up 50 percent from 2012 levels. Data from Europe’s Cryosat spacecraft showed that Arctic sea ice coverage was nearly 2,100 cubic miles by the end of 2013’s melting season, up from about 1,400 cubic miles during the same time in 2012.
    The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by NASA. These reveal that on August 25, 2014, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15% ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometers.
    This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006, and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometers over 2013-2014 – an impressive 43%.
    Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30% ice cover, these reveal a 63% rise – from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometers.

  10. Zachriel says:

    Phil Taylor: You cherry pick as much as I.

    We provided the entire satellite record, which clearly shows a warming trend.

    Phil Taylor: represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometers over 2013-2014 – an impressive 43%.

    You have a very odd way of reading trends.
    https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

    “For years we have been told the Earth is melting like a popcycle, and that humanity will would soon be boiled alive in a rising sea. Well, today that lie stands exposed with evidence that any child can understand. I give you frozen water, falling from the sky.”
    http://www.cc.com/video-clips/18l8gy/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-unusually-large-snowstorm

  11. Phil Taylor says:

    > You cherry pick as much as I
    Yes that coment was intended forJeffery as we have discussed this topic at length.

    The classic theory of how the earth warms and cools before the theory of AGW was that the earth warms and cools in 20 to 30 year cycles.
    1948 to 1979 was a cooling cycle and 1979 to 1998 was a warming cycle. 1998 till 2010 or so was a stagnate cycle now turning into a cooling cycle.
    The world has been slightly warming since measurement began in 1860. This makes sense as we are exiting the last ice age. However, it was warming BEFORE C02 started to rise in 1945. Natural varables caused the world to warm then. It makes sense that it is continuing to do so now, but it also makes sense that this happens in cycles. It appears we are in a cooling trend at the moment. Yes 5 years is a short trend but time will tell if the trend continues. Sadly 2015 will be an El Nino year which will add to the confusion.
    AGW was formulated in the 1990’s during a particulately warm decade. Climate models in the 1990’s based on AGW predicted much more dramatic warming than actually occurred. It appears that the atmosphere is not as sensitive to C02 as was previously thought or predicted.
    However since AGW was highjacked to promote a political agenda then facts, or data just get in the way. That is why Ted Cruz a politian is debating Sierra Club an advocacy group. Politics not Science is the agenda here. The former head of IPCC was not even a scientist,
    The question is do you want to pay for it. I’m all for R&D into green energy. Not cap in trade or carbon tax.

  12. jl says:

    Wow, was this Sierra Club guy clueless. “Yes, but the 97%, the 97%….”

  13. Jeffery says:

    Every database but the RSS satellite shows warming. Even the UAH satellite shows warming. Why do the self-proclaimed skeptics (more accurately described as Deniers), such as Cruz, only believe in the RSS data?

    Many claim that the heavily adjusted satellite estimates are “better” than surface thermometers, but can never support their beliefs with evidence. (Monckton wrote that satellites have

    Why do the UAH satellite calculated values show warming, similar to the surface measurements, but the RSS satellite calculated values do not?

    If satellites measurements are superior, shouldn’t they match?

    N.B. – Recent papers put the percentage of climate papers supportive of AGW at over 99%.

    Cruz the candidate was not debating, he was badgering. He was appealing directly to his low information followers.

  14. Blick says:

    The Sierra Club President based his case on the 97% scientists expert opinion (hearsay) and not the evidence/data. He denied that he would examine the data. He needs a better lawyer. The Sierra Club has not been scientific for decades; they are tree hugging litigators.

  15. Phil Taylor says:

    >Every database but the RSS satellite shows warming.
    Insignificant warming. And only if you go back long enough. The current trend is cooling.
    >Even the UAH satellite shows warming.
    Put in 1998 to 2016 and tell me it shows warming greater than 1998. Put in 2010 the last el nino year till 2016 and you get cooling.
    >heavily adjusted satellite estimates? Really. I have heard of NOAA fudged data from warmers as well as skeptics. Not heavily adjusted satellite estimates. NASA considers satellite superior as it is more complete otherwise why use them?
    >Why do the UAH satellite calculated values show warming, similar to the surface measurements, but the RSS satellite calculated values do not?
    Good question. Why not fact check or should we blindly accept it to be false. That is a red flag for you and it should be. We both know that UAH was giving false readings recently until corrected. Warmers complained that RSS was wrong because it was older. it turned out to be UAH. Good thing they questioned the results. RSS, so far has proven the most accurate of them all.
    >If satellites measurements are superior, shouldn’t they match?
    Maybe they should. We should investigate, or should we just take their word for it.
    >Recent papers put the percentage of climate papers supportive of AGW at over 99%.
    Really? I know many publications will not publish anti-supportive AGW papers. Skeptics have complained about this for years.
    Popular mechanics will not even publish letters to the editors becuae many corrections embarrased their writers.
    Regardless, if you think your data to be correct, do you really think that the minute rate of warming as YOU contend is causing storms, doughts, floods hurricanes. Species extinctions etc? Can you name three Pro AGW climatolists?
    >Cruz the candidate was not debating, he was badgering.
    He did a good job. He showed that the head of the Sierra Club knew absolutley nothing about AGW. But that did not stop him from advocating it.
    People will be siting him as an authoritative opinion because of his position. He chose to believe the media because AGW supports his worldview. He keeps citing the 97% but we both know he could not name even one of them.
    When someone is avocating that you give them or someone else tax payer money based on climate change should not a politican question the legitimacy of that. Sierra Club President Aaron Mair showed that he is a victim of propaganda. He hears from the media not from scientists directly.

  16. Phil Taylor says:

    >http://www.cc.com/video-clips/18l8gy/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-unusually-large-snowstorm
    Sadly I cannot watch this video in my Canada. i will try to get it another way. I am in the states next week and will watch it then.

  17. Zachriel says:

    Phil Taylor: Natural varables caused the world to warm then. It makes sense that it is continuing to do so now, but it also makes sense that this happens in cycles.

    As climatologists have discovered, there are many drivers of climate change, including solar irradiance, volcanism, orbital variations, composition of the atmosphere, continental drift, mountain building, variations in sea currents, changes in greenhouse gases, even cometary impacts. Natural variability is certainly part of the picture, but does not explain the current warming trend.

    Phil Taylor: 2015 will be an El Nino year which will add to the confusion.

    If it were strictly due to natural variability, then we would expect this El Niño to be a typical. Instead, 2014 was the warmest year in the instrumental record, and 2015 is expected to be warmer still.

    Phil Taylor: AGW was formulated in the 1990’s during a particulately warm decade.

    Close. It was in the 1890s with the work of Svante Arrhenius, who showed that changes in atmospheric CO2 would affect surface temperature. His calculation of climate sensitivity was close to the modern value.

    Phil Taylor: It appears that the atmosphere is not as sensitive to C02 as was previously thought or predicted.

    A variety of measures show that climate sensitivity is likely between 2-4°C.

    Volcanic forcing
    Wigley et al., Effect of climate sensitivity on the response to volcanic forcing, Journal of Geophysical Research 2005.

    Earth Radiation Budget Experiment
    Forster & Gregory, The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data, Journal of Climate 2006.

    Paleoclimatic constraints
    Schmittner et al., Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum, Science 2011.

    Bayesian probability
    Annan & Hargreaves, On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity, Climate Change 2008.

    Review paper
    Knutti & Hegerl, The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes, Nature Geoscience 2008.

  18. Phil Taylor says:

    >It was in the 1890s with the work of Svante Arrhenius, who showed that changes in atmospheric CO2 would affect surface temperature. His calculation of climate sensitivity was close to the modern value.

    Yes this is true but his theory was dismissed at the time because it was assumed that the ocean would absorb all the extra Co2 and the result would be a wash. Then his theory regained popularity in the 90’s when scientists at the Goddard institute tried to explain the particularly warm 1990’s decade championed by james Goddard. Then the theory became a political one when it reinforced anti-western worldviews.

    >Instead, 2014 was the warmest year in the instrumental record, and 2015 is expected to be warmer still. (according to NOAA)
    Not according to UAH or RSS. 1998 still holds the record with 2010 a close second, Still we are talking 100’s of a degree here.

  19. Zachriel says:

    Phil Taylor: Then his theory regained popularity in the 90’s when scientists at the Goddard institute tried to explain the particularly warm 1990’s decade championed by james Goddard.

    Greenhouse warming is basic physics.

    The trend in the satellite record is quite clear, and is supported by land temperature records, as well as stratospheric cooling.

  20. Phil Taylor says:

    >Greenhouse warming is basic physics.
    Yes but the atmosphere is not as sensitive as we thought as a result of other factors.

    >The trend in the satellite record is quite clear, and is supported by land temperature records, as well as stratospheric cooling.
    Fractions of a degree. Nothing to be alarmed about. Technology is moving away from fossil fuels and will find alternatives long before warming becomes an issue if ever it does which I doubt.
    The solution of the IPCC and others is wealth redistribution (which should be a red flag) over development of green energy.

    The doomsday number used to be 4c then dropped to 2c when we were not getting there fast enough for political agendas.
    On the other hand, the doomsday PPM was 350, then when we got there quicker than anticipated it was revised to 400PPM. Now there have been mentions of revising again to 450PPM because there currently is no doomsday.

  21. Zachriel says:

    Phil Taylor: Yes but the atmosphere is not as sensitive as we thought as a result of other factors.

    Estimates by a variety of means find a value of 2-4°C per doubling of CO2.

    Phil Taylor: Fractions of a degree.

    That’s a lot of energy, which is unevenly distributed, resulting in climate disruption.

    Phil Taylor: Technology is moving away from fossil fuels and will find alternatives

    Sure. Every major country, and many prominent technologists and scientists have been working on the problem for quite some time.

    Phil Taylor: long before warming becomes an issue

    It’s already becoming an issue.

    Phil Taylor: On the other hand, the doomsday PPM was 350, then when we got there quicker than anticipated it was revised to 400PPM.

    People like round numbers and goals. However, it’s a continuum. Unfortunately, the effects are quite delayed from the cause, so it’s important to take action before the effects are already dire.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5692 access attempts in the last 7 days.