Posted on 10/06/2015 6:44:09 PM PDT by sheikdetailfeather
This is excellent. Ted Cruz masterfully debates Sierra Club President, Aaron Mair, on Climate Change, asking him about the objective data that shows no significant warming trend in the last 18 years. But Mair only wanted to focus on a study that he agrees with, that says 97 percent of scientists say the earth is cooking or something and claims the science is settled and no longer up for debate. It was pathetic.
Cruz took him apart, exposing the fact that he doesn’t know what the heck he’s talking about, and then schooled a Democrat who objected.
Watch:
(Excerpt) Read more at therightscoop.com ...
AHA the race angle
that May Well Be... the only reason he IS the President of the Bravo Sierra Club...
it worked..fairly well for Obie and company....
how bizarre
.
My apologies if that is so.
.
He’s Muslim. Maybe he was practicing global warming taqiyah.
Wow!
Falling back on appeal to authority, and elephant hurling!
Laughable.
The President of the Sierra Club is not a climate scientist of any kind and, so, has no particular expertise on climate change. He merely quotes what he says is the consensus. He should have said that, as far as he is concerned, this is an assumption, and that he’s not the right person to speak to the assumption. Rather, his testimony is of the probable impact of that assumption.
With regard to the pause, the argument is that the heat being captured by greenhouse gases is being transmitted to the oceans. This is an ex post rationalization of the pause. Nobody predicted this 20 years ago. Rather, the climate alarmists were predicting continually rising surface and atmospheric temperature. How the heat is transferred has yet to be explained. (Apparently, the President of the Sierra Club wasn’t aware of this or was being coy in saying that the earth was still warming.)
Regarding a pause during the 1940s, global temperature has been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age (indeed, the recovery of temperature defines the end of the Little Ice Age). But the process has involved a series of pauses. The was indeed a pause during the 1940s and we are currently in another one. There were other pauses prior to the 1940s. The physics-based model of greenhouse gas heat capture doesn’t explain these pauses. Nor why the earth entered the Little Ice Age or exited prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution. Indeed, for a time, the climate alarmists denied the existence of the Little Ice Age. Perhaps some mechanism could be worked into the greenhouse gas model. Perhaps the heat is transferred into the oceans until a circuit breaker snaps and then the earth resumes warming. But, until models are developed that have predictive power, they’re only ex post rationalizations.
A much simpler explanation of what is going on is related to the wobble in the earth’s orbit. Given that the earth has an active core, it is quite possible the wobble causes times of release of heat as well as all sorts of gases and particulate matter from the core and from the crust. This argues that the heat emanates from the core, and the oceans are being directly heated by underwater vulcanism.
This alternative theory doesn’t obviate concern for the possible additional impact on global warming by the release of carbon dioxide through human activity. If we can figure out how natural variation and anthropomorphic whatever interact, we might develop a power tool for moderating fluctuations in the earth’s temperature due to natural variation.
Just like the advance of science might enable us to save the planet from the next killer asteroid, by detecting and then deflecting the asteroid, the advance of science might enable us to prevent the next Ice Age. But, the politicalization of climate change makes rationale discussion impossible.
97% = like 78 out of 81 selected scientists. It’s definitely
NOT 97% of thousands of scientists. The 97
% number is a SCAM, just like CAGW.
Well, the 97% has been thoroughly discredited.... If Cruz knew the background of where this came from, it would have been great and made for slightly more entertainment that what the exchange already was. But Cruz is a politician, not a scientist and for somebody who is not focussed day after day strictly on science issues, he did quite well.
97% = like 78 out of 81 selected scientists.
now that I can BUY!!!
his patience and even mannered sense of humor..in the heat of battle was very refreshing!
That’s because software engineers aren’t real engineers.
Uh, perhaps you might use Superlative as the adjective for Debater instead of Master. Master Debater still brings a certain connotation to mind, at least for me : )
There’s a saying among lawyers. When the facts aren’t in your favor, rely on experts.
.
>> “t was not that great when Cruz did not ask why do scientist believe something and cannot prove it” <<
.
Is that what your mommie said?
.
no. i don’t know what a ‘mommie’ is. it’s what i posted. if he is so great why does he not nail the so called science on words used like belief and voting in the realm of science. make the guy go back to the handlers each time just rephrase the question. these are very well known complaints against “agw” or “acg” ie. anthropomorphic.
And personally my comments to you: ad hominem attacks are usually reserved for leftist defenses.
here is a link to what that is: it’s wiki but might be close to true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Affirmative Action has hit the Sierra Club too.
Who writes the textbooks? Who gives the grades? Who gives the grants? That’s the answer. It’s pretty simple.
and he should have asked the sierra club dude to explain to the world how just 0.0037% of our atmosphere can possibly capture enough heat and back radiate it to cause global climate change- Ask the fella how it is that CO2 ALWAYS rises hundreds of years AFTER temperatures rise, and point him to the new evidence that proves that the 97% ‘consensus’ of scientists either bought into an intentional blatant lie and coverup, or were duped into it as one scientist just came out with stunning news that their models are ‘miscalculated’ not once but twice
There’s a LOT of damning evidence which puts the lie ot ‘man-caused climate change’ But the biggest evidence is the fact that the CO2 amount in the atmosphere, caused by man, comprises just 0.0037% of the atmosphere- the second most damning evidence against the lie that CO2 is causing climate change is that the whole amount of co2 in atmosphere- 0.04% is NOT nearly enough to cause ANY change because it means that 99.96% of the atmosphere has NO CO2 in it- there simply is NOT enough CO2 in the atmosphere to capture enough heat to back radiate it to cause ANY change in climate whatsoever
Scientists should be shamed of themselves for even suggesting that it can- and they should be shamed into admitting it when asked to explain how such a small amount could- and when they can’t explain it, look them right in their eye and call them what they are - LIARS
Stop it.
You're the one who first used the appeal to authority. So when I do it, you complain.
Laughable indeed.
And go back and listen to the context of what the Sierra Club President said. He wasn't referring to the technical definition of the word data.
No it's because your response isn't a real response.
LOL.
97% of the 32% that believed the Earth is Warming also believe it is due to Human Activity. Actual figure = 31.05%.
Math is hard. Just ask Obama.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.