The Sierra Club is a leftwing environmentalist organization that seeks to bring down the coal industry and replace it with the green industry. As such, they are staunch believers in manmade global warming. Like other global warming alarmists, they hide behind the “97% of scientists” mantra in order to justify their belief system.
Recently, Senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz asked Sierra Club president Aaron Mair some very basic questions about manmade global warming, which Mair didn’t know how to answer.
Mainly, Cruz wanted to know if the Sierra Club would change their beliefs about manmade global warming if they were shown facts that disproved it. Cruz didn’t get an answer. Just the usual, “we concur with what 97% of scientists say.”
The Blaze recounted part of their exchange:
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.
Cruz wasn’t satisfied.
“So if the data are contrary to your testimony, would the Sierra Club issue a retraction?” the Texas senator asked.
“Sir, we concur with the 97 percent scientific consensus with regards to global warming,” Mair answered.
“I’d like to repeat the question and get an answer,” Cruz quipped back. “If the data are contrary to your testimony, would the Sierra Club issue a retraction?”
Mair still did not answer the question.
“We concur with 97 percent of the scientists that believe the anthropogenic impact of mankind with regards to global warming are true,” the Sierra Club president said.
“So does that mean you are not willing to answer the question?” Cruz asked.
“We concur with the preponderance of the evidence — you’re asking me if we’ll take 3 percent over the 97 percent? Of course not,” Mair said.
Of course he’s afraid to answer. This isn’t about science. It’s purely politics that comes across as some kind of cult. What kind of “scientist” or “science-believer” would hold fast to his belief in something even when he was confronted with counter evidence? That’s essentially what Mair was saying. He would refuse to relinquish his position on manmade global warming even when presented with evidence to the contrary. That is the very definition of being anti-science.
When liberals throw out terms like “science-denier,” that’s nothing more than projection on their part. They’re the ones who are guilty of denying the scientific process. In reality, our understanding of science is ever-changing. That means that everything is always up for debate. Denying that is denying science.
And what about this 97% mantra that they always fall back on? Writing for Financial Post a couple years ago, Andrew Montford reported in a post titled “Meaningless Consensus on Climate Change”:
The earliest paper in this series, by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the University of Illinois, reported the results of an opinion poll of climate scientists that Zimmerman had prepared for her MSc thesis. The headline conclusion – that 97% of climatologists thought that mankind was having a significant impact on the climate – was widely reported at the time.
However, although the survey was sent to over 10,000 scientists, there were actually only 79 responses from climatologists, so the 97% figure represented just 75 individuals. And what was not reported in the paper or in any of the ensuing publicity was that many participants were appalled by the survey and recorded their feelings at the time, calling it simplistic and biased, and suggesting that it was an attempt to provide support for a predetermined view.
A second paper, by William Anderegg and colleagues, took a rather different approach, dividing scientists into those who were “convinced” and “unconvinced” by the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and then assessing their relative numbers and their scientific credentials. It was observed at the time that the authors appeared to be trying to create a handy blacklist of scientists non gratae, and so their conclusions – that 97% of scientists were “convinced” and that their expertise was greater than that of their “unconvinced” colleagues – were unsurprising.
Here’s Cruz’s exchange with Mair: