Is “climate change” real? If it is, are human beings to blame?
The truth is that we may never know for sure. The “science” behind the “climate change” crusade has been irreparably tainted. What we do know is that despite the “the sky is falling” rhetoric that has emanated from the left in recent years, the Earth has not actually warmed in nearly two decades.
However, for those who believe in such fairy tales as man-made “climate change,” the belief in global warming or global cooling is a form of faith; the proof isn’t actually there, but one can feel that global warming is real.
Faith is a wonderful thing and many on the right sincerely wish the left would be more dedicated to faith. However, science is not the place to have faith; it’s a subject that demands we yield to reason.
2016 Republican presidential contender Ted Cruz has been vocal about calling-out the snakeoil salesmen of the environmental crusaders. Recently, he confronted Sierra Club President Aaron Mair regarding “climate change.”
During a Senate hearing last week, Mair claimed that “our planet is cooking and heating up and warming.” Cruz questioned why the Sierra Club had declared that such an assertion was, as the organization stated, “not up for debate.”
Sen. Cruz noted that satellite data did not show a warming trend for 18 years. He asked Mair if he was confronted with such data, would he be willing to retract his position that the Earth was “cooking.”
“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, a shrewd legal mind, was not satisfied with the dodging.
“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?”
“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.
After battling with Mair for a few moments, Sen. Cruz highlighted the ridiculousness of the organization’s position.
“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.”
It’s true; Mr. Mair’s testimony appears to be more dogma recitation than an explanation of supposed scientific fact.
The left often eyes “big oil” suspiciously. It’s not hard to understand why. “Big oil” is interested in profit and “profit” has become a dirty word in this quasi-socialist country.
However, while the left may despise “big oil” for their tactics, they never appear to find fault with “green” industries that fund research that, unsurprisingly, substantiates their claims regarding “climate change.”
To offer an analogy, the tobacco companies used to employ this very trick: fund massive amounts of “research” into the effects of tobacco usage and then rely-upon this bought-and-paid-for “science” to substantiate their claims.
It doesn’t take a scientist to understand that mankind should not burn through natural resources at an unsustainable rate and pollute with reckless disregard for the future. However, the same left that applies a watchful eye to “big oil” should eye “green technologies” with the same amount of skepticism; when billions of dollars are at stake, let’s not pretend that environmental altruism is the motivating factor for development of new technologies and let’s not be so naïve as to believe the “science” that has been purchased by those seeking legitimacy.