We Don’t Need No Stinking Data!!
October 8, 2015
By Paul Homewood
h/t Andyg55
Data? What does that have to do with it?
Watch the Sierra Club President deny the satellite temperatures!
23 Comments
Comments are closed.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments
bnice2000 on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh… bnice2000 on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh… bnice2000 on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh… bnice2000 on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh… bnice2000 on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh… Hivemind on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh… oldbrew on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh… Gamecock on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh… glenartney on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh… julianflood on Climate Professor Thinks We Sh…
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Also at.
Steynonline.com
Brilliant!
That really was an embarrassingly poor performance by the Sierra Club President.
How to make yourself look like a complete idiot in less than 10 minutes. Well done Sierra Club
Thank God there are people like Mr Cruz who have the position, knowledge and forensic ability to expose these fraudsters
That was great! Ted Cruz was excellent and Mairs looked like a total chop with his 97% and cherry picking nonsense. I had thought it was only the small time nitwits you encounter over at the Guardian or Huffpo that talked like that. If that is a heavyweight of the AGW band then surely they cannot prevail.
It does now beg the question though, why are we finding it so hard to make headway against these lunatics? That thing in Paris is being played up by so much of the media with endless weather reports and “we’re all gonna die” stories and most people haven’t got the time to learn more about this political science.
When he turned around to consult with a flunkie and retorted with ‘it refers to the pause in the 1940’s’. Hilarious, pathetic and a complete humiliation.
I thought that the phrase about cherry-picking opened the way for a proper lawyer to ask him if his embarrassing reference to a widely discredited number wasn’t in fact a distressingly unfortunate cherry for he himself to have picked?
please spread this out to every one you know
Why indeed let the facts get in the way!!!!
Refusing to acknowledge the ‘pause’ refers to the present 18 plus years lack of warming is both an insult to people’s intelligence and the actual satellite data. (which they haven’t shown to be incorrect) Quite jaw-droppingly astounding.
A quite priceless, forensic, demolition job, 11/10 to Ted Cruz. This deserves to ‘go viral’, doesn’t it.
I howled my way through this when I was not crying over the demise of science and truth. However, it gets even better or worse. Talk about rigged “science.” Yesterday Mark Steyn subbed for Rush and spoke of this in regards to the Ted Cruz “beautiful” take-down of the Sierra Club’s Maier. Mark is being sued by Michael Mann for criticizing Michael Mann’s hockey stick fiasco and became an “expert” on this sorry subject. Mark’s book is “A Disgrace to the Profession.” He told how the 97% came to be. One, Margaret Zimmerman, sent out a 2-question survey in 2008 to 10,257 scientists and 3,146 responded. Around 50% did not give the desired answer and so were thrown out. She finally winnowed it down to 79 individuals and further refining led to 77 of whom 75 gave the “correct” answer, leaving 2 out. So, boys and girls, that is how the 97% comes about. If this is science, I’ll eat my dissertation (300 pp.). In searching for the lovely Margaret, I found the source for Mark Steyn’s facts from his book. It is a place I see used here from time to time.
Sorry, I misspelled Mr. Mairs’ name. My eyes were full of tears from laughing/crying.
The Doran and Zimmerman questions were
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
The answer to the second question could be based on a belief in say 10% of the total warming. It asks nothing about a non-trivial relationship, with potentially huge adverse consequences. Even less does it say anything about having effective policy to mitigate those potentially huge adverse consequences. Even if that were asked, the opinions of climatologists would not be based on academic expertise, as they have no expertise in the area of public policy making.
+1.
Two deliberately soft questions designed to engineer the desired result, since parroted ad infinitum by lazy politicians, utterly impartial activists and partisan journalists. Classic lies, damned lies and statistics.
A little further digging into who is Aaron Mair, president of Sierra Club since May 2015.
He is an epidemiological-spatial analyst for the NY State Dept. of Health–whatever that is. Now for his sterling credentials to opine, on behalf of the Sierra Club, as to things “scientific.”
Mr. Mair has a BA of Arts in History and Sociology and a certificate in Southwest Asia and North Africa Studies from Binghamton University. He also trained at RI’s Naval Educational and Training Center and attended The American University in Cairo. To what effect, I ask? He participated in Binghamton University’s Political Science Doctoral Program, but left the program (means he did not get a degree).
Texas Senator Ted Cruz, an attorney, steeped in and trained in conservatism from an early age, ate his lunch.
Thank you for video confirmation the Sierra Club I once supported is now part of the lock-step, consensus deceit used to control the public with unfounded FEARS!
H-fusion generates only 35% of the Sun’s energy. The other 65% is produced by neutron-emission from the solar core followed by neutron decay to hydrogen, as explained in more detail in a recent paper, “Solar energy” (17 March 2015):
Click to access Solar_Energy.pdf
The precise experimental data and observations summarized there are inconsistent with conclusions of the winners of the 2015 Nobel Prize Award in Physics. Attempts to shield Nobel Prize winners from questions are – in my opinion – inconsistent with the basic principles of science.
http://acsh.org/2015/10/defending-deserved-nobel-winners-from-baseless-attacks/
Result:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/mark-group-and-climate-energy-two-clean-energy-firms-go-bust-because-of-tory-u-turn-a6686321.html
Typical stonewalling the Warmist Cult is allowed to continue with the help of the MSM. The narrative is sacrosanct and the truth immaterial. More proof that AGW has nothing to do with temperature and everything to do with hidden agenda.
Unbelievable- and to think this numpty is actually President of the Sierra Club.
One shudders to think of the intellectual capacity of the rank and file.
A lot of us were fooled by Stalin’s use of idealistic causes, like “Save the Whales”, “Flower Power”, “Better Red Than Dead”, “Concerned Scientists”, “Sierra Club”, “Occupy Wall Street”, etc. to destroy the United States.
Hell he’ll believe anything Obama wants him to believe
Class find