Science Deniers, Flat Earthers and the Modern Galileo


“Ted Cruz DESTROYS Sierra Club President Over Global Warming”. So said the headline of one of the Internet spinfests making the rounds recently. Another said “Ted Cruz 1, Sierra Club 0”.  Or in the words of a blog writer for Michelle Malkin, whose problems with the real world we’ve discussed before, “Global Warming Causes Sierra Club President to Melt During Ted Cruz Questions About ‘Cooking’ Planet”.

Cruz’s own website even crows about his supposed triumph by posting links to gushing reports about the incident from the mainstream media and from right-wing propaganda outlets. (But I repeat myself.) All of which just goes to show that you can spin just about anything to your advantage if you have your skull inserted into your rectum far enough.

This take on events achieved search engine saturation — it was almost impossible to find an accurate account of the incident referred to, because the spinmeisters had piled up such a deep heap of rubbish to dig through. Unfortunately for them, they committed — as they often do — the fatal error of providing a link to a video that is supposed to buttress their cause, but in fact totally explodes it. (Compare, for example, the birthers who provided a link to a video which they claimed depicted an attorney for President Obama admitting that his birth certificate is forged.)

Suppose the spin were true. What if Cruz really had handed Sierra Club president Aaron Mair his testicles on a salver? What exactly would have been the significance? Damn little. Mair’s background is in sociology, history and political science, and he is by profession an epidemiological-spatial analyst, which is basically someone who studies the geographical distribution of disease. He does not claim to be an authority on climate science, which just might be why he accepts the research of those who are experts.

Cruz, however, is another matter. With a background in public policy, law and politics, he believes he does know more about climate science than those who study it for a living. He’s even dubbed climate science a “religion.” He knows that global warming is a hoax because it still snows in New Hampshire. No, really. In fact, he places himself in some rather elite company as a maverick scientific thinker:

Today, the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat-Earthers. It used to be [that] it is accepted scientific wisdom the Earth is flat, and this heretic named Galileo was branded a denier.

Aside from the fact that he is turning reality on its ear, fancying himself a modern Galileo and casting the scientific community in the role of a backward religious establishment, there is something staggeringly stupid about that utterance, even by Cruz’s usual standards. But we’ll return to that later. First let’s look at what actually happened at that hearing.

It helps to understand how hearings work in a GOP-controlled Congress. When Planned Parenthood was the target of a smear campaign by a group circulating deceptively edited videos, Congress went after (not the perpetrators of the fraud, but) Planned Parenthood’s CEO, Cecile Richards, whom they subjected to a very nasty, one-sided, accusatory inquisition.

When terrorists attacked an American consulate in Benghazi, Republicans went after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who coincidentally was the favored contender for the Democratic nomination for president — even though there’s really nothing to investigate, they’ve reportedly now investigated Benghazi more than they investigated 9-11, which occurred on American soil, had a much heavier toll, and actually involved an administration’s gross negligence. And many of us still remember the congressional shark orgy around Clinton’s husband over his sex life, a witch hunt mounted under the comically transparent pretext that it was somehow in the national interest.

So it shouldn’t come as a great shock that given the platform, someone like Ted Cruz would seize the opportunity to grill a Sierra Club representative in an attempt to vindicate his own ineptitude. And while Aaron Mair was not as well prepared for the vicious onslaught as were Richards or Clinton or Clinton (this one was, after all, unscheduled), he was equally firm and patient — I’m not sure that he rolled his eyes even once.

The “platform” was a hearing on government regulation. But at one point Mair observed:

That people of color and low-income communities are disproportionately impacted by pollution, and climate disruption should not be up for debate any more so than the science behind climate change itself.

Well sir, Cruz saw his opportunity, so he pounced.

I’m curious: Is the Sierra Club, is this a frequent practice to declare areas of science not up for debate, not up for consideration of what the evidence and data show?

Among other things, this is a false attribution. It isn’t the Sierra Club that declares “areas of science not up for debate”. It’s scientists themselves. As Mair repeats far too many times (but what else can you say to such Cruzian nonsense on the spot — he had a better response later), the organization stands behind the consensus of 97 percent of scientists. At one point, however, he did refer to the “preponderance of evidence”, which gave Cruz another golden opportunity, noting that as a lawyer he learned that it only took a certainty of 51 percent to establish a preponderance.

I don’t know what kind of lawyer Cruz was, but surely he is not so inept a mathematician as to confuse 51 with 97. If only one scientist says something, or only one percent of scientists say something, by all means you can take it with a grain of salt. If 51 percent of scientists say something, you can consider it a matter of legitimate debate. If 97 percent say something, you’d do well to start paying attention.

Actually, Mair was wrong. He was citing a commonly quoted figure when he said that 97 percent of scientists concur with the global warming scenario, but this figure is off. The actual percentage is more than 99.99 percent. Yet Cruz still knows better.  And he has a simple explanation for why virtually all the scientists are wrong: those scientists only say what they do because they receive “massive grants”.  The “grant” card is a standard component of the anti-sciencer’s toolkit; if all else fails, just suggest that giving scientists money hopelessly corrupts them — unless of course that money comes from a petroleum company, and then the research is above question.

The implication is that nearly all scientists, even the best and brightest, can be bought. If that were true, it’s hard to imagine that science would have made anywhere near the progress it has — we might well be still in the bone knives and bearskins stage.

I’m curious, Senator Cruz: would you prefer that scientific research be carried out by shoe salesmen in their basements on weekends — or by individuals wealthy enough to fund their own research? Just how big does a grant need to be to qualify as “massive”? Should it be in the neighborhood of, say, the 15 million you received from major polluters this year?

Cruz asks whether it’s true that there has been no warming trend for the past 18 years. Mair responds, simply but accurately, that no, it isn’t true. Cruz presses on, laying a trap by asking whether Mair knows what “the pause” refers to. Mair fails the test. So what? “The pause” is a statistical burp that absolutely does NOT show a cessation of global warming. Cruz believes it does. So which of them is more ignorant?

In short, it’s true that Aaron Mair wasn’t stellar in defending himself at his de facto trial; but however bad he may have looked, Ted Cruz definitely looked much worse. And it was entirely his own doing. That tends to happen whenever a pompous individual poses as more knowledgeable about a field than the collective experts in that field — unless of course the individual in question really is a Galileo.

Which brings us back to that little statement Cruz made above. Let’s look at it again. Sorry, but it’s just too good to use only once.

Today, the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat-Earthers. It used to be [that] it is accepted scientific wisdom the Earth is flat, and this heretic named Galileo was branded a denier.

As you probably realize, the clash between Galileo and the church had nothing to do with the shape of the earth. It occurred because Galileo had stated the earth revolved around the sun, while church officials insisted that the earth (and they themselves) were at the center of the universe. They were dead wrong about that, but they at least knew the earth was round — as virtually everyone else did.

Today, the term flat earther is applied figuratively to a person who clings obstinately to a narrow-minded belief that is contradicted by the evidence — like, oh, certain senators from Texas. But once upon a time, many people literally believed that before modern times, people literally believed the earth was flat. Not only is Cruz buying into this myth, he is quite ignorant about a key event in the history of science and the iconic conflict involving the scientific genius whose shoes he presumes to fill.

Did we mention that this character is chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness? Did we mention that he wants to be president of the United States?



  1. Good article POP,

    It is very presumptuous and grandiose for someone like Ted Cruz to assume that he knows more about global warming and climate science than do dozens of Nobel Laureates and PhDs. And I love your way of emphasizing this fact, when you pose the question, would Senator Cruz “prefer that scientific research be carried out by shoe salesmen in their basements on weekends?” Or, “by individuals wealthy enough to fund their own research?” The rationale behind the absurd accusation that tens of thousands of scientists around the world would be willing to totally distort scientific research just to obtain a lucrative research grant, is especially absurd, and is head bangingly stupid. Good touch to ask if only those wealthy enough to fund their own research should do research, since it points to the fact that quality research often requires large amounts of money to acquire the proper equipment and area to do their research in, and also the funding to compensate academics who must give up teaching and lecture time to participate in any given research. To believe these kinds of petty motivations are behind the actions of climate scientist who desire to do global warming research, is a slap in the face of every scientist who is dedicated to the acquisition of various kinds of knowledge—knowledge which could then, make many of our daily chores and physical health issues all the more comfortable and enjoyable—is really obscene. No one can claim that any individual scientist who is not impervious to the practical need and desire to make a living, would NOT want sufficient amounts of money to back their research—even it it has to come from his/her own coffer! From what I know about their passionate desires to accumulate knowledge, I believe that most scientists would accept any intriguing form of research anyway–even If their own incomes had to somehow be instrumental in financing that research. in reality, Most scientists are more like kids in a candy shop than cleverly disguised criminals robbing a bank!

    It’s also quite frightening to know that so many key positions on congressional committees are filled by Republicans who seem to truly believe that global warming is not a problem—or at least is nothing to worry about. Do educated Congressmen and women really swallow such tripe, or do hey know very well, exactly what they are doing?

    I think I have to point out one thing though—I believe there was a time (several of them) during human history, when many people truly believed that the Earth was flat—If one didn’t know anything about how the earth rotates or revolves around the sun, it would be sort of a common sense perception that, what we see as a largely flat surface extending in all directions to the horizon, is a fundamental indication that the Earth must be flat, (which is the same limited argument behind denying global warming)—because it still snows in New Hampshire? However, during Greek civilization and others over the millenniums, many scholars and ordinary people did begin to understand that we live on the surface of a roughly spherical orbiting body. So yes, it has been known that our Earthly sphere revolves around the sun rather than, (as direct observation would seem to suggest), be typify a stationary body, which the other planets and stars all revolve around. And certainly if Galileo were alive today, he would soon begin to hurl chunks after seeing how a bunch of religious fundamentalists, wanting to control every aspect of our society, have bastardized the knowledge that took so long to gather through his use of the scientific method.

    We seem to live in a time when the strategy of social manipulators seems to be one of creating doubt about every fact, and also, doubt about the proper use of critical reasoning when examining those supposed facts.

    When it comes to multi-billion money making corporations though, do you think they might possibly be motivated to deny AGW science, while maintaining a nihilistic attitude towards any knowledge which might contradict their dogma, Whooda thunk it?—oil–money—Oil–extreme wealth for corporate CEOs—continued obscene profits–turning our backs on nature and science! That can’t be!—wouldn’t an one prefer substantive research funding, or lucrative a five figure salary. (ANYDAY)?

  2. As is my habit I occasionally re-read some of your old articles and make further comments about them. In this one you are right about virtually all the facts and figures you present, however the idea that 99.9% or 100% of climate scientists agree that human caused global warming, is based on the results of a study you can find at this webpage:

    When it comes to the near 100% or at 100% figures those are based on a study that compared the level of expertise and knowledge of very well educated scientists like PhDs, or Masters in Climate Science, which includes knowledge from a related number of scientific fields–such as archaeology, Physics, chemistry or geology for instance, who have verified that the more knowledgeable the scientists, the more near a perfect 100% consensus is cited. Here are some excerpt from the link above;

    “Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.”

    “But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.”

    “So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other’s work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted – and relied upon.”

    “In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them.”

    “Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:”

    “1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.”

    “2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.”

    So you are right to say that scientists who have published peer reviewed studies of man’s role in global warming know more about human caused climate change than scientists as a whole. But the 97% figure is still used to indicate what percentage of scientist (knowledgeable in the Earth Sciences) accept the existence of human caused global warming. However, those in say, meteorology, Aquatic biology, chemistry, or geology alone, for example, may not agree with the number of highly educated Climate scientist who have been studying AGW for many decades, and who amount to a consensus of (nearly 100%), or actually (100%) itself.

    Maybe I am splitting hairs here, but I just thought you might want to include that fact that–where published Earth scientists are concerned, the number is still nearer to 97%. While, among those with great expertise and education, very near all of them, affirm a virtually 100% consensus supporting man’s role in causing AGW.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s