Below is an interesting video showing Senator Ted Cruz attempting to question Sierra Club President Aaron Mair about anthropogenic global warming. As one might expect, Cruz takes the “it ain’t happening” side, while Mair takes the “it’s happening” side. But regardless of what side you come down on (I happen to find Cruz’s faith in “The Pause” to be scientifically dubious, since it appears that the thermal energy dumped into the system has been flushed to the ocean depths, and that *wouldn’t* show up on satellite data until some time later when the oceans stir a bit) Mair comes off as someone who is far more faith-based than science-based. For example, Cruz repeatedly asked Mair if the Sierra Club would issue a retraction of their “it’s happening” stance if the data showed that it wasn’t… and Mair effectively refused to answer. This is the antithesis of the scientific method. When the data shows that your theory is wrong… change the theory, don’t ignore the data.
Once again I declare that the United States Federal Government needs to enact “scientific legislation.” By that I don’t mean that laws need to be drafted by scientists (political or otherwise), but that each law should come equipped with a series of predictions and tests. If Law X is supposed to reduce the crime rate, then those drafting it should include predictions such as “the crime rate will drop to X per 100,000 in five years, Y per 100,000 in 10 years,” along with *negative* predictions such as “the cost of enforcement will not exceed Z billion dollars.” If the drafters of the law include crazy predictions, the predictions will fail… and the law will be automatically withdrawn after a set period. If the drafters include really weak predictions, so that it stands a better chance of not failing the tests, the other lawmakers will be forced to ask “what’s the point if the claimed benefits are so small?”