Cruz was playing with words. Fact that you don't recognise how he's playing it, and what an azz he is, speaks a fair bit about your biases.
From what I observed, the majority of his questions were quite succinct, requiring only binary responses!
The questions themselves, when considered in totality, made the purpose, for which they were designed, quite apparent to the attentive listener.
In relation to your comments about bias, I make no claims to an absence of bias, on my own part, or on the part of any other individual.
Can you honestly claim to be free from bias in your discussions of this topic?
So Teddy read the statement that says: The science behind climate change and its affect on minorities should not be up for debate.
Then he practically spent the entirety of that clip focusing on the Sierra Club's shutting down debate; what is "preponderance"; is it a habit for the SC to shut down debate and freedom like that; is it scientific. blah blah...
By what right, can the Sierra Club, expect such exemptions when campaigning for reforms that will impact society?
in other words, Cruz is saying that he's a man of science; himself being a lawyer; himself loves freedom and no such thing "not up for debate" because debating is awesome, it brought science and stuff to light.
What a douche.
What?!!
Were we watching the same video clip?!!
Senator Cruz freely confessed to having a legal background!
The main focus on the SC's statement should have been: Its impact on minorities, you know, poor people.
How does CC affect the poor/minorities?
When your crop dies, you and your poor peasant family will starve;
When a cyclone or a heatwave or a hurricane or a flood passes outside your shed or your caravan, you will either lose everything, or die, or get sick, go homeless and die.
Only an idiot like Cruz would not recognise the impact of CC on the poor. Just imagine it; or watch the news. The poor cannot afford to run away into a hotel for a few days; The poor and the working class with one property that is their home will lose all their savings and life's work when "natural" disaster hit.
One's faith in sensationalised media headlines, renowned for failing when subjected to, even the most cursory, of fact checks, does not automatically entitle one to decry one's opponents as idiots!
I believe that it would be far safer, to be an idiotic media sceptic, than it would, to be an idiotic media devotee!
Pretty obvious. Or do we need to put it on a bell curve, debate its normal distribution and see what percentage of probability of random blah blah.
Now you got to ask yourself... why is a douche like Cruz get to become a US Senator. Through honesty, brilliant scientific and scholarly mind; through caring for the peasants... or he's one of those who will sell out his own mother if the price is right.
--------------
I do not claim to know the motivation/s behind Senator Cruz's aspiration to his current position. I am neither, here to condemn, nor defend him.
What I do claim to know, is that the questions raised by Senator Cruz, presented a credible challenge to CAGW subscription, by the Sierra Club. Furthermore, several of their dismissive non-responses, exposed the Sierra Club's lack of regard for objective scientific data.
Repeating an old point here but being a Climate Sceptic bring with it a crap load of responsibilities.
To borrow Teddy's legal analogy, you sceptics better prove beyond reasonable doubt that CC is a hoax; that human does not cause it and cannot do anything to avoid it. That onus is on you and you better use science and such voodoos to prove your case.
Why?
Because if you're wrong and the world's climate goes to heck as just about every Climate Scientists says it will... millions and millions of people will die; species goes extinct.
i.e. you can't say "oppps".
The climate alarmists, however, can be wrong and the world will still be a better place.
The sad thing about all this is, you seem to actually believe the things you are saying!
To highlight a very serious defect in your logic, I draw your attention to the fact that there exist, many, many, religions, complete with obligatory practices, for which the purportedly beneficial claims are, as yet, unproven.
Would it be reasonable and/or practicable, to be expected to accept obligations, imposed by respective religious authorities, for their associated practices, based solely upon one's inability to disprove the altruistic assertions?
I trust that the above parallel, highlights that the burden of proof truly belongs to those seeking to impose change on the general populace!!
(Otherwise, I see no reason, for you not to be, queuing for the confessional in the near future!!)