Skip to comments.
Ted Cruz Destroys Sierra Club President’s Global Warming Claims in Senate Hearing
Breitbart.com ^
| 7 Oct 2015
| Michael Patrick Leahy
Posted on 10/08/2015 6:32:22 AM PDT by Rockitz
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 last
To: Rockitz
I wish Cruz would have backed up to one higher level and asked this bozo, “Just in general, not referring to AGW, but just in general, would the Sierra Club issue a retraction on a position erroneously taken on any matter, based on evidence provided that is contrary to that erroneous position?”
The answer MUST be yes. Then come back at him.
41
posted on
10/08/2015 8:02:56 AM PDT
by
SgtHooper
(Anyone who remembers the 60's, wasn't there!)
To: Rockitz
Im proud to be in the 3%, but then Im only an engineer...John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel is an ardent critic of this hokum. The left and GW whackos won't even talk to him, because his arguements are so plausible, they would stammer trying to dispute.
42
posted on
10/08/2015 8:06:53 AM PDT
by
catfish1957
(I display the Confederate Battle Flag with pride in honor of my brave ancestors who fought w/ valor)
To: lonevoice
Must see video of Senator Cruz.
To: smartyaz
Steyn, sitting in for Limbaugh, said that looking at the demographics of the 79 “scientists” that were included in the poll, more were from California than were from Europe, Asia and Africa, combined. Who knew there were so few “scientists” in Europe, Asia and Africa?
44
posted on
10/08/2015 8:18:13 AM PDT
by
Turbo Pig
(...to close with and destroy the enemy...)
To: Rockitz
Ted knew he would get nothing but the standard line from this guy but did a masterful job of exposing him as the pawn he is.
BTW 97% of statisticians agree that the 97% cited by this guy is fraudulent manipulated data.
To: biff
While watching the video, I was waiting for Ted to say something like, “Look. Let’s just take a hypothetical for a moment here. Let’s say, what *IF*. What *IF* it were true that the data showed no warming for 18 years? Would sierra Club change its position? Essentially, would *any* fact change Sierra Club’s position?”
46
posted on
10/08/2015 8:21:39 AM PDT
by
pjd
To: Zack Attack
47
posted on
10/08/2015 8:31:47 AM PDT
by
yadent
To: Sacajaweau
Merit > affirmative action
Every time
48
posted on
10/08/2015 8:41:55 AM PDT
by
A_Former_Democrat
(Eliminate "Sanctuary Cities" and "birthright citizenship" and other immigration scams)
To: A_Former_Democrat
49
posted on
10/08/2015 8:51:48 AM PDT
by
smartyaz
To: laotzu
thank you, entertainment for lunch hour
50
posted on
10/08/2015 9:06:30 AM PDT
by
Made In The USA
(Rap music: Soundtrack of the retarded.)
To: Rockitz
Im proud to be in the 3%, but then Im only an engineer...
Engineers don't count, they look at the data...:^)
51
posted on
10/08/2015 9:11:03 AM PDT
by
az_gila
To: KC_Lion
52
posted on
10/08/2015 9:26:31 AM PDT
by
Army Air Corps
(Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
To: Rockitz
Mair is a total idiot. That the SC eould make him their prezzy is hilarious.
53
posted on
10/08/2015 9:31:07 AM PDT
by
Paladin2
(my non desktop devices are no longer allowed to try to fix speling and punctuation, nor my gran-mah.)
To: Lou L
The statistic comes from a lame survey of less than 100 carefully selected alleged scientists. It’s totally bogus.
54
posted on
10/08/2015 9:36:24 AM PDT
by
Paladin2
(my non desktop devices are no longer allowed to try to fix speling and punctuation, nor my gran-mah.)
To: smartyaz
Heres a research grant for you and you and you and...............
55
posted on
10/08/2015 9:53:55 AM PDT
by
Foolsgold
(Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber)
To: smartyaz
It seems people forget that Greenland was once totally covered with grass and vegetation. So it was "warm" before, then the little ice age, then now we are back to where we were before the little ice age.
Also interesting is the abstract below (from link from the article) from the report citing the 97%. Note that it's 97% of those expressing an opinion on AGW.
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 19912011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus."
To: bobsunshine
57
posted on
10/08/2015 12:08:40 PM PDT
by
smartyaz
To: Rockitz; MeshugeMikey; Norm Lenhart; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; ...
58
posted on
10/08/2015 9:03:40 PM PDT
by
Tolerance Sucks Rocks
(Democrats and GOP-e: a difference of degree, not philosophy)
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
59
posted on
10/09/2015 8:43:19 AM PDT
by
GOPJ
(Democrats want gun legislation? Fine. Pass a Bill outlawing 'gun free' zones.)
To: Pride in the USA; Stillwaters
60
posted on
10/10/2015 11:22:56 AM PDT
by
lonevoice
(Life is short. Make fun of it.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson