Ted Cruz: Climate Change Is A Religion, Not Science

Right Wing News ^ | 31 Oct, 2015 | William Teach

[Isara]

Ted Cruz sat down with Glenn Beck Thursday, and had this to say on the subject of ‘climate change’

RWW News: Ted Cruz Says That 'Climate Change Is Not Science, It's Religion' (video)

“You know part of the reason he (the president of the Sierra Club) didn't know the facts? Because climate change is not science, it's religion.

Look at the language where they call you a "denier" Denier is not the language of science. Look, I'm the child of two scientists. My parents are both mathematicians, computer programmers. My dad was self-taught geophysicist. The essence of the scientific method is to start with a hypothesis, and then look to the evidence to disprove the hypothesis. You're not trying to prove it, you're trying to disprove it. Any good scientist is a skeptic, if he's not, he or she should not be a scientist.

But yet the language of the global warming alarmists, "denier" is the language of religion, it's heretic, you are a blasphemer.

The response from the Sierra Club, "We have decreed this is the answer, you must accept it." And so he didn't know his facts because he just knew his religion.

Of course, this has made Warmists very mad. EcoWatch calls it an “alarming video”. And, for Warmists, it is, because it exposes the fallacy and insanity of the ‘climate change’ movement. I’ve listened to Cruz speak on the subject before, and he sort-of steals my line in calling it a political movement and “It was massive government control of the economy, the energy sector, and every aspect of our lives.”

Roe Romm’s George Soros funded Climate Progress is also very upset, and writer Samantha Page spins madly, highlighting that this is not science

The data he is referring to is very specific. Cruz is looking only at satellite data - not ground-level data or oceanographic data - and he does not say "18 years" just as a random number.

Would this be the same data that the NOAA is refusing to comply with a Congressional subpoena over? The data that has received massive adjustments, all upwards? The same data that is biased towards warming due to UHI/land use? Yes.

Ninety- seven percent of published, peer-reviewed climate science papers concur that man-made climate change is occurring.

If you’re throwing out “consensus”, especially from an utterly debunked study, you’re talking politics, sociology, and even religion, not science.

He also seems to not have seen any of the data showing that the world is hot and getting hotter. 2015 is on track to be the hottest year on record. 2016 will likely beat it.

Except, at most, it would only be hundreds of a degree, and this is prognostication before the facts. We already know how this worked out for the 2014 claim. They’re already telling us what the data will say, and they’ll make darned sure that the data says that.

My only disagreement with Cruz is that this is not really religion, it is a cult.

[exDemMom]

Ninety- seven percent of published, peer-reviewed climate science papers concur that man-made climate change is occurring

In the life sciences field, I see papers all the time that state that the researchers observed X, and then posit that one of the reasons for X is climate change. How X is caused by or related to "climate change" is never explained. On the other hand, there is always another, more mundane, more plausible explanation. For instance, mosquitos that cause various tropical diseases are spreading throughout the south east US. The fact that invasive species have been observed to spread into new ranges since scientists have been studying the phenomenon of invasive species is almost overlooked in the eagerness to blame "climate change."

I wonder if the climate science papers that "concur" that "man-made climate change" is occurring are using the same "method." That is, if they blame observed phenomena that have other, more plausible explanations, on "climate change" just because it is the catchphrase du jour.

[FourPeas]

My only disagreement with Cruz is that this is not really religion, it is a cult.

A cult with its sights on ultimate control of the whole world, too. It's perfectly willing to gain converts with threats and coercion.

[pallis]

Global warming is an article of leftist faith, the doctrine of leftist Hell, preached in the temple of fear mongering. It’s a necessary tool of control, one among many that are used to destroy Western civilization, the Satan of the left.

Imagine how empty the left would be without fear mongering. Without fear, their envy, hate, smugness and bigotries would ring hollow. Their faith would fall apart.

The left controls the intellectual paradigm of academics. So yes, academics support the doctrine of global warming. The left controls the purse strings of scientific research and institutions like NASA. Of course they promote the “science” of global warming. If the high priest of the left can’t use ridicule to belittle and destroy Ted Cruz, they will look for other ways, even violence.

[Bob434]

Sorry, that should have read:

I wish Ted would actually throw some facts into his mix to drive home the point that there is not nearly enough CO2 I n the atmosphere from ALL sources, let alone just from man, to be causing global climate change

Q:“What % of the atmosphere is CO₂ ?

The total Atmospheric CO₂percent is just 0.04%

What is the total percentage of CO2 that has been produced by man over our whole history compared to natural CO₂

A: the total anthropogenic CO₂ emission throughout human history constitutes less than 0.00022 percent of the total CO₂ amount naturally degassed from the mantle of the Earth during geological history

Q: “What % of CO₂ is manmade?”

A: Just 3.4% of all naturally occurring CO₂

Q: “How much does the atmosphere weigh?”

A: 6 quadrillion tons

Inquiring minds want the left to explain to us how such an insignificant amount of CO₂, just 0.00022% of all of the naturally occurring CO₂ over the course of human history, can cause global climate change-

The Current total atmospheric CO₂ volume is just 0.04% of our atmosphere- That's it folks! Of that 0.04%, man is responsible for just 3.4% of the Current Total Atmospheric CO₂- Meaning that the total atmospheric CO₂ produced by man is just 0.00136% of our atmosphere. I would like the scare mongering propagandists on the left to please explain to the world how just 0.00136% of the atmosphere can possibly capture enough escaping heat, and then back radiate that heat at an even smaller fraction, (Much of the heat gets radiated right out into space), to cause global climate change!

IF they can’t answer this- then they have NO business voicing their ignorant opinions on the issue

[Bob434]

LIES About 'Man-Caused' Global Warming

1: Man-made CO₂ emissions throughout human history amounts to less than 0.00022 percent of the total CO₂ from the earth's mantle.

2:Warming happens 800 years BEFORE CO₂rises (This alone refutes the LIE that CO₂ causes climate change)

3: Despite a huge surge in CO₂ in the 30's and 40's, temperatures actually dropped for 4 decades afterwards (again proving CO₂does not cause warming)

4: The atmosphere contains just 0.0036% CO₂ produced by man (FAR too little CO₂ to do anything- it's simply impossible for such a small amount to affect global climates)

5: The atmosphere contains just 0.04% CO₂ produced by nature and man combined (again, an amount that is FAR too small to cause any change in global climates)

6: Most of the tiny amount of heat captured by atmospheric CO₂ gets radiated out to space, not back to earth

7: What little heat actually gets back radiated to earth quickly reaches equilibrium because there is so little of it compared to earth's air (which is now cooler and overwhelms the tiny amount of warmer air that was back radiated- Think about pouring a cup of 80 Degree water into an Olympic sized pool of 70 Degree water- The warmer water does nothing to affect the overall pool's temperature because there simply is not enough warmer water to change the pool's temps)

8: Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO₂ change

9: There has been no warming since 1998 DESPITE the fact that CO₂ has increased during these two decades (again refuting the idea that "CO₂ causes warming")

10: Science shows that it is changing temperatures that raise or lower CO₂ levels- NOT the other way around. CO₂ does not cause climate change- period.

11: Scientists claim global Wagnerian will result in greater storms, earthquakes and natural disasters, however, over the last century, this has proven untrue

12: The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008- It did not warm by the .22 that climate scientists claimed that it would

13: It is a lie that CO₂ is 'the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere". Greenhouse gases comprise 3% of the atmosphere- CO₂ comprises just 0.04% 14: Today’s CO₂ concentration of around 385 ppm is very low. PPM's have been more than 10 times higher in the past

15: The slight increase in temperatures since 1900 is well within the normal range for natural cyclical warming trends

16: While the arctic is currently warming, this is fully inline with natural cyclical warming trends, The antarctic is currently getting colder, which refutes the claim of "global warming"

17: It is a LIE that there is a 'scientific Consensus" that believes that man is causing climate change.

18: It is a LIE to claim that 98% of scientists believe that man is causing climate change. There are over 6000 scientists and professionals who claim man is NOT causing climate change, and only a handful of scientists and professionals who claim man is to blame, and these folks are almost entirely subsidized by the world's governments

19: The science is Not settled! Scientists do not even know all the mechanics behind global warming and cooling trends- But to hear Al Gore speak, one would think that scientists fully understand what changes climates- they do Not!

20: ClimateGate was a blatant attempt to conceal evidence that did not fit the alarmist rallying cries of the left that man is causing climate change. It was a deceitful shameful attempt to sway public opinion using lies created by hiding evidence

21: Climate has always changed, and it always will. Claiming that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a “stable” climate is a LIE.

22: Temperature Measurements made via weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show that there has been no atmospheric warming.

23:

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Cruz's comment is a good example of the paradox that the smarter your are, the easier it is to outsmart yourself. He is smart and well informed enough to know that most of the evidence points very strongly toward a hundred year warming trend, but not "smart" enough to avoid cherry picking a small subset of the data that in isolation, suggests otherwise.

His choice is (to me anyway) quite disappointing: he cherry picks his start date - and if you do this, you can find *several* decade or longer "pauses" or even cooling periods:

This is a mistake so frequent and well documented in so many disciplines (economics is a prime example) that as someone attempting to formulate an informed opinion on the topic IMO he really should have known better - it suggests to me that he is depending on advisors rather than attempting to inform himself.

This dependence is a frequent failing among politicians of all stripes (a mirror image on the left is the prevenence of ill-informed comment on energy issues), so while I'm not exactly willing to give Cruz a pass on it, I do expect just about every politician to make this sort of mistake on at least a few policy questions.

But to me, at last, to the extent that someone claims special competence to speak to an issue - in this case the "science" of climate change, it's embarrassing to the speaker.

[Sheapdog]

“Are there any Chrisitan (Evangelical) Globull Warmists? I would venture to say no. In that case, GW is a cult of the atheistic, No-God religion”

Unfortunately I would say there are and at least many with a very strong affinity for it. I attended for what is considered the preeminent conservative seminary in the South a few years back and halfway through my degree the entire campus went green and lots of groupthink behavior encouraged in this regard. Anything to do with UN or international dealings or current trends devised by globalists would receive a crazy positive response by the twenty somethings. Many esteemed academics charged with training young Christian leaders were straddling the fence and giving into PC modern trends across the board. From a guy who has always been opposed to communism and Marxism having grown up overseas and I would go out of my way to ask students especially those about to graduate and professors questions in regards to political correctness and their thoughts on borders; sovereignty of countries, climate change, globalism and one world government, positions on Israel and replacement theology or supersessionism. The responses were troubling and depressing but a reflection of the times.

That being said people’s views on these things would make me wonder how many of these young people had a real relationship or were there because they grew up in church and wanted to please their parents or continue in professional ministry in some capacity. I think a lot were also extremely naive or ignorant because of the focus in churches has been for decades to avoid controversial areas.

[abclily]

OK!! Everybody pay attention!

Lesson for today:

1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.

2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls the climates of all its planets.

3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.

4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.

5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.

Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?

[Bob434]

I agree- He should be far more informed on the subject since this one subject alone could financially ruin this country, and indeed the world- This issue is no small issue- it’s a colossal lie that threatens our very way of life- We are already suffering the consequences of regulations based on climate change- with prices on nearly everything soaring as companies pass along the cost increases to do business along to us

I don’t know if all my figures are 100% accurate, but they are in the ball park, and they point out how ridiculous it is to claim man is the cause of climate change-

I would also note that Cruz should talking about the facts that actually refute the idea that CO2 drives temperatures, because we know from ice core samples that temperatures drive CO2- not the other way around- This is a devastating fact that the left can not deny-

There is a ton of scientific evidence out there that shows man can’t possibly be driving climate change- and much of the evidence is pretty easy to understand (like temperatures rising first, then 800 years later CO2 rises- showing that CO2 can’t possibly be the cause of the temperature rise). I wish Cruz would take a little time to study them himself so that he has questions and answers that will leave the other side looking foolish when they can’t explain them- Cruz is a smart man- and from what I gather he has ‘audiographic’ abilities where he locks In everything he hears and can repeat it word for word, punctuation for punctuation, perfectly- He could be a true textbook of truth and information regarding this important issue if he put a little time into it

[Bob434]

[[to know that most of the evidence points very strongly toward a hundred year warming trend, but not “smart” enough to avoid cherry picking a small subset of the data that in isolation, suggests otherwise.]]

I’m going to have to disagree here- I think he should bring this out- because the whole point of the left is to claim CO2 is the driver of climate change

The fact that CO2 has steadily risen, while temps remained flat- or took ‘time outs’ suggest that CO2 is not in fact the driver of change- In fact, we have several such pauses to further strengthen that idea- During those pauses, CO2 was steadily rising as well, yet temps did not respond

These pauses, coupled with the ice core samples which show CO2 always lagging temperature rises and drops by approx. 800 years, are pretty strong suggestions that CO2 is not the driver

I don’t have a problem with him bringing up these pauses, I just wish he’d coupled it with the ice core samples to strengthen his argument

[xp38]

I think you mean tenet but tenant sort of works too.:)

[MortMan]

They also skip step 1 altogether, or adjust the data to always match the hypothesis.

[Bob434]

and hide evidence that runs counter to their agenda, and intimidate those who don’t agree with them

Yep- The3 “New” Science at work!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I have to ask: what made you pick the time frame that you did? Wasn’t there data from before 1970?

The longer the time frame you choose, the less the “globaloney” argument makes sense. If for no other reason that all the limestone (calcium carbonate) in the world is apparently “fossil” carbon dioxide, from a time when the concentration of that gas was much higher than today. And in the sense that there was a medieval warm period, and a “little ice age” from which recent warming is a recovery.

And the more global your perspective, the less the “globaloney” argument makes sense. In the sense that China, not the US, is the world leader in coal combustion. And China is, reportedly, bringing a new coal-fired power plant on line every week. And that is without considering India and the rest of Asia. So we better hope the warmists are wrong - because nothing we could do would ameliorate the situation, if they were right.

[Arthur McGowan]

I don’t see nearly enough people realizing what a horror and scandal it is to see a Pope and virtually the entire Catholic hierarchy, promoting the Global Warming Hoax, and the “solutions” for AGW, which are genocidal.

The AGW Hoax is a product of the eugenics/abortion movement.

That the Pope and the bishops are spiritually blind is obvious from the fact that they are clearly completely comfortable snuggling with pro-aborts, and clearly believe that pro-aborts are well-intentioned humanitarians.

[roamer_1]

Somewhere between 'hypothesis' and 'conclusion', these 'climate scientists' miss one or more of the very vital steps, and fail to recheck their steps over and over, LOOKING for holes in their own arguments. Then they get all huffy when somebody else points out the logical errors committed.

Exactly right - true science is not found in the elegance of the theory, but rather, in the veracity of the errata. One point of error disproves the whole thing... No matter how great it looks... Which is why science should stick to what is observable and repeatable, and have a jaundiced eye toward extrapolations.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

CRUZAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Global Warming on Free Republic here, here, and here

Latest from Global Warming News

Latest from Real Climate

Latest from Climate Depot

Latest from Greenie Watch

[stephenjohnbanker]

” He should be far more informed on the subject since this one subject alone could financially ruin this country, and indeed the world- This issue is no small issue- it’s a colossal lie that threatens our very way of life”

A few months ago, a UN executive accidentally said the truth...” The whole goal of the climate change movement ...the goal is to destroy capitalism”