Cruz: I would pull US out of Paris climate deal

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is promising, if elected president, to pull the United States out of the nonbinding climate change accord that nearly 200 countries agreed to earlier this month.

Cruz, a GOP presidential candidate, on Tuesday told reporters in Tennessee that the agreement is part of an extreme focus on climate by President Obama.

"Barack Obama seems to think the SUV parked in your driveway is a bigger threat to national security than radical Islamic terrorists who want to kill us. That's just nutty," he said, according to The Washington Post.

"These are ideologues, they don't focus on the facts, they won't address the facts, and what they're interest[ed in] instead is more and more government power."

The agreement is the first pact in which the world's developing countries joined with richer ones in promising to cut emissions.

Obama said the United States would reduce its greenhouse gases 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025, though the target is not legally binding, nor is any country's target in the deal.

Cruz is one of the most skeptical candidates on climate change, refusing to grant even that the world is warming, let alone endorse the scientific consensus that human activity is the main cause of it.

He repeated his contention that global temperatures have not risen for 18 years, calling it "an inconvenient truth" for climate activists, a reference to the title of former Vice President Al Gore's documentary on global warming.

Cruz chaired a hearing to that effect earlier in December, in which he railed against "global-warming alarmists" who do not like that the world has stopped heating up and called them part of a "climate-industrial complex."

The warming "pause" has been refuted by recent research, including a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration study published this summer that examined a wider range of data than the data set that found a pause.

Dec 22, 2015: Judicial Watch Sues for Documents Withheld From Congress in New Climate Data Scandal

(Washington, DC) - Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a lawsuit on December 2, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking records of communications from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce (No 1:15-cv-02088)). The lawsuit sought the same documents unsuccessfully subpoenaed by a House committee. Less than week after Judicial Watch served its lawsuit on NOAA, the agency finally turned over the targeted documents to Congress.

Judicial Watch sued the Department of Commerce after the agency failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted on October 30, 2015 - NOAA is a component of the Department of Commerce. The timeframe for the requested records is October 30, 2014, through October 30, 2015, and requests all documents and records of communications between NOAA officials, employees, and contractors regarding:

- The methodology and utilization of night marine air temperatures to adjust ship and buoy temperature data;

- The use of other global temperature datasets for both NOAA's in-house dataset improvements and monthly press releases conveying information to the public about global temperatures;

- The utilization and consideration of satellite bulk atmospheric temperature readings for use in global temperature datasets; and

- A subpoena issued for the aforementioned information by Congressman Lamar Smith on October 13, 2015.

Judicial Watch is investigating how NOAA collects and disseminates climate data that is used in determining global climate change. NOAA collects data in thousands of ways - from temperature gauges on land and buoys at sea, to satellites orbiting Earth. Considered the "environmental intelligence agency," NOAA is the nation's leading collector of climate data. In July, Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) asked NOAA for both data and internal communications related to a controversial climate change study. After the agency refused to comply with the document request, Smith's committee issued a subpoena on October 13. According to the Science, Space, and Technology Committee:

In June, NOAA widely publicized a study as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in climate change. After three letters requesting all communications from the agency surrounding the role of political appointees in the agency's scientific process, Chairman Smith issued a subpoena for the information. Smith subsequently sent a letter on December 1st offering to accept documents and communications from NOAA political, policy and non-scientific staff as a first step in satisfying the subpoena requirements.

Information provided to the Committee by whistleblowers appears to show that the study was rushed to publication despite the concerns and objections of a number of NOAA employees.

Judicial Watch sued the agency on December 2 and served the complaint on the agency on December 8. Less than a week later, on Tuesday, December 15, NOAA finally began to turn over documents to the House committee. That same day, NOAA called and told Judicial Watch that it would begin searching for documents responsive to Judicial Watch's FOIA request.

On November 26, Smith published an opinion editorial in The Washington Times, which accused NOAA of tampering with data to help promote global warming alarmism:

NOAA often fails to consider all available data in its determinations and climate change reports to the public. A recent study by NOAA, published in the journal Science, made "adjustments" to historical temperature records and NOAA trumpeted the findings as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in global warming. The study's authors claimed these adjustments were supposedly based on new data and new methodology. But the study failed to include satellite data.

"We have little doubt that our lawsuit helped to pry these scandalous climate change report documents from the Obama administration. The Obama administration seems to care not one whit for a congressional subpoena but knows from prior experience that a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit cannot be ignored," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Given the lawless refusal to comply with our FOIA request and a congressional subpoena, we have little doubt that the documents will show the Obama administration put politics before science to advance global warming alarmism."

Judicial Watch previously investigated alleged data manipulation by global warming advocates in the Obama administration. In 2010, Judicial Watch obtained internal documents from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) related to a controversy that erupted in 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA's handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA's rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list....

Thousand-Plus Gather for Ted Cruz in Nashville Ahead of Christmas

......"The first thing I intend to do is rescind every single illegal and unconstitutional executive action."

Cruz also specifically mentioned today's anti-Second amendment announcement by Virginia's Democratic State Attorney General.

"By the way, we saw, in a nearby state-the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Democratic Attorney General in Virginia announced he is canceling Second Amendment reciprocity for Virginia."

"There are consequences when you elect Democrats to power, and friends don't let friends go Democrat, because when they get in power, they come and try to take your guns," Cruz said.

"The second thing I intend to do the first day in office is instruct the United States Department of Justice to open an investigation into Planned Parenthood," he said.

"The third thing I intend to do on the first day in office is to instruct the Department of Justice and the IRS and every other federal agency that the persecution of religious liberty ends today."

"The fourth thing I intend to do on the first day in office is rip to shreds this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal.

"The fifth thing I intend to do on the first day in office is move the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem."

"In the days that follow, I will go to Congress, and we will repeal every word of Obamacare," Cruz declared.

"In the days that follow, I will instruct the U.S. Department of Education, which should be abolished, that Common Core ends today!" he shouted.

"In the days that follow, we will finally finally secure the borders and end sanctuary cities."

"Every one of them will find their federal funds cut off," Cruz said of the 360 cities and other entities that have declared themselves sanctuary cities.

"We're going to build a wall that works."

"We will have a commander-in-chief he makes clear to the world we will defeat radical Islam. We will have a president willing to utter the words 'radical Islamic terrorism.'...We will completely destroy ISIS."

Further, "We should abolish the IRS."...................

"Intend to.."

Solicitor General

"Appointed to the office of Solicitor General of Texas by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, Cruz served in that position from 2003 to 2008. The office had been established in 1999 to handle appeals involving the state, but Abbott hired Cruz with the idea that Cruz would take a "leadership role in the United States in articulating a vision of strict construction." As Solicitor General, Cruz argued before the Supreme Court nine times, winning five cases and losing four.

Cruz has authored 70 United States Supreme Court briefs and presented 43 oral arguments, including nine before the United States Supreme Court. Cruz's record of having argued before the Supreme Court nine times is more than any practicing lawyer in Texas or any current member of Congress. Cruz has commented on his nine cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court: "We ended up year after year arguing some of the biggest cases in the country. There was a degree of serendipity in that, but there was also a concerted effort to seek out and lead conservative fights."

In 2003, while Cruz was Texas Solicitor General, the Texas Attorney General's office declined to defend Texas' sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas, where the U.S. Supreme Court decided that state laws banning homosexual sex as illegal sodomy were unconstitutional.

In the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, Cruz drafted the amicus brief signed by the attorneys general of 31 states, which said that the D.C. handgun ban should be struck down as infringing upon the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Cruz also presented oral argument for the amici states in the companion case to Heller before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

In addition to his success in Heller, Cruz successfully defended the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds before the Fifth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, winning 5-4 in Van Orden v. Perry.

In 2004, Cruz was involved in the high-profile case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, in which he wrote a brief on behalf of all 50 states which argued that the plaintiff did not have standing to file suit on behalf of his daughter. The Supreme Court upheld the position of Cruz's brief.

Cruz served as lead counsel for the state and successfully defended the multiple litigation challenges to the 2003 Texas congressional redistricting plan in state and federal district courts and before the U.S. Supreme Court, which was decided 5-4 in his favor in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry.

Cruz also successfully defended, in Medellin v. Texas, the State of Texas against an attempt to re-open the cases of 51 Mexican nationals, all of whom were convicted of murder in the United States and were on death row. With the support of the George W. Bush Administration, the petitioners argued that the United States had violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by failing to notify the convicted nationals of their opportunity to receive legal aid from the Mexican consulate. They based their case on a decision of the International Court of Justice in the Avena case which ruled that by failing to allow access to the Mexican consulate, the US had breached its obligations under the Convention. Texas won the case in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court holding that ICJ decisions were not binding in domestic law and that the President had no power to enforce them."

Dec 11, 2015

“.............The Hill reports that McConnell said that Obama would risk defeat of his TPP if he tried to get it passed prior to a lame-duck session after the 2016 election.

“It certainly shouldn’t come before the election,” McConnell said during an interview with the Washington Post. “I think the president would be making a big mistake to try to have that voted on during the election. There’s significant pushback all over the place.”

“Obama is already facing a slim margin of support in each chamber,” reports The Hill. “With minimal support from his own party, Republicans who granted Obama fast-track authority on trade deals have said support didn’t mean automatic passage for the TPP pact.”

“I think it would be a big mistake to send it up before the election,” stated McConnell.

[Americans for Limited Government President Rick] Manning argued that if McConnell is saying Obama can only get the TPP passed during a lame-duck session, that proves that the deal is essentially so bad that Congress wouldn’t be able to get it done before the election.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/11/exclusive-trans-pacific-trade-deal-toxic-pass-2016-election-lame-duck/

Oct 2015: “Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who grew up in a scientific household - both of his parents are mathematicians - said a recent exchange he had with the president of the Sierra Club further affirmed that “climate change is not science” but is :religion,” and he added that climate change disciples use the “language” of religion, regardless of scientific facts, to push their doctrine.

“Just a couple weeks ago in the Senate I chaired a hearing where the president of the Sierra Club testified,” said Senator Cruz in an Oct. 28 interview on The Blaze TV. “We had an exchange, where I simply asked him about the data.”

Aaron Mair is president of the Sierra Club.

“He [Mair] simply couldn’t answer the most basic question, starting with the fact — he couldn’t answer the most basic fact that for the last 18 years the satellite data show no significant warming whatsoever,” said Cruz.

“He had no idea about that,” said Cruz. “He turned to his aides every minute or two.”

“You know, part of the reason he didn’t know the facts?”
said Cruz. “Because climate change is not science — it’s religion.”

“Look at the language where they call you a denier,” said the senator. “Denier is not the language of science.”

Look, I’m the child of two scientists,” he said. “My parents are both mathematicians, computer programmers. My dad was a self-taught geophysicist. The essence of the scientific method is to start with a hypothesis and then look to evidence to disprove the hypothesis. You’re not trying to prove it. You’re trying to disprove it”

AAny good scientist is a skeptic,” said the senator. “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.”

Cruz continued, “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.’...............

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/ted-cruz-climate-change-not-science-its-religion

"Lysenkoism" is also used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives...............

....Support from Joseph Stalin gave Lysenko even more momentum and popularity. In 1935, Lysenko compared his opponents in biology to the peasants who still resisted the Soviet government's collectivization strategy, saying that by opposing his theories the traditional geneticists were setting themselves against Marxism. Stalin was in the audience when this speech was made, and he was the first one to stand and applaud, calling out "Bravo, Comrade Lysenko. Bravo."

This event emboldened Lysenko and gave him and his ally Prezent free rein to slander the geneticists who still spoke out against him. Many of Lysenkoism's opponents, such as his former mentor Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov, were imprisoned or even executed because of Lysenko's and Prezent's denunciations.".......

...Czechoslovakia adopted Lysenkoism in 1949. Jaroslav Krizenecky (1896-1964) was one of the prominent Czechoslovak geneticists opposing Lysenkoism, and when he criticized Lysenkoism in his lectures, he was dismissed from the Agricultural University in 1949 for "serving the established capitalistic system, considering himself superior to the working class, and being hostile to the democratic order of the people", and imprisoned in 1958........"

************

And so on and so on and millions starved.

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.