Posted on 03/30/2015 12:51:30 PM PDT by Phillyred
Sen. Ted Cruz cited a 1975 Newsweek article on “global cooling” to question the evidence of global warming, and in the process made several incorrect and unsubstantiated claims.
The Newsweek story, which did warn of a “cooling world,” has been criticized and largely debunked — by its own author. Cruz’s claim that “advocates of global cooling suddenly shifted to global warming” ignores the fact that there was no scientific consensus in the 1970s about global cooling. Cruz said that “satellite data demonstrate that there has been no significant warming whatsoever for 17 years.” This is misleading. Though the trend line in recent years has been relatively flat, Cruz cherry-picks a particularly warm year (1998) to deny the clear longer-term warming trend. There have now been 360 consecutive months when the global temperature was above the 20th century average. Cruz compared “global warming alarmists” to “flat-Earthers” and himself to Galileo, saying “this heretic named Galileo was branded a denier” for insisting the Earth was round. This is wrong. Galileo’s troubles with the church stemmed from his belief that the Earth orbits the Sun. The fact that the planet is round was accepted before Galileo was born. In an interview with the Texas Tribune (at the 14:24 mark), Cruz, who recently announced his candidacy for president, told reporter Jay Root that the 1975 global cooling story in Newsweek is evidence that “alarmists” simply want the government to control the energy sector.
Cruz, March 24: I read this morning a Newsweek article from the 1970s talking about global cooling. And it
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
Hey Philly, if you want to talk science, give me a call and we’ll talk science.
Cruz, by the way, will undoubtedly have passed far more intellectually demanding courses than your president, Gore, or the rest of the idiots out there who know nothing about greenhouse gases past the most simple definition.
And as for your “journalists”....feggedabowdit.
They should stick what they do best...booing special olympics kids and Santa Claus!
???
You’ll find that in the Kosher Ham section...
This whole “flat earther” accusation sure has their panties in a wad, does it not?
The use of the term “scientific consensus” is proof the global alarmists are engaging in politics.
Don’t forget, not only did they boo Santa, they threw snowballs at him, too. You can look it up.
Oldplayer
That’s the comparison I always thought was most apt: Galileo vs the entrenched cronies.
Galileo’s heliocentrism vs the cronies’ geocentrism is apt too.
The libs know not just “global warming” but pretty much their entire worldview has a crumbling foundation. They’re worried that a plain-speaker like Cruz is going to kick the whole damn house into the sinkhole.
Some of them understand that this fraud is a means to an end they know they can’t sell otherwise.
Those people I can deal with.
The ones that get me are those that have their righteousness wrapped around their environmentalism.
Of course, if the earth isn’t in danger, then their advocacy counts for nothing on the “I’m a good person” scale.
“and in the process made several incorrect and unsubstantiated claims. “ Well of course. His science background is about as valid as, oh say, algore? But then again, I’d sooner believe Cruz than the scammer extrodinaire algore. Just my casual observation. No scientific supporting data to back up such a claim. Hey asshats! Warmer is better for the entire planet. What a bunch of idjits.
Yet another “scientific” article making no scientific arguments, only rhetorical ones.
What does “scientific consensus” mean? What did it mean in the 1970’s? What does it mean now? What relevance, if any, does it have to “science” or, more generally, to the truth of the matter?
” There have now been 360 consecutive months when the global temperature was above the 20th century average.”
What’s “global temperature” mean? How was it calculated over those 360 months? How was the “20th century average” calculated/measured? What’s the basis for the comparison? What are the uncertainties? How were they determined? Are they greater or less than the difference? We ordinary mortals would like to know. Excuse us for asking.
Their point is to give themselves the moral high ground, equating the earth to God. It’s not. Can’t be. Even if the Pope says so.
Stewardship is part of faith. Faith is much more than that.
I think Cruz might be the only one, who can actually respond convincingly to these a ho*es...
Averages are rarely a statistically significant factor in science.
You would think that someone writing about science would use mean or median 20th century temperature.
But maybe those figures did not support his argument.
But on another note I suppose he would want to totally ignore 18th century which quite cold.
The unnamed author notes that Cruz cherry picks a year well the author cherry picks a century.
Imagine how many writers and ‘journalists’ have had to google ‘Galileo’ this week.
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.