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!
???
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.
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.
“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.
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.
When did science become a democracy?
Consensus has not and has never been evidence.
ignores the fact that there was no scientific consensus in the 1970s about global cooling.
Sure put it was substantially the same people.
Being "above the average" doesn't mean anything, because just like you accused Cruz of cherry-picking, you can cherry-pick the time window for calculating an average. If you were to start with temperatures back when Greenland was actually green, where would we be now in comparison to the average?
The other problem is the accuracy of the data used to compute the "20th century average" is suspect. It's subject to measurement errors and even siting errors. The satellite data provided our first opportunity to accurately measure it, free of siting bias. Not concidentally, that was when the temperature record leveled out.
The real question is: what's the trend? Is it up, or is it down? It's currently flat, contrary to nearly all of the models that predicted a significant rise under the current conditions. When climate researchers admit this and modify their models to account for it, then I might be interested in the results.
BTW, the infamous "hockey stick" model was a classic example of how models take on a life of their own. A skeptical engineer tweaked the input data to see how the model responded. He found that no matter how he changed the data, it always generated the "hockey stick". He even fed it random data, and got the "hockey stick".
This should have been enough reason for the entire scientific community to discard the model, and regard the author as incompetent (at best) or a fraud.
Haha... no consensus...haha in 1970s....haha. ... in 50 years when this global warming crap is discredited, they will be saying there was no consensus over that in 2000. It really is fish in a barrell, but the left still controls the narrative.
How is that "cherry picking"?
Cruz said there is no warming for the last 17 years and then he specifically points to those 17 years in the data.
And the reason the atmospheric temps have been high but stable the past 17 years is because of the cherry picked El Nino of 1998. Progressives are duplicitous at best.
There have now been 360 consecutive months when the global temperature was above the 20th century average.
360 months is 30 years. If there was truly an upward trend, then there should be somewhere around 600 consecutive months, because it it would have crossed the axis halfway through the past century.
Aside from his ONE mistake (referencing flat-earthers rather than heliocentriism), Ted Cruz was correct. His reference is to those Climate Crisis advocates who choose to ignore 20 years of data related to an atmospheric “pause” in the rate of warming which appears to contradict, at the very least, the models used to arrive at the mid and upper range predictions, and thus should be used, by those actually professing a belief in science, to reevaluate those models.
True science is an ongoing process of experiment and reevaluation, and even more so as it relates to a predictive science (like climatology, seismology or economics) which are never settled. There is a BIG difference between a “settled” observation of a physical science (such as adding CO2 to the atmosphere will lead to warming, which is true) and making long-term predictions, which relate to that observation AND many other variables based on that science. While the former is settled, the latter most certainly is not, and those who want to claim otherwise by crying “the debate is over” and pointing the fingher of “denier” at anyone who dares question them are indeed the ones acting like flat-earthers, as THEY are the ones who refuse to consider any evidence that might conflict with their belief in any way.
And the comparison Cruz makes is even better if it more accurately referenced Galileo’s heliocentrism, as those very same folks refuse to study or even consider any significant effects that changes to the solar cycle might have either on past observations or future predictions. So they’ve taken the outdated Earth-centered view of the church, and by putting mankind in the place of God, have now stubbornly, and in a way, religiously, latched on to their man-centric view of climate … as if man has more power than any other forces on earth or in the heavens (i.e. the Sun) to affect the climate.
And if a 20-year pause during a period of inreasing CO2 output is NOT a long enough period to start asking those questions and reevaluating our predictive models, than how long does it need to be?
So yes, we need another Galileo to remind the Climate Dogmatists that all our climate concerns may NOT, in fact, revolve around us.