Ted Cruz: Climate Change Is A Religion, Not Science

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

“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 trackto 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.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

26 Responses to “Ted Cruz: Climate Change Is A Religion, Not Science”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Tailgunner Ted is at it again.

    And yet, even after an 18 year, 9 mo and 4 day Denier-described “pause” the Earth is as warm or warmer than it’s been in 12,000 years. Just think how hot it would be if global warming hadn’t stopped!

    It’s always projection. In fact it’s Deniers such as Cruz who reject overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the theory of human-caused global warming. Cruz’ objection is not based on reason but rather on ideology.

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    Lil’ jeffy rates three dead horses.



  3. Jeffery says:

    suckingpuppies is expanding his oral fixation to include horses!

  4. drowningpuppies says:

    Nah, I was just trying to figure out when Reagan invaded Panama so I thought I would get your attention…

  5. Jeffery says:

    Would this be the same data that the NOAA is refusing to comply with a Congressional subpoena over?

    Teach, you are spreading lies, again.

    NOAA has released all the data, calculations and methods and even given briefings to the committee staffs.

    What they haven’t turned over to Rep Smith is all their emails and phone messages and notes. The courts will need to sort out what Smith is entitled to.

    NOAA has released all the data, calculations and methods and even given briefings to the committee staffs.

    This is a witch hunt by a Denier Congressman who doesn’t like the results of a study.

    The data that has received massive adjustments, all upwards

    ?

    Teach, maybe you’d like to explain to your befuddled and hapless readers what “massive adjustments” were made, and to what data? Oh, you don’t know? Neither does Lamar Smith.

    Many climate scientists have been claiming for years that there was no STATISTICAL difference in the rate of warming between the periods 1950-1999 and 2000-2015. I’ve pointed that out before, too. The “massive adjustments” generating this latest brouhaha were primarily centered on sea surface temperatures in the late 20th century, REDUCING the rate of warming during that period. REDUCING the rate.

    Teach, maybe you’d like to explain to your befuddled and hapless readers what “massive adjustments” were made, and to what data? Oh, you don’t know? Neither does Lamar Smith.

  6. Zachriel says:

    Last 18 years,

    UAH: +0.099°C/decade
    NOAA: +0.100°C/decade
    GISTemp: +0.116C/decade

    Also, the stratosphere is cooling.
    http://www.tinyurl.com/signaturegreenhousewarming

  7. drowningpuppies says:

    Teach, maybe you’d like to explain to your befuddled and hapless readers what “massive adjustments” were made, and to what data?

    Might start here.

    NCDC has been in the business of adjusting the surface temperature record for quite some time. The modus operandi so far has been to get a new paper published describing what NCDC considers to be a new and improved dataset, and since NCDC’s articles are often peer reviewed by other government employed scientists at NOAA, they often don’t get a critical peer review. Certainly, based on the reports I’ve received over the years, few if any skeptic scientists have ever been asked to review an NCDC paper on a new global temperature dataset and the techniques involved.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/

  8. Let me ask something, Zachriel: how does that prove mostly/solely anthropogenic causation?

  9. […] Pirates Cove: That Ted Cruz gets it […]

  10. Jl says:

    “The earth is as warm or warmer than it has been in the last 12,000 years.” B.S., J. The MWP was warmer.

  11. Jeffery says:

    Might start here. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/

    ‘Nuff said. Specifically, do you have any evidence to support the claim that NASA improperly adjusted data in the paper being discussed? I didn’t think so. Deniers refuse to debate or even discuss specific points. So can we deal with one Denier lie at a time? All the data, methods and calculations are available. Do you have even the vaguest notion what you are criticizing?

    William

    obviously does not.

    “The earth is as warm or warmer than it has been in the last 12,000 years.” B.S., J. The MWP was warmer.

    No. No. No. This is Denier misinformation. Can you support your claim?

    Let me ask something, Zachriel: how does that prove mostly/solely anthropogenic causation?

    Let me ask something, William: what is your explanation for why the Earth has been warming? Overwhelming scientific evidence supports the theory that human-generated CO2 is causing the Earth to warm now. What is your plausible counter hypothesis? What evidence do you have to support your hypothesis?

    Why are so-called “skeptics” only seriously skeptical about the theory of AGW? Why not cell theory? The theory of gravity? Theory of relativity? Someone skeptical of the so-called “skeptics” might surmise that “skeptics” true interest is protecting those profiting from global warming. No corporation profits from discrediting gravity, cell theory or relativity.

  12. Jeffery says:

    puppysucker (illegal, except I guess in the south),

    At least the puppysucker is trying, but seems a bit too impressed with itself for others’ thoughts.

    According to the author of the opinion piece in WUWT that the puppysucker cited:

    Are the new K15 (Karl et al 2015) adjustments correct? Obviously this is not for me to say – it is something that needs to be debated by specialists in the field.

    So tell us, puppysucker, what are YOUR thoughts on K15? Or are you content to rely on authority (McKittrick, LOL; Watts, LO Louder).

  13. drowningpuppies says:

    Was that too sciencey for you?
    Did you read it all and discount all the points he made?
    Who the fuck is lying, little one?

  14. Monday morning links

    America’s Forgotten Missionaries Cats Are Neurotic, and Yes, They Want to Kill You Are any foods "safe" to eat anymore? No Kids aren’t spending enough time just going outside Fred Thompson dead at 73 Only 73? Man, that g

  15. Jeffery says:

    suckingpuppies,

    Was that too sciencey for you?

    No. McKitrick is not a scientist. “Sciencey” is not a word.

    Did you read it all and discount all the points he made?

    Yes and yes.

    Who the fuck is lying, little one

    ?

    Same as it ever was, puppysucker. The puppysucker is an ignorant, puppysucking, dishonest lying liar.

    Can you or can you not, in your own puppysucking words, explain your “point”? I didn’t think so.

  16. drowningpuppies says:

    So altering historical measurements to fit your theory is considered science?

    It means your theory is shit and no amount of name calling will change that.

    Yea, McKitrick is an economist specializing in environmental economics and policy analysis. Remember that he and McIntyre destroyed Mann’s Hoaxy Stick and revealed him to be a charlatan.

  17. Jeffery says:

    dp,

    When you or gc call me names, I try to respond in kind. Haven’t you figured that out yet?

    M and M did not destroy anything unless it was their own credibility.

    Historical measurements are not sacrosanct. Replaced flawed or incomplete data with better data gathered using improved methods, or evaluating with a better method is indeed considered science. Not all new methods are better obviously, and as McKitrick admits, he is not qualified to judge the appropriateness of the K15 “adjustments”.

    Just because conservabloggers never correct their own misstatements doesn’t mean all that they type is accurate, does it? In fact, if a serial misinformer like William would occasionally correct his misstatements, he might reach a larger audience. In the same vein, scientists are always working to improve their methods and analysis – and a key is admitting past mistakes.

    The theory of AGW (humans burning fossil fuels is causing the Earth to warm) is supported by solid and overwhelming evidence.

  18. drowningpuppies says:

    M and M did not destroy anything unless it was their own credibility.

    So that’s why the IPCC no longer includes the Hockey Stick in their reports?

    When you or gc call me names, I try to respond in kind. Haven’t you figured that out yet?

    Hey, I haven’t referred to your ass raping your
    grandkids in quite a while.

  19. gitarcarver says:

    When you or gc call me names, I try to respond in kind. Haven’t you figured that out yet?

    Bull.

    When you first appeared on this board you started with calling people names that disagreed with you.

    It you want to blame someone for the name calling, look in the mirror.

    Like most liberals, you can’t take what you dish out.

  20. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    Sorry, but you are very offensive. You call people names and mischaracterize them as if you were in grade school. This makes just about anything you say have less validity. Then the other portion of what you say is generally an out right lie or obfuscation. In this series of comments, you started out with school yard banter about Cruz. Then you go on and on about temperature variations that you and your friend Z clearly do not understand. Then the ultimate point of the argument is to somehow link these elevations to CO2 production that can only come from our modern economy and the fact that all this can be cured by a communistic government or surrendering our wealth and way of life. No, I am afraid that you are a child, you go on about some dream of owning a corporation and fighting cancer, but you really have no idea of those concepts. As I have said before, grow up, get an education and some life experience, get out of your parents basement.

  21. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    I have only called you a white supremacist which you say you are, yet you routinely insult me. Why in just this post alone, you call me a child, tell me to get out of my parents (sic) basement (parents both deceased, btw) and accuse me of lying. I have begged right-wing commenters on this “forum” (lol) to specifically address issues. If you have a specific objection to a claim I’ve made, I’m happy to discuss it.

    drowningpuppies routinely calls me silly names and accuses me of molesting my grandchildren, so I refer to him/her/it as suckingpuppies.

    gitarcarver routinely calls me dishonest, a liar, and odious, and calls my wife delusional so I refer to him/her/it as guttercreeper and guttercrawler. My wife may have bad taste in men, but she’s not delusional.

    When they behave as grownups, I respond to them as grownups. When they act like miscreants I treat them as miscreants.

  22. ccoffer says:

    Repeating stupid and easily disprovable lies doesn’t make reality go away. There is no global warming and the climate has always changed.

  23. Jeffery says:

    Repeating stupid and easily disprovable lies doesn’t make reality go away.

    I thought at first you were criticizing Deniers. Since it seems you are criticizing the findings of climate science, can you cite your top 3 “easily disprovable lies”?

    There is no global warming

    This is just untrue. The average global surface temperature has increased almost 1C in the past century. The oceans are warming, sea level increasing and Arctic ice, Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and many glaciers are melting.

    and the climate has always changed.

    Just not this much since humans have populated the Earth. The worry is not about the climate per se, but rather the impact of these changes on human civilization.

  24. Jeffery says:

    When they behave as adults, I will treat them as adults. But not until.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7173 access attempts in the last 7 days.