No, really. Or, perhaps on Twitter. Because, really, almost no blogging Skeptics that I’ve seen bring up the line at the end
(Washington Post) Â In an interview with The Texas Tribune, Cruz talked about climate change. Specifically, he said this, as transcribed by the Huffington Post’s Kate Sheppard:
On the global warming alarmists, anyone who actually points to the evidence that disproves their apocalyptical claims, they don’t engage in reasoned debate. What do they do? They scream, ‘You’re a denier.’ They brand you a heretic. Today, the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat-Earthers. It used to be [that] it is accepted scientific wisdom the Earth is flat, and this heretic named Galileo was branded a denier.
That line about “flat-Earthers” has sent Warmists into apoplexy, apparent at the Washington Post, the Huffington Post linke, Joe Romm’s George Soros funded Climate Progress, MSNBC, and so many more.
If you look at global warming alarmists, they don’t like to look at the actual facts and the data. The satellite data demonstrate that there has been no significant warming whatsoever for 17 years. Now that’s a real problem for the global warming alarmists. Because all those computer models on which this whole issue is based predicted significant warming, and yet the satellite data show it ain’t happening.
I read this morning a Newsweek article from the 1970s talking about global cooling. And it said the science is clear, it is overwhelming, we are in a major cooling period, and it’s going to cause enormous problems worldwide. … Now, the data proved to be not backing up that theory. So then all the advocates of global cooling suddenly shifted to global warming, and they advocated it’s warming, and the solution interestingly enough was the exact same solution — government control of the energy sector and every aspect of our lives.
Now, how many times have you seen me write something similar, usually along the lines of “Warmists want the Central government to have control over our lives, our private entities, and the economy”? Thanks for reading PC, Ted. A shout out would be nice. 
Rafi Cruz and Mr. Teach have something in common: they are both wrong-headed on global warming. Cruz cites a single calculated value from one satellite dataset RSS, but ignores another satellite dataset, UAH which shows warming.
It’s always projection. Cruz claims climate scientists never wish to discuss data. In fact, it’s Cruz that lies.
Now Cruz compares himself to Galileo. Is there no limit to this man’s ego?
Newsweek is not a good source for science. In fact, in the 70s, most papers published on climate change correctly predicted future warming. Sensationalism in the lay press is not the same as good science, and in the 70s was not even good reporting.
No, it was not scientific wisdom that the Earth was flat; the flat Earth derived from conventional wisdom, not science. Science proved the Earth was a sphere well before Galileo was even born.
Galileo hypothesized that the Earth orbited the Sun, rather than the other way around (spoiler alert: he was right). Other astronomers and the Catholic Church opposed him. The Christian Inquisition concluded that Galileo’s hypothesis was false and contrary to the Scripture of the Christian Bible. He was tried by the Church and convicted and placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life. It was the Christian Church that called him a heretic, not science.
Rafi Cruz has it all exactly backwards. Maybe he should sue Harvard for a refund.
Wonder why Cruz chose to address 17 years of data? Seems like a random number, right? Why not 20? Or 30? Or 50?
Maybe it’s because the hottest years on record, over 130 years of data, have ALL occurred since 1998. 1998 just happens to be 17 years ago. Coincidence?
Any reasonable person would come to the obvious conclusion that the 10 hottest years on record occurring since 1998 is pretty damn telling.
It takes someone with an agenda or a stake in the game, such a politician from a fossil fuel producing state like Texas, to even attempt to spin those facts into proof that global warming isn’t real.
Please wake up, folks.
I had a highly intelligent friend who called global-warming skeptics “flat-earthers” in front of me. I explained to him that flat-earthers were people who followed the consensus of the day, therefore modern AGW believers are today’s flat-earthers, not the skeptics. He didn’t like that one bit, and immediately assumed that I am anti-gay and pro-polluters. I explained to him that I ran the first business that persuaded my health-insurance carrier to put in domestic partner coverage and undertook considerable time and legal expense to make that happen, but he says he has friends who are gay and they should be allowed to love just like us, etc…,
the point being that debating with AGW’ers is illogical and pointless.
Oh Bob, why couldn’t it be that he used the 17 years because they start backward from today?
Your points on “hottest years on record” are highly debatable, sourced by people who continually manipulate and fabricate the surface temperature data to cool the past and warm the present. By people who called 2014 the hottest year on record, even though it was 1.8C cooler than 1997 when they call that the hottest year on record. But they’ve since cooled 1997 and all the other years to keep the present hotter. Most of our high temperature records were set in the 1930’s and stand unbroken today, yet they’ve vastly lowered the “homogenized” mean temperatures from that time, sometimes by as much as 2 degrees. But the records stand. And the thousands who died of heatstroke in the 1930’s still died of heatstroke. Only our “official” record has changed.
“10 hottest years on record occurring since 1998. Why not 20, or 30..?” For that matter, why not 4.5 billion? What’s telling is your take on the “data”. You have no comparable data to say “the hottest year” prior to about 1880. What are the chances it was warmer, or colder, in the 4.5 billion years preceding your momentous event? Hint- you don’t have to be a math whiz to answer. Second, the alleged warming in no way proves why it’s warming- which is the ballgame, right? We’ve had warmer periods before, the Medieval Warming Period being the most well-known. Why was it warmer back then before SUV’s? “It takes someone with an agenda,such as politician from a fossil producing state like Texas to even attempt to spin that global warming isn’t real.” Oh, my. You do realize that the entity with the biggest “agenda” in this game is the US government, which funnels billions of dollars every year to the alarmist side? Anyway, if the science is on your side what difference does it make who funds what?
the two child abusers spout their hate and ignorance yet support the delusion alcholic hillary and the racist barryobama …. their fear of Ted Cruz and rational thought is palatable .. they need to get out of grandma’s basement and try some fresh air
The only child molester to comment here is drinking again. You meant palpable, right – not palatable. And you meant delusional, right – not delusion. And you meant alcoholic, right – not alcholic.
I’m in my 60s, so my grandmothers have been dead for years.
I fear Rafi Cruz like I fear Sarah Palin, Donald Trump and Herman Cain. I hope he wins the Repubicum nomination. I’ll even donate. We Dems did fear John McCain – up until he brought in Palin –
Let’s set the temp data aside for a second. It’s hard to discuss the figures when someone can just claim its manipulated (apparently a collective effort of public and private institutions around the world).
Please let me know which of the following is false or disputed:
1. The sun gives off shortwave radiation (aka UV Rays)
2. The short-wave radiation hears the Earth’s surface, which re-emits energy as long-wave radiation (aka “heat”)
3. CO2 absorbs long-wave radiation, trapping the heat.
4. The ability of CO2 to be mostly transparent to short-wave radiation, while being non-transparent to long-wave radiation, is an indisputable process in atmospheric science.
If the following questions were posed to a reasonably capable 5th grader, what do you think there answers would be?
Given 1-4 above, a significant decrease in CO2 in the atmosphere would cause the amount of heat absorbed to ______________?
Given 1-4 above, a significant increase in CO2 in the atmosphere would cause the amount of heat absorbed to ______________ ?
The basic science should create no ideological or political conflict. None. Do liberals and conservatives argue about the temperature that water freezes?
To claim the US Gov’t funnels billions because of an agenda, or directs NASA, the Navy, the Pentagon, and every academic institution to manipulate temperature data (data that still gets disputed), is a willful rejection of reality that I simply can’t comprehend. And yet, it still doesn’t explain why thousands of scientists from France, China, Germany, Russia, Austria, England, Canada, and many other countries come to the same conclusion. Did the American “leftists” organize it? Or maybe Al Gore? Or a global conspiracy?
Then, we have many American corporations like IBM, McDonalds, and Starbucks, for example, that have no doubts about the science.
From Coca-Cola website (cokecce.com): “Climate change caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions, is one of the greatest threats to our planet.”
Walmart then-CEO in 2005 (10 fucking years ago): “The science is in and it’s overwhelming.”
And best of all, ConocoPhillips CEO at annual shareholder’s meeting on 2013: “As a company, we recognize the impact that humans are having on the environment and that CO2 is having an impact on what’s happening in the climate.” The ConocoPhillips CEO!!!!
The Koch brothers spent $400 million on 2012 elections and have planned for $889 million in 2016. Do you really think they will spend $1.2 BILLION dollars because they care so much about gay marriage or immigration reform? Really? Think about it. Combine the two and you’d have the wealthiest person in the world. They have a lot at stake. They desperately want climate change to not be true. Can’t you see why they can control politicians and control the conservative media? They want to muddy the issue, create doubt, create the idea that the “science isn’t settled”, anything they can to protect their wealth.
If you were a climate scientist, would you manipulate your research to get more $50k grants from the gov’t, or would you manipulate your research to get more checks from the Koch bros? Seriously, just think about it.
Ok, we can go back to the fine details of the data if you’d like. But I’d rather not. I’m not an expert. I’m not a scientist. I’m just a regular guy who is very worried about the planet my 4 year old son and one year old daughter will inherit. Then I start thinking about their kids, and it absolutely scares the shit out of me. If that makes me part of the “alarmist cult”, so be it.
I just hope it won’t be much longer before the deniers realize they’re fighting against reality, not beliefs. Gay marriage, immigration, size of gov’t, use if drones, trading prisoners for a deserter, deals with Iran, abortion, George Zimmerman….those are all subjective. There’s no right or wrong answer, only opinions and beliefs and values.
Does the accumulation of CO2 cause a change in the climate and a warming of the planet? That’s not subjective. Beliefs don’t matter, opinions don’t matter. It’s a yes or no question. There is a right or wrong answer. Think about your kids or grandkids or future grandkids, then think who is more likely to right: the fossil fuel industry and the politicians they finance, or NASA, the Navy, the Pentagon, ConocoPhillips, Coca-cola, thousands of universities, and thousands of the world’s scientists?? And throw in the basic logic of a 5th grader. Who you gonna choose? Your kids livelihoods are at stake. My kids livelihoods are at stake. Please choose wisely, then go back to being as conservative, liberal, moderate, or apolitical as you want.
Was so worked up I forgot to proofread. Damn autocorrect!
Confessions of a Greenpeace dropout.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic
dp, excellent article, thanks for the pointer.
Patrick Moore – Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic — Because that’s why he and his front company Greenspirit are paid. There’s nothing wrong with making a buck, but you can expect some criticism.
Here’s what Greenpeace says about their erstwhile colleague who claims to be a cofounder – “exploits long gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.”
Moore famously was defending Monsanto’s RoundUp in an interview, claiming:
LOL. How funny is that?
Anyway:
Earth is warming.
Because of CO2.
CO2 that we’ve added and are still adding to the atmosphere.
It is pushing Earth out of the global climate that has existed for the entire time human civilization has been on Earth. We’re leaving the Holocene because of human activity.
We are experiencing climate changes now with more to come.
Contrary to what you hear from the Patrick Moore’s et al, a few degrees C increase in the mean global surface temperature is a big, big change. Earth is currently experiencing the warmest climate of the entire Holocene with no sign of stopping.
Here are a few of Dr. Patrick Moore’s clients:
B.C. Hazardous Waste Management Corporation
Canadian Pulp and Paper Association
Westcoast Energy
BC Gas
National Association of Forest Industries in Australia
Canadian Mining Association
Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada
BHP Minerals (Canada) Ltd.
American Forest and Paper Association
Council of European Paper Industries
State Forestry Associations in Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, New York, Maine, and Florida
National Hardwood Lumber Association
ForestLeadership
International Service for Assistance with Agri-Biotec
Filipino Society of Foresters
Agri-Food Canada
IPEX, Canada… PVC manufacturer
full disclosure – I used to work for Monsanto. I consider it to be a fine company, well run and fair to employees.
Ah, the good old Heartland Institute, the 501(c)(3) nonprofit, public think tank. Well that solves that. My mistake. They clearly are an unbiased group with absolutely no political motivations.
1. By law, to receive the 501(c)(3) classification, an organization cannot have public support below 33.3% of contributions for two years in a row. According to their IRS Form 990, public contributions made up 36% in 2008 and 33% in 2009. Just barely avoided the private organization classification. Good for them.
2. There’s plenty of documentation available that shows some of the Heartland’s donors. Some examples:
– Koch Industries (shocking, I know!!)
– Exxon
– Illinois Coal Association
– Murray Energy
– American Petroleum Institute
– Phillip Morris (Heartland is certain that secondhand smoke is not dangerous!! Damn scientists and doctors and their socialist agendas!!)
3. (This cracked me up.) In August 2014, Heartland President and CEO, Joseph Bast, was blasted by a Travis County Texas judge in a court ruling:
“Mr Bast is not a credible witness…while Mr Bast described himself as an economist, he holds neither an undergraduate nor graduate degree in economics, and the highest level of education he received was high school….his use of inflammatory and irresponsible language regarding global warming, and his admission that the longterm goal of his advocacy is undermine the “socialist” public education system further undermine his credibility with this court.”
That damn TEXAS judge must be a goddamn lying leftist!!!
4. Patrick Moore is a paid spokesman. He just is. It’s ironic that as a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, Moore promoted nuclear power as a “solution to global warming because it produces no greenhouse gases.” Apparently, he realized just how lucrative it could be to switch teams and advocate for the fossil fuel industry. His agent must love him, probably a more lucrative client than Ndamukong Suh.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/nuclear/patric-moore-background-inform/
(If you were a scientist willing to say anything, would you manipulate as needed for government grants, or for checks from the most profitable industry human civilization has ever known?)
Well, I guess the science isn’t settled after all. I’ve got some thinking to do. Should I believe the institution that landed a spacecraft on a comet millions of miles away and traveling millions of mph? Or, should I believe an institution funded in part by the Kochs and led by a man with a high school diploma, who was deemed not credible by a Judge in the ultra-liberal, leftist haven known as Texas??
Before I decide, can you tell me what’s at stake again?
Something I don’t understand is why average citizens cling to the denialist movement with such fervor? What do you get out of it? I understand the fossil fuel industry protecting their interests, and the politicians and paid spokesmen have a financial interest, but what do average citizens get out of it?
Do you like paying your gas and electricity bills so much that they must protected at all costs? Why is a future with an energy infrastructure that includes significant solar (nobody owns the sun’s energy) and wind (nobody owns the wind) so unappealing? There is a finite amount of fossil fuels in the ground. The easiest to access has already been consumed. It’s a basic principle of economics: when the supply goes down, prices go up. Are you excited to pay the additional cost of equipment, research, exploration, and planning that will accompany a future with more difficult fuel extraction?
It’s not like accepting the reality that fossil fuel consumption has on the planet would just tank the economy overnight. The government isn’t going to come confiscate your Jeep Cherokee and raid all the coal plants. It’s just the start of a long process. It’s not a green light for liberal leftists to just take over every aspect of your life.
Once the deniers accept the reality, the politicians will get the cover they need to start having honest debates about possible solutions. There can be conservative solutions and free-market solutions to counteract any proposed solutions you deem a liberal takeover. And that’s ok. What should be done to address climate change is a political issue that should garner a healthy debate. Whether or not climate change is real? That should never have been a political issue. It’s not subjective. My opinion means nothing, your opinion means nothing. Al Gore’s opinion means nothing. No person’s views have any influence on reality whatsoever. The science is true whether you believe it or not.
And lastly, think of the political implications. If you are an American denier, there’s little doubt you vote GOP. The cold, hard truth is that the GOP will never win the white house with a nominee that outright denies climate change. It’s just impossible. There are significant numbers of people who have historically voted Republican and support the Republican party on nearly every issue, but view climate change denial as a deal breaker. It’s just too important to get wrong. There is also a large number of apolitical citizens, a lot of them are young, who likely won’t even show up to vote. But have a climate denier on the ballot? They’ll turn out in massive numbers. It would shock me if colleges around the country brought in buses to ship students to the ballot box.
So, accepting climate change would bring back the right-leaning independents and historically GOP voters who have made the decision they can’t vote for a climate denier in good conscious. And it would keep a lot of the climate-concerned, single-issue voters, who typically vote Democrat, away from the ballot box. It would be the best thing the GOP could do itself. But, the politicians are helplessly under the control of the fossil fuel industry. The only thing more powerful is the voice of the voters.
Enjoying the 8 years of Obama? Looking forward to 8 years of Hillary? If so, then keep cherry-picking data and finding rogue “scientists” to support climate denial.
Thought of 8 years of Hillary make you want to throw up? Then accept the science, the evidence, and the 97% of the scientists around the world, and lets get started talking solutions.
Deal?
You’re assuming I’m looking to get something out of this, Bob. Unlike Warmists, I have no ulterior motives. I look at all the evidence and make an informed decision.
Let me ask you, what do you get out of the belief in anthropogenic global warming? Are you for higher energy prices? Rolling brownouts and blackouts? Giving the central government more control over your life? A general increase in the cost of living? Higher taxation? Forcing everyone to adopt your beliefs, even though you refuse to practice them yourself? What’s in it for you?
Whether anthropogenic or natural, the world will continue on just like it always has. We’ve seen warner periods throughout the Holocene, and life and the environment had done just fine.
Ignore that temperature has been flat for 18 years, but Koch Bros! Koch Bros! Koch Bros!
So you’re claiming that even if the current rapid warming is from CO2, there’s nothing to be done? Clever girl. Erect roadblocks to keep anything from being done, then when it’s clear we’re in trouble, proclaim loudly we’ve waited too long and there’s nothing that can be done!
This is a false claim. Please supply the evidence to support this.
This is a false claim.
It’s not a belief, it’s being convinced by the evidence. What a realist gets out of it is a future for our children, our children’s children and their children. And yours.
I too have wondered why private deniers deny the obvious. Part of the reason is that you dislike the other side, mostly libs, mostly Dems. You dislike those egghead scientists who make you feel dumb. Polluters are on your team. Repubicums are supported by the polluters. Partly it’s a religious issue – God’s Earth is too big and powerful to be changed by insignificant humans. You take your cues from elites who DO get paid handsomely by the polluters – FOX, WUWT, Heartland, FOX, Climate Audit, FOX, Junk Science, the Republic Party, FOX, Heritage, CEI, FOX. It’s your tribe.
Nah, we just dislike liars like you.
But you’re still amusing.
18 years and counting…
DP,
I always ask you and your ilk to point out my lies in real time and you never do. You shout “liar”, but never address my “lies”. Curious.
On the other hand… you lie constantly.
That’s a lie. Since 1997 (18 years), the average global surface temperature has increased:
Gistemp: 0.16 C
NOAA: 0.12 C
Hadcrut: 0.13 C
BEST: 0.20 C
RSS: 0.00 C
UAH: 0.18 C
The median of those 6 is 0.145 C warming in the last 18 yrs. (The mean is 0.16 C)
So you’re a proven liar.
The facts (truth) prove that. Do you understand the concept of “facts” or “truth”? The Earth is warming, even in the past 18 years. You refuse to look for yourself – you trust the lies from your elites, making you a useful follower. Teach knows the truth but tells you, a follower, a lie. Rush, Glenn, Rafi, FOX all know the truth, but tell you, their good little follower who refuses to think for yourself, a lie. They count on you not being an independent thinker.
Note that one database, the RSS satellite derived calculation shows no warming. What kind of thermometer do they use? Do they drop a long wire down with a thermometer tied to it, you think? Have you ever wondered how a satellite 100 miles up measures temperature in the troposphere (not even the surface where humans live)?
You’re not just a liar, you don’t even know a thing about what you lie about. You repeat what you hear from your tribal leaders.
So, wee one, now that you know the truth, go and lie no more. (LOL)
Climate realists get nothing out of it, William. Do you think I want to pay higher taxes? Or higher energy costs? Or have more government in my life just for the hell of it? C’mon, man. The claims that “warmists” MUST have an ulterior motive such as a desire for government control, they’re communists, they’re radical environmentalists, or they have some grand vision of a singular global community, are all baseless and illogical.
Realists recognize the reality of the situation. They don’t want any of the things you mentioned, but they would choose them over the alternative of pretending there isn’t a problem. Because the problem has a range of consequences far worse than the inconvenience of short-term tax or energy issues.
Deniers seem to fall into one of three groups:
1) Deniers who are loyal team players who will support their team not matter what. Their team says climate change is a myth that’s pushed by radical “leftists” with some secret agenda. So they adopt the team talking points and deny there is a problem.
2) Deniers who claim to have studied the evidence and come to the conclusion that it’s fake. I don’t believe that’s possible. Not if they’ve looked at ALL of the evidence, all of the scientific explanations, all of the dots being connected. More likely, they’ve studied the evidence that’s been put out by the team-approved sources. The sources that aren’t part of the liberal, leftist, socialist media according to Rush. As a result, they get evidence that’s completely filtered to make sure it fits a particular agenda.
3) Deniers that recognize that climate change is real, but they absolutely hate all of the possible solutions. Any threat of tax increases, higher energy costs, cooperation, sacrifice, or more federal government in their lives is simply unacceptable. So they just deny their is a problem. And if they tell themselves it isn’t happening over and over and over, eventually, they actually start to believe that it’s a hoax. Or, they adopt new positions such as, “it may be warming, but it’s natural and has nothing to do with the accumulation of the gigatons of CO2 that humans have unnaturally pumped into the atmosphere.” Or, “there isn’t anything we can do because China and India won’t change, so why should we.”
Realists, however, recognize that there’s no other choice. The consequences are overwhelming. If it was just going to be warmer and everyone would live in Arizona weather all year, it wouldn’t be a big deal. But that’s not the reality.
More frequent and significantly more severe storms (rain and snow), devastating droughts, loss of food sources, loss of livable land, massive costs for damaged and destroyed infrastructure…and those are just a few issues for Americans to deal with.
What do you think will happen when the middle east and northern Africa (who already have extremely limited food and water resources) suffer devastating changes due to climate? Areas that will no longer be inhabitable will force people to seek refuge in other lands. Do you think they’ll all be neighborly and welcome those impacted? Well, considering most violent conflicts in the history of mankind has been over access to land and natural resources, it seems war, genocide, and population shocks are far more likely. And what happens when those people recognize that the Western world, with America as the poster boy, has been the primary cause of this devastation because of the way they’ve lived? Are they going to start a war with us? Slap some economic sanctions? The end result of this is inevitable. Terrorism. Non-religious terrorism, a la the Unabomer.
Oh yeah, the ice!! Humans have never lived on an iceless planet. It’s not some crazy theory that significant portions of livable land will be underwater. It’s math. It’s not subjective. How much is that going to cost? What will happen to the cost of living as the amount of livable land decreases? What will happen to the cost of food as the amount of farm land decreases, and coincides with significant droughts, floods, wildfires, etc? Kinda makes fear of increases in tax and energy costs seem like a drop in the bucket.
I could go on and on and on. Everything is connected. When one domino falls in an ecosystem, there’s many more to follow.
So, let’s go back to the most important question. Does the accumulation of carbon cause a warming of the atmosphere and changing of the climate? Again, it’s not subjective. There’s a right answer and a wrong answer.
Humans landed a spacecraft the size of a washing machine on a comet traveling 41,000 MPH and 4 BILLION MILES AWAY. Just think about that. It’s beyond the human mind to truly comprehend 4 billion miles. Did these scientists just “believe” it could be done because of some prophecy or some holy book? Did they need indisputable evidence that it had been done before? Nope. But they had all of the known mathematical and scientific truths that allowed them to connect the dots and PREDICT that it could be done.
Realists don’t need indisputable evidence to recognize all of the known mathematical and scientific truths in climate science. When all the dots are connected, the outcome is very, very clear. That’s the beauty of science, the ability to predict outcomes.
The scientists at NASA and the European Space Agency connected the dots and launched a spacecraft that would land on a comet 10 years in the future. Those same scientists have connected the dots and have ZERO doubt that climate change is real and will only get worse.
So ask yourself again: NASA scientists, or politicians and the fossil fuel industry? And don’t worry, you don’t have to turn in your proud conservative membership card. You don’t have to sacrifice your beliefs, or values, or morals, or worldviews. One more time…IT IS NOT SUBJECTIVE.