Nothing like having the news media to protect your cult. Even the headline itself highlights that this is politics, not science
Cruz worlds apart from the scientific consensus that Earth is warming due to human activity
Consensus is not science. Hard facts obtained through observation and applying the Scientific Method would be proof. Perhaps the AP could explain why the data is constantly changing. If a year is registered as 55.08F in 2010, then changes to 54.32 in 2012, and is now 54.23 then are these facts? Or just things to modify to fit a narrative? Even the base period has been lowered down by .04 in order to make the current warming look higher than the base period.
CRUZ: “The satellites that actually measure the temperature, that we’ve launched into the air to measure the temperature, they have recorded no significant warming whatsoever for the last 18 years.”
THE FACTS: Scientists, including those who work with the very satellite measuring system that Cruz refers to, say he’s misusing the satellite data. They do show warming, albeit relatively little over the period Cruz cites, says Carl Mears, senior scientist for Remote Sensing Systems, which produces the data that Cruz refers to.
But by starting his comparison period in 1997, Cruz has selected a time when temperatures spiked because of an El Nino weather pattern. Starting at an artificially high point minimizes the rate of increase since then, Mears said, adding, “If you start riding your bike at the top of a big hill, you always go downhill, at least for a while.”
Would it surprise you that this “fact check” is co-written by Seth Borenstein, an uber-Warmist, meaning he is less than a neutral “fact checker”? Who then goes on to do the exact type of cherry picking that he accused Cruz of doing?
The long-term trend that Mears’ satellites show is about 0.7-degree warming since 1979, when satellites started measuring temperature. Ground-based monitors show a warming of about 1 degree during the same period. And 1979 was not among the top five hottest or coldest years in the 36 years of records.
Then we get
CRUZ: “John Kerry said in 2009 the polar ice caps will be entirely melted by 2013. … Has anyone noticed the polar ice caps are still there? In fact, there was an expedition that went down to Antarctica to prove that the polar ice caps were melting … (the ship) got stuck in the ice because in fact the polar ice caps have increased. They are larger than they were. So not only was Kerry incorrect, he was spectacularly absolutely opposite the facts.”
THE FACTS: Kerry was talking about the ice cap at the North Pole, and it’s true that it hasn’t melted as he predicted. But in pointing that out, Cruz distorts the facts by referring to a ship that got stuck in Antarctic ice a world away near the South Pole.
Scientists do say it’s only a matter of decades before the sea ice around the North Pole will be melted during the summer months, and some countries’ navies are already exploring the area for quicker sea routes. Scientific measurements in Antarctica — where thick ice sheets sit atop land, not floating on the ocean as in the Arctic — show the ice sheets are diminishing on one side while growing on the other. But the fact that a ship got stuck in ice in the Antarctica doesn’t tell us anything about the phenomenon.
First, said fact checkers try to obfuscate. They were apparently separate comments regarding Kerry and the ship. But, it is cute that Borenstein has now shifted the goalposts of a doomed North Pole to several decades from now. Nor does he mention that science is showing that the melt in a port of Antarctica seems to be coming from underneath, most likely from volcanic activity, rather than someone using a gas stove.
CRUZ: “If you’re a big-government politician, if you want more power, climate change is the perfect pseudo-scientific theory … because it can never, ever, ever be disproven.”
THE FACTS: Far from being pseudo-science, climate change is the consensus view among real scientists.
Again, consensus is not science. And, those who are believers have set up a system where their beliefs cannot be disproven. And, warming is not proof of anthropogenic causation: just warming. Which happens. The Cult of Climastrology needs to prove their hypothesis through science, not talking points and failed computer models, especially when the satellite records disagree with the surface records. Let’s not forget that NASA stated that “Satellite analysis of upper atmosphere is more accurate, & should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temp change.” Now that the satellite data disagrees, Warmists hate them. They’d prefer to use the land based measurements, which include tons of improperly sited stations, stations that over-estimate warming, and, rather than lower their values for smoothing, they increase the values on properly sited stations which refuse to cooperate with the talking points.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
These clowns are still on their “we have more guys on our side so we win” argument?
j,
The “clowns” on my side are the same “clowns” who understand that the Earth is spherical, the universe is some 14 billion years old and that the biological diversity on this Earth is a result of biological evolution.
There is a scientific consensus that matter is made up of atoms. That the Earth is some 4 billion years old. That tobacco causes cancer. That carbon dioxide absorbs radiation of certain wavelengths. That bonobos are more closely related to humans than are daffodils, or macaques.
The acceptance of scientific theories as consensus depends on the accumulation of overwhelming evidence, and the absence of “killer” contrary evidence.
There is precious little “proof” in science. Can you prove the universe is 14 billion years old? Why do you believe it? Can you prove that all you see around you are collections of individual atoms linked together by covalent, salt, hydrogen and coordination bonds? Why do you believe it? Can you prove that the calculations used to derive a “brightness temperature” from satellite radiation data represents the real temperature? Why do you believe it?
You believe these things because of 1) scientific authority, 2) scientific consensus and importantly 3) believing these things does not contradict your deeply held ideologies.
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that the Earth is warming. (You deny this).
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that burning fossil fuels has caused a 40% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. (Do you deny this?)
There is overwhelming evidence that carbon dioxide absorbs certain wavelengths of radiation. (Do you deny this?)
Selective Science Deniers (SSDs) are not motivated by scientific evidence in the least. You are motivated by political ideology. Why do you deny that? You may very well have a reasonable political argument.
No direct scientific proof or data has been shown that link the current observations to human activity.
The link is simply assumed to be a fact.
I’ve asked you to unpack this statement on several occasions. As it stands, your statement is incorrect. I thought you would want to know.
We assume by “current observations” you mean “global warming”, and “human activity” means “burning fossil fuels”.
To have a chance of being taken seriously (LOL), you must explain what you mean by “direct scientific proof”. If you won’t or can’t explain what “direct scientific proof” you’re looking for, how will know it when you see it?!? Or is it supersecret?
Jeff,
Your theory has never, ever been subjected to the tenants of the “scientific method”. This was established hundreds of years ago for much the same reasons that we see now. Your observations are basically anecdotal. This type of evidence is almost always wrong. So, what the commenters on this site are asking is for you to provide evidence based on the scientific method. To date, over years of asking, you have not provide a thing.
Is the earth warming? Who knows, the data has been abrogated and subjected to the political process, not the scientific.
Any one, with any college science, can blow apart any of your assumptions. Then, your comments, instead of showing intelligence, only confirm your dismal lack of understanding. Your fall back position is to revert to adolescent name calling and dissimilation. You do realize that your 99 scientist have consistently tried to put their assumptions and conclusions into computer form and have yet to achieve prediction based on their work?
I have provided you with a parallel to this issue in the form of cholesterol being associated with disease. After 50 years of the same “science” that you are advocating, billions of dollars spent, loss of millions of lives, we are finally coming to the conclusion that people similar to you led the world down the wrong path. Why? That is a big question but has nothing at all to do with conspiracy. It is a matter of discourse, aberration of the peer review process (just as in the climate science), and a desire to get money from government and big pharma sources (same as with the climate).
Perhaps your “science” would be more acceptable and easier to work with if the only conclusion for righting the problem was not political in the form of changing our government, heavy taxes and being subjugated to rule by a world body.
In the end, as with the economy and everything else that you comment on, you would be well served by improving your education and knowledge base rather than criticizing others who clearly have superior knowledge and ability.
dave,
You do not understand science.
Which part of those statements is untrue?
Who can say, since it’s meaningless gibberish, unless you care to explain what you mean.
Two simple statements of fact.
Provide proof that they are untrue.
Jeff,
Typical adolescent response, get an education.
Word salad. Gibberish. Palinisms. Nonsense. Scrabble.
Define what you mean by “direct scientific proof”. If you can’t or won’t it means you’ve been caught with your pants down.
What you’re saying is that in your ignorant, uninformed and biased opinion, you are not persuaded by the same evidence that persuades over 97% of scientists, most major religions, every major government and most corporations.
In addition, you cannot or will not identify what further evidence you WOULD find persuasive.
dave,
So you think that the Theory of AGW has been falsified because dietary cholesterol does not cause atherosclerosis in most cases?
Do statins reduce the incidence of CV disease?
So you cannot deny the validity of those statements.
No problem,
Neither can the scientists.
Actually, I DO deny the validity of your statements.
So, right, no problem, so do the scientists.
You see, you assume your statement to be factual, but of course facts require some level of precision.
Can you describe what “direct scientific proof” you are looking for?
Perhaps you’re not familiar with the work of Svante Arrhenius a century ago.
So where’s the link?