Climate Absent from Debates, But not from Voter’s Minds

February 9, 2016

Above, a Texas flood survivor, who has obviously been watching my video interviews with Dr. Carl Mears (see below) and others, confronts Ted Cruz about climate change.

Voter: “About the satellite data, the scientist that put out that data said you’re misquoting it and misusing it.”

Cruz: “I understand there are scientists with political agendas.”
(he said, while shaking hands in a ropeline campaigning in the New Hampshire primary…)

Like a slowly tightening noose, public concern about climate change is closing in on GOP candidates who have backed themselves into an untenable corner on the critical issue, in what may be yet another record hot year.

Huffington Post:

MANCHESTER, N.H. — When Dan Kipnis stood up and asked Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) about his plan to address climate change, he thought he might face some angry audience members who didn’t like his question. He was shocked to instead find people clapping for him.

“I thought I’d get some boos or something like that,” the 65-year-old retired fishing boat captain from Miami Beach told The Huffington Post after Rubio’s Sunday town hall in Londonderry. “But you know, these people up here in New Hampshire, they’re pretty enlightened.”

This event wasn’t an isolated incident. Questions about climate change frequently come up at GOP town halls, even though it’s an issue that the candidates rarely talk about unprompted and one that almost never comes up during debates.

Kipnis said he was also able to ask former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) a climate change question at a New Hampshire town hall, and he received a similar reception.

“I basically got a standing ovation,” he said.

Bush also received a climate change question during his Saturday town hall in Bedford, New Hampshire. This one was from Cindy Lerner, mayor of Pinecrest, Florida. She and 14 other mayors — a bipartisan group — recently wrote to Rubio and Bush and asked to meet with them about climate change.

“What we’re seeing in Florida and around the country is a very strong, green economy with renewable energy and energy efficiency. And we’d like to see leadership from our next president on this,” Lerner said to applause.

“Look, the climate is changing. We have billions of people that live on the planet. We clearly have an impact. To deny it doesn’t make sense,” Bush replied to more applause, adding that he’d like to meet with the mayors when he’s back in Florida.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) has also repeatedly received questions on the topic.


Republican presidential candidates Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush should be getting an education in climate change soon.

The two GOP candidates agreed last week to meet with a group of 15 South Florida mayors concerned about climate change’s impact on their state and on the country as a whole. The mayors had sent letters to Rubio and Bush in late January, urging the candidates to “acknowledge the reality and urgency of climate change” and asking them to take meetings with them to discuss climate change. One of the mayors — Cindy Lerner of Pinecrest, Florida — journeyed to New Hampshire last week, and questioned both candidates about the letters during town hall events.

“I know that they know the science we are relying on,” Lerner told ThinkProgress of the two candidates, both of whom have political histories in Florida. Bush served as governor of the state from 1999 to 2007, and Rubio is a U.S. senator from Florida. Florida’s university system is heavily involved in climate science, so these two candidates should have a good understanding of the issue, Lerner said.

“To have especially Marco, who is in such denial, ignore the very academic institutions that he has supported, funded, and worked with for more than a decade is really ridiculous, quite frankly,” she said.

Below, my interview with Dr. Mears, whose work Cruz pretends to cite.


Here, Dr. Mears states why he believes surface temperature data are more precise than his own satellite data, which Cruz pretends to cite:


And here, the 8 minute examination of satellite temperature myths that has blown up a major denialist talking point.

I’ll be revisiting the topic for the March video, to examine in depth the surface temperature record, which deniers complain about so often. Stay tuned.


42 Responses to “Climate Absent from Debates, But not from Voter’s Minds”

  1. Truth is a pesky thing. It never goes away. It just waits until everyone comes to it. Ted Cruz and the other politicians are continuing to lie about global warming….and it will ultimately sink them.

    Good for her to press the issue. Because that is what it takes with politicians, unfortunately.

    Whether the issue is the war in Vietnam……..the negative health consequences of tobacco products…..or global warming. We can always count on politicians to be the last ones that push for the truth.

  2. dumboldguy Says:

    Thanks for ruining my morning by making me look at that scumbag Cruz and listen to him spout the same old BS about “no warming for 18 years”, with the backup “killer” point of jumping to the “over the last millennia” and ignoring the real time frame for AGW. And he has the balls to talk about scientists with political agendas? That’s all science is to him—a tool to advance his political agenda, and he has the fossil fuel whores like Christy and Spencer to back him up with their lies and bad science.

    I was hoping the woman would smack him in his smug lying face, or at least give him a “chest bump”, but she obviously has good self-control. I think I could restrain myself from smacking Teddy in that situation, but I’m positive I’d say some things to him that would get bleeped.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      I try to ruin everyone’s morning, just a little bit.

    • Tom Bates Says:

      Cruz may of may not be a scumbag. Some of his positions are pretty dubious and he is not my candidate of choice. On the climate he is simply pointing out the RSS data shows no warming for 18 plus years. The RSS data starts in 1979, in 1998 the data temperatures jumped up and have stayed essentially flat since than. AGW types claim that by making a linear graph from 1979 you have a rise. At least in my opinion that is a misuse of the data. If I did the same thing to the temperatures globally as measured from the Greenland ice cores, the global temperature has been showing a drop since 1000 AD as todays temperature is less than in 1000AD. The actually temperature is more like a wave, high in 1000 AD dropping to about 1625 and than rising for the last 400 years. How can you know it was higher in 1000 AD than today? A news paper article pointed out trees have been found under a glacier in Alaska about a thousand years old. Unless trees grow under ice it had to be warmer which confirms the Greenland ice core study temperatures on the other side of North America. The STAR data shows a decades old decline, the RATPAC data shows a decline in the stratosphere and a near surface rise. The problem with RATPAC is they used to have 85 balloons measuring the temperature, they no longer have that many and the stations measurements and instruments have holes and missing data which NASA, fixed? by making a lot of plugs. How reliable those plugs are I do not know. Giss the surface temperature measurement is 66 percent plugs on a global basis so how reliable that is, is a question at least in my mind. If one considers sea and land ice in Antarctica continues to grow the reliability of Giss in my opinion is dubious.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Cruz is too a scumbag—-everyone thinks so—-his college roommate, his fellow senators. If you’d stop doing you-know-what so much, maybe you’d recover some brain cells and understand that. As for the rest of your too-often-repeated and erroneous BS about trees under glaciers ETC ETC, all one can say is …………ZZZZZZZzzzzzz!!!!!!

      • and the stations measurements and instruments have holes and missing data which NASA, fixed? by making a lot of plugs. How reliable those plugs are I do not know. Giss the surface temperature measurement is 66 percent plugs on a global basis so how reliable that is, is a question at least in my mind.

        You seem to be trying to say that GISS doesn’t have enough coverage to estimate the global-warming trend. But nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the global-average temperature trend reported by NASA can be confirmed with temperature data from as few as 30 locations scattered around the world (as compared with the ~6,000 stations used by NASA to compute its land-temperature warming estimates).

        Take a look at this image:

        The above image shows what I got when I computed global-average temperature results from just 30 random rural stations scattered around the world. My raw and adjusted data results are plotted in green and blue, respectively. The official NASA land-station results are plotted in red.

        So when I hear folks like you questioning NASA/GISS temperature results because of supposedly incomplete global coverage, I know right off the bat that you don’t know what the $#@! you are talking about.

      • ubrew12 Says:

        “Cruz… is simply pointing out the RSS data shows no warming for 18 plus years.” He’s IMPLYING that the RSS data applies to the subject of ‘Global Warming’ (ie ‘Climate Change’). Does the RSS data represent the Globe? It represents 1% of the ‘Globe’ subject to warming, and not even all of THAT!! The RSS data is important, but of all the extra heat the oceans have absorbed in the ‘Industrial Age’, HALF has been absorbed just in the last 18 years of ‘no warming’. Why is it you deniers never want to talk about THAT?

      • markle2k Says:

        “Cruz may of may not be a scumbag.”

        98 out of 100 US Senators disagree. (I’m assuming he is still on good terms with Mike Lee)

  3. Gingerbaker Says:

    So, if the scientist he quoted has a political agenda – doesn’t that mean that his research is not to be trusted?

    • astrostevo Says:

      Not necessarily. Depends on the actual evidence and data and what that says and if there were any methodological flaws in gathering it or not.

      IOW you need to assess the evidence presented on a case by case basis and look at the specifics.

      • Gingerbaker Says:

        Umm.. it was a rhetorical and sarcastic question. To believe Cruz, the paper’s author would have had to have done good science, but would now be lying when he says that Cruz misinterpreted the paper.

        Which means that Cruz is relying on the data produced by a proved liar.

    • pendantry Says:

      Everyone has ‘a political agenda’. The dictionary definition of ‘politics’ may refer to ‘governments’, but in practice politics encompasses the interplay of all human activities.

      A career politician saying something like “I understand there are scientists with political agendas” is a standard deflection, allowing avoidance of the question.

  4. Tom Bates Says:

    If the science of climate change prediction really worked, how come they cannot predict the strength and duration of the present El Nino out less than a year? Yet to hear the AGW people they claim to know what will happen in 2100. That seems to me to be at best a distortion and at worst an outright lie. As to floods in texas, that happens pretty regularly to people who live in flood plains and refuse to move. and as I recall, a few months ago they were complaining about a drought.

    • Gingerbaker Says:

      Well if you can’t understand the topic yet, that’s your problem, Tom. So, your opinion on what is a distortion or an outright lie ain’t worth a puddle of warm cat puke.

      • Tom Bates Says:

        Well from your choice of words you believe in North Korea, get out the little book write down the saying of the chief thugs and whoa to anybody who points out a hole or problem. I understand the topic and the problems. Having read a bunch of studies and read the words of pro and con and the IPEC it turns out the science is being used for political change just like the Nazi used science for political purposes as did the communists. If you really cared you would stop spouting the AGW line and actually look into why science has doubters along with the general public. The world is warming, which is a good thing, as otherwise about 3 billion people would be dead from starvation at the very least. How much warming is to much and how much it will warm is up in the air. The claim CO2 from man is warming the planet is a political argument not a science one as the warming has actually been measured over about a ten year period. It was 0.00014705882 percent of solar gain. As CO2 increases the warming effect falls off so doubling does not double the warming, it is only about 6 percent greater. NASA points out changes in earths tilt and orbit show warming for the next 25000 plus years not counting any changes in solar output during that period. The real driver is solar gain from the sun not CO2.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Tom has GOT to be Poe-ing us. NOBODY could be this freakin’ stupid. They would have stepped off a curb in front of a bus or off a high cliff as a child or drowned from standing in a shower with their mouth open as a teenager and been eliminated from the gene pool.

          Here he is, maundering on about North Korea, plucking from thin air the observation that “ABOUT 3 billion people would be dead from starvation at the VERY least”, violating Godwin’s Law by bringing up Nazis, mentioning IPEC (none of the organizations with that acronym have anything to do with AGW), and giving us a meaningless number carried out to ELEVEN freakin’ decimal places!!.

          A veritable orgasm of BS from Master Bates. Did it feel good, Tom?

        • greenman3610 Says:

          exactly “0.00014705882 percent of solar gain”.
          impressive accuracy.

        • OK, I’m only an educated layman when it comes to AGW science, but I do actually read the science when I can. And I do know a bit about astronomy. When Master Bates says, “The real driver is solar gain from the sun not CO2,” it’s really a whopper (which is saying a lot among the many that he spews). But of course he clearly fancies his own whopper and spends way too much time with it already….

          Tom, to avoid a truly vulgar (but well-deserved) nickname, you should probably give it up and stay over at that Watts site, where they will welcome and indeed suck up to your form of whop…er, prevarication.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Good advice, Kendal. We have said the same to Master Bates before, but he apparently doesn’t hear us. He is perhaps too busy concentrating on getting results as he does you-know-what (or maybe he’s reading up on how to catch a goat?). Doubt that he multi-tasks well.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      OH NO! Tom has found this thread and is spouting his confused BS once again. We must come up with a sobriquet that we can hang on him, like “A Drunk” for Adrian Vance. Reading Tom’s crap is certainly no fun, so can we try to jazz up his name and have some fun that way?

      Someone made a play on “Master Bates” on another thread, and that’s a good one, considering how much of a mental masturbater and all-around “wanker” our boy is. A bit vulgar perhaps, but so is the damage Tom does to science and the concept of rational thought.

      “If the science of climate change prediction really worked, how come they cannot predict the strength and duration of the present El Nino out less than a year?”, Tom asks? Lord love a duck, but that’s inane, especially when followed with “yet the AGW people claim to know what will happen in 2100”. LMAO at the logic fails there. Tommy is trying to steal the King of Non Sequiturs crown from Omnologos with that.

      I wonder if the people who are paying Tom to troll this site know what a laughable excuse for a troll he is (he obviously does “you-know-what” too many times a day and it’s affecting his brain). Maybe he’s a subcontractor for Russell Cook—Russell, are you out there? Whatever cut you’re giving Tom from your Heartland whore’s salary, it’s too much.

      • Sez “d.o.g.”: “Maybe he’s a subcontractor for Russell Cook—Russell, are you out there? Whatever cut you’re giving Tom from your Heartland whore’s salary, it’s too much.”

        Still living rent-free in “d.o.g.”‘s brain, I am, watching brand new conspiracy theories pop up like weeds. Just did a Google search of my name combined with the words “climate change” for the last week time period out of curiosity to see if a particular prominent person has caught my work yet, and what do I find instead? “D.o.g.”‘s call-out here.

        Where am I? Dude, I am busy. But tune into every day, and you will soon see just exactly what I’ve been working on …. plus, there will be one new update which will torpedo one of your long-held conspiracy notions. Believe that I have enough extra money to subcontract people if it helps you impress people, but don’t expect them to keep admiring eyes focused on you if you can’t offer evidence to prove even one of your conspiracy ideas.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Sorry, Russell, but I won’t go to GobspitFlies until you stop hiding from the truth and allow outside comments there. I have challenged you several times on this failure of yours, and the silence is deafening.

          You just keep singing your same tired old one-note song and boring us to death. I mention you from time to time, knowing that your income depends on getting noticed—-I am charitable that way—-but will have little to say to you until you “get honest” on your site.

          • Remember, “d.o.g.”, I don’t click in the box for “Notify me of new comments via email”. Assemble a list of links to those comments, I could more quickly look through ’em that way. Also remember, I don’t have the time to deal with comments at my blog, as I clearly stated at the bottom of my About page which you saw fit not to mention at one of your prior comments. But what is your challenge all about anyway? By God (or Allah or no-deity-required), if you have proof I am paid to lie and operate under a set of instructions from anybody, and you can dissect loads of the material in my blog or in my other online articles, why not take advantage of a guest post right here among a friendly audience at Climate Crocks. What’s holding you back?

            Skip looking at my blog at your own peril, it’s a free country, but do keep in mind that I’ll have a fun screencapture link to one of your pair of prior comments in my next funding update piece, to be placed online as soon as I have one procedural item confirmed.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            More evasion and smoke-blowing from Russell. You prove yet again that you are a lying POS, Russell. I have quoted here on Crock more than once what you said on your blog about “not having the time to deal with comments at your blog”, and clearly rejected what you said as bullshit and evidence of cowardice.

            You ask “But what is your challenge all about anyway?”. I will say yet again that anyone who comes here on Crock and craps up the place like you do should be willing to have us come to GobspitFlies and deal with you there. You have the time to come here, you should be able to find the time to deal with us when we come there. You won’t do it because you’re afraid—-you know that we will destroy you, as we have done repeatedly on Crock while you strut around in your Demented Rooster suit. You are All Hat, No Cattle, Russell. Go away.

        • Gingerbaker Says:


          Tom Bates and Russell Cook in the same thread.

          I feel filthy. Three hot showers needed to wash off the black mendacity and Dunning–Kruger residue. Icchhh……………

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Yes, I feel “scuzzy” too after reading their crap. A final body rinse with some Virginia Gentleman bourbon helped me rid my body of the stink, as some taken internally helped to clear my brain. Try some of that Vermont Maple Syrup vodka.

          • Indulge the rest of the audience here: Choose any blog post, and illustrate specifically where within it you see the Dunning–Kruger effect (in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is ). Surely you can deliver on this for the benefit of all ClimateCrocks readers and spare them from looking for it themselves. Yes?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Don’t go to GobspitFlies, GB, because visiting Russell’s site will damage your brain. I might say it would be OK IF he allowed outside comments there so that we could inject some truth and reality into his stream of bullshit, but since he doesn’t allow that, you will only lose IQ points and need another long shower if you go there.

            And Russell’s very existence is proof of the Dunning Kruger effect. Even Russell knows this, as can be evidenced by the first 30 seconds of Russell in action at one of the Heartland Ignorance Sharing confabs.

    • ubrew12 Says:

      Tom Bates: “If the science of climate change prediction really worked, how come they cannot predict the strength and duration of the present El Nino out less than a year?” The ENSO cycle is a cycle of ocean circulation, not atmospheric patterns. And its effect averages out to zero over time periods of 15 years or less (‘climate’ refers to averages over 30 years or more). Guess What? Those ‘scientists’ also can’t predict volcanic eruptions and asteroid impacts!! Clearly, we are ALL better off following the predictions of your Tarot Cards.

  5. miffedmax Says:

    Speaking of being able to predict things, where’s that cooling trend Tom’s friends at Heartland promised us anyway?

  6. indy222 Says:

    Peter, did you see this awful piece of news? Australia decides to stick their head firmly up the “outback” on climate science

    • greenman3610 Says:

      Horrendous. Is this how dark ages begin?

    • dumboldguy Says:

      This is truly bad news for climate science, and particularly for the survival of Australia as a country. Australia is the one developed country most at risk from climate change, and for them to stick their heads in the sand like this at this critical time is absolutely mind-boggling.

      Anyone who wants to understand how precarious things are in AUS should read the chapter on AUS in Jared Diamond’s COLLAPSE. It is a country that has poor soil, serious water issues, and a fragile economy, and one that has had many insanely destructive policies towards the local environment for many years (actually since the very beginning). There had been some small turnarounds in recent years, but this action looks like the country is going to rely on business,and technological pie-in-the-sky to solve their problems rather than solid science. Shameful and sad, but to be expected if one has too “conservative” a philosophy.

  7. lerpo Says:

    Cruz says that starting at an el-nino year to get an 18 year flat trend is not cherry picking because “but what about the 17, the 16, the 15”. One of the experts that he questioned during his senate hearing corrected him on this. Starting at any other year (including 17, 16, or 15) will yield an upward trend. He is either not listening, doesn’t get it, or is repeating something he knows to be false.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: