Truthsquadding Ted Cruz Climate Denial
February 11, 2016
It’s on.
Ted Cruz did us the enormous favor a few days ago by reeling off a list of the greatest hits of bonehead climate denial.
I’ll be going thru these one by one and taking them down in coming weeks, it’s time.
Here’s the first entry.
So fasten your seat belt, Mr Cruz, you are about to be schooled.
Advertisements
February 11, 2016 at 8:56 pm
Wow. He’s not stupid, so I assume he really doesn’t think there’s any risk in spreading this manure– seems his supporters have all gone BS nose-blind.
February 11, 2016 at 9:48 pm
Great Peter Sinclair video making Ted Cruz extremely foolish indeed. But more than foolish he is a danger and a menace to future generations and functioning of our planet. What enrages me most about the man, is his arrogance in denouncing NASA, claiming they are cooking the books. He does not even consider Japan, and every other country that keeps scientific temperature record archives, both major and minor. He just quotes questionable statistics from the University of Alabama. He must know he is on thin ground, who does he think he is kidding ? He insults institutes of learning and affronts climate scientists.
This study concludes the West Antartic Ice Sheet will be gone
“Given a business-as-usual scenario of global warming, the collapse of the West Antarctic could proceed very rapidly and the West Antarctic ice masses could completely disappear within the next 1,000 years,”
A thousand years is only 13 or 14 generations away, but does Cruz and his supporters give a toss ?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160209110111.htm
February 12, 2016 at 5:20 am
1000 years is more like 30-40 generations away, but your point remains.
February 11, 2016 at 10:27 pm
Barrett, Earl W. (1971). “Climate Change.” (Letter) Science 171: 983.
Bryson, Reid A. (1968). “‘All Other Factors Being Constant…’ a Reconciliation of Several Theories of Climate Change.” Weatherwise 21: 56-61ff.
Crary, A. P., et al. (1955). “Evidences of Climate Change from Ice Island Studies.” Science 122: 1171-73.
Davis, William Morris (1933). “Climate Changes and the Last Glacial Period.” Science Suppl., 10 March, p. 9.
Huntington, Ellsworth (1914). “The Solar Hypothesis of Climate Changes.” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 25: 477-590
February 12, 2016 at 7:30 am
Dont forget
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/pdf
The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change, Plass 1955
February 11, 2016 at 11:06 pm
This is well and good here but how can it be shown to the Cruz nutters? I think the Thatcher and GB I videos are especially powerful.
February 12, 2016 at 1:19 am
Next up from Ted Cruz?
“Any idiot can tell that gravity isn’t changing. The satellite record shows that there has been no change in gravity for the past eighteen years. A five sigma signal this year from those liars at LIGO, averaged over 18 years, is only 0.3 sigma, it’s scientific FRAUD to claim that means anything. I have John and Judy here to swear-to-God and put their credibility and ginormous reputation among their colleagues on-the-line about that.”
Just speculating… ; -)
February 12, 2016 at 4:58 am
Ted Cruz nuked from orbit. Well done Peter!
The cognitive dissonance this should cause should smart like salt repeatedly rubbed into a self-inflicted wound.
February 12, 2016 at 9:13 am
As much as I like to see that disgusting slimeball and huge POS Cruz get dumped on, I would like to remind everyone that repeating his BS over and over in the process of debunking it and trashing him is fraught with danger because of the “belief echo” effect. The same is true of our “debates” on Crock with the morons like Tom Bates, Russell, Cook, and Adrian Vance, especially when we repeat their lies and bad science as we contrast them with the truth.
A recent (short and sweet) article in the WashPost discusses this phenomenon with regard to dealing with Donald Trump’s BS, but it has great import for dealing with the AGW “debate” and deniers like Cruz as well. There are a lot of “lurkers” on Crock and in the real world—-they are not paying much attention and often not well-informed, and are therefor susceptible to this belief effect—perhaps we should just stop responding to the Cruzes and simply concentrate on getting out the truth instead.
http://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-washington-post-sunday/20160110/282033326185967/TextView
February 12, 2016 at 6:44 pm
Future generations?
Look at the three fold increase in number of natural disasters from Munich RE. They are the largest reinsurance company in the world that has to know how to price risk.
Check out crop loss data.
Check out the US Department of Defense Quadrennial Threat Assessment report talking about the instability climate change causes now.
I am worried about what happens during my lifetime.
One simple solution have fewer people to reduce greenhouse gases.
This can be accomplished by asking people to:
1) Decide if and when they want to start having children
2) Decide how many children they want
3) Decide how to keep to their plan (contraceptives)
This works because currently in the US 51% of all pregnancies are unplanned.
If the number of unplanned pregnancies goes down, the number of people goes down.
To supper charge the effort, make contraceptive more available to the poor. It help them take control of their lives, saves the government money (one dollar toward reproduction services reduces demand for other services by five to seven dollars)
For the conservative out there it will also reduce the number of abortions dramatically.
February 13, 2016 at 7:38 am
My best links on the subject:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/cyndi-kirkpatrick/chemistry-is-not-political/774569992675130
February 29, 2016 at 10:11 am
[…] I show on this page, and here as well, Ted Cruz, the most hated man in America, is now the face of climate […]