I think I made a case for that term being inappropriate in this instance. Also that his disparagement of climate science is based on his politics, not the science at all. This happens all the time. You just said that it is all political . . . but it is not. He denies the science of climate change. period. The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that—that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn't happened. -- Ted Cruz To put it mildly, that is horseshit. Yes, the Earth has warmed over the past 15 years, and the science is incredibly, unequivocally clear about that. Anyone making this claim either doesn't know what they're talking about, or is trying to sell you something (or, to be more accurate, has been bought). Cruz claimed that global warming ceased in 1997, misquoted climate scientist Kevin Trenberth, and claimed that the threat of greenhouse gas pollution is “scientific assumptions that have been totally undermined by the latest science.” More bullshit. When pressed about the fact that the arctic is melting, and whether that helps prove climate change is real, Cruz dismissed it. "Other parts are going up. It is not - you know, you always have to be worried about something that is considered a so-called scientific theory that fits every scenario. Climate change, as they have defined it, can never be disproved, because whether it gets hotter or whether it gets colder, whatever happens, they'll say, well, it's changing, so it proves our theory." -- Ted Cruz What a load of crap. "the problem with climate change is there's never been a day in the history of the world in which the climate is not changing," -- Ted Cruz Good Lord, what an idiot. I don't know what you could call this but overt science denial that Cruz is apparently very proud of. It goes on. The Republicans have a propensity to dismiss climate change science. Don't even start me on their daft musings about women’s reproductive processes, support for creationist education, attempts to remove the peer review process at the National Science Foundation, and efforts to roll back funding for research programs.
You think you made a case...fine. I disagree and my case stands. That would be one aspect, not science in general. The term "science denier" is specious and a red herring. In fact, not very scientific either. Nobody is starting you on anything. You have been itching to have a debate on this topic but I'm not scratching for you this time amigo. I like space exploration, rockets, telescopes, education on such topics. I am happy to see a request for more money going to such projects. The fact that Cruz is likely to pursue that is great IMO but I am not a fan of his or his politics.
It is accurate and fitting. The science that he clearly denies is huge, important, and NASA has been heavily involved in it. I don't blame you.
Here's the real question. Is Cruz just a fucking dumbass, or is he a slimeball who is lying just to make himself and his donors money. The latter is way worse. Him heading up NASA would be like Richard Dawkins being a Ghostbuster.
"Mankind is unlikely to do anything meaningful about carbon dioxide as a matter of concerted public policy, and anything it does will be in the service of domestic pork interests, having no impact on climate....So far, this has been precisely accurate, with Solyndra as exhibit #1, ethanol subsidies and mandates as exhibit #2, subsidies for wind and solar as exhibit #3, etc." I read this comment earlier today and it reminded me of your post.
Not precisely accurate at all, it is cherrypicking. Do you remember acid rain? It was a huge problem in the 70's and it was addressed through cap & trade remedies that worked like a charm and acid rain is not the issue it once was. Industry complained that it would bankrupt them. It did not. It actually allowed them to upgrade their factories on a schedule that was favorable to them by buying sulphur credits from industries that were cleaner. In the end, we aren't belching sulphur into the air an more. Cap and trade will work the same way with Carbon. There are plenty of pie-in-the-sky schemes from tree-huggers that are patently absurd and unworkable, for sure. But there are also plenty of practical, achievable, and effective ways to reduce Carbon emissions. It's going to happen. It must.
same thing with leaded fuel. Clair Patterson would never have stood a chance with today's republicans.
1974 — May 7 – 8 — Hearings before the Panel on Environmental Science and Technology of the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution of the Committee on Public Works. Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del) calls for “a panel of medical scientists having expertise in the field” to perform a literature review, but concludes: “In my opinion, lead from auto emissions does not constitute a public health hazard.”
