Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx) as chairman of the Subcommittee on Science and Space makes about as much sense as having SOH users drooski or Rotavele lead prayer request polls
Go Cruz! I want military bases on the moon & Mars! 🚀
What has he said that makes him a so-called science-denier?
"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."
And yet every climate change model has been immensely wrong.
Maybe NASA has something to say about deep ocean temps:
Did you even read the link you provided? Yikes.
Scientists are perplexed about *one aspect* of warming trends, yet "the sea level is still rising," "top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up"
If you're going to cherry-pick, at least find some sources that don't further the point the rest of the scientific community is making
Speaking of cherry-picking...
"In the 21st century, greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere, just as they did in the 20th century, but global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising in tandem with the gases.
The temperature of the top half of the world's oceans -- above the 1.24-mile mark -- is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures.
Many processes on land, air and sea have been invoked to explain what is happening to the "missing" heat. One of the most prominent ideas is that the bottom half of the ocean is taking up the slack, but supporting evidence is slim."
Sea levels rise and fall over time from natural variability. It's foolish to ascribe that solely to anthropogenic CO2 of which humans make up 1:33 parts of ALL CO2. The earth has seen CO2 levels 100x higher in the past. A warmer, wetter climate is
good for the planet. Think of how the arid regions would be more fit for farming.
Better for the planet? Yet California and Texas are having the worst droughts in their history and sea lion are starving because the fish are leaving because the area is too warm, learn the actual science.
I've never understood the problem of cutting pollution and taking are of the planet. What do you think will happen if we use clean energy, recycle, use less, and have better cars?
"Scientists aren't sure what's causing the crisis, but suspect that warmer waters from this winter's mild El Nino weather pattern are impacting the sea lion birthing grounds along the Channel Islands off the Southern California coast."
So it looks
as if you know more than the marine biologists do. El Niño comes and goes cyclically so to attribute the sea lion deaths to anthropogenic CO2 is dishonest at best.
Reducing REAL pollutants is necessary (below is a link of what those are):
Notice what's missing from this list?
And to answer why, the alternative "green" forms of energy are not efficient
and are extremely capital intensive. It is literally bankrupting and killing people in Germany that can't afford the extremely high costs of wind energy. Solar is no better as the sun is not available 24/7.
What proof is there that's it's people in Germany can't afford it?
You have good intentions but green energy is detrimental to our economy. If it's too expensive for us how do you think the rest of the world would fare?
The first article is ridiculously biased.
What's the second show? That they're investing and subsidizing clean energy?
Biased, yes, like every article ever written. But the facts remain that the green energy policy of switching to wind has caused their costs to skyrocket and that even with subsidies 500-800K people couldn't afford to pay their electric bill.
Because he isn't educated &/or capable of rational thought & reasoning? Or simply because you disagree w/his position on these issues?
Because a science-doubter shouldn't chair a committee dealing with science. Same reason many republicans didn't like Chuck Hagel as choice for SecDef since he tends to have libertarian-esque non-intervention positions with foreign policy
There *is* disagreement, *in* the scientific community, on this issue. Being of a different opinion than the PC-position, based on contrary scientific conclusions, doesn't make one a "science denier."
Failure to respect opposing conclusions, based on data/research - opposing the scientific process. Denigrating those pursuing more research could be said to be "anti-science." No such thing as "settled science," only "currently held conclusions."
Saying 'there is disagreement in the scientific community' is completely devoid of intellectual honesty. If pointing out less than 3% *worldwide* after 10s of thousands of pages have been written by the finest minds in the field, then we have a major
disconnect. Pro tip: 97+% of professionals in any given field holding a position when doing their life's work isn't 'PC' no matter how much you'd like it to be. Just because you don't understand the science doesn't make your position respectable
Wolfe, are you still peddling the long-debunked "97% consensus" mantra? You do realize that science doesn't operate on consensus, no? Eh, apparently not. You probably think that CO2 is a pollutant too.
Just because you don't want to believe what scientists say doesn't make it so. Whatever you do for a living, I'm sure you'd roll your eyes if amateurs tried to tell you that they knew your work better than you do, so let scientists do their jobs
I'll leave this here for you to read...
The definition of "intellectual dishonesty" is the dismissal of the *essence* of the scientific method & process. The history of "settled science by 'religious consensus'" is strewn w/"science deniers" bodies & research later confirmed valid.
In other news, Josef Stalin is starting his own libertarian talk show
With NASA in his backyard, it makes more sense to jump-start NASA than giving the position to Cornyn or any other Senator.
I live three miles as the crow flies from Andrew Jackson's mansion. I'm certainly not qualified (nor interested) in being a tour guide there.
I just would think someone with a science background and/or who wasn't a 'science skeptic' would be better
Have you tried? Why short change yourself. You can do it!
Ha! That would end badly...
"Folks, here's where ol' Andy came to live out his miserable douchey existence!"
See, you can do anything if you just try. :)
Makes about as much sense as making an Exxon CEO spokesman for Greenpeace.
He probably doesn't believe space exists
Well, Ted Cruz knows science: "You always have to be worried about something that is considered a so-called scientific theory that fits every scenario." - Ted Cruz (on his smartest day), and he's a basically a waste of space. It's a perfect fit.
It makes way less sense since having him in that position may affect US science policy.
Yes bad, but having Inhoffe head the science committee is even worse.
Having Ted Cruz in office makes as much sense as electing a goldfish to office...
For those who don't know and think I may be taking a shot at either of those users, that's clearly not the case. Pretty sure they'd both get a kick out of the comparison