Watch Ted Cruz take apart Sierra Club President on Climate Change...Good Stuff!

[BluesLegend]

Ted Cruz Chairs Committee on the impact of Obama's new EPA regulations and takes apart the president of the Sierra Club...This is why I support Cruz for President

What I see is a man who doesn't understand the expression "not up for debate."

Except he DID say it was up for debate. He said anything he could think of to say to make Cruz stop making a fool out of him.

I was under the impression that English was Cruz's first language, so he can't be excused on that basis. The conclusion is that he's either linguistically tone-deaf or a humorless twat.

Given his overall behavior, I'm going with humorless twat.

Yeah, when Cruz was smacking him around, poor Sierra Club guy didn't have much to laugh about.

Cruz exposed him for the liar he is. Have you noticed when that happens the libs just start repeating the same talking point over and over again.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What does ted cruz know about science? I don't think he knows anything about it so he's just running his uneducated mouth!

 

[Jroc]

Ted Cruz Chairs Committee on the impact of Obama's new EPA regulations and takes apart the president of the Sierra Club...This is why I support Cruz for President

What I see is a man who doesn't understand the expression "not up for debate."

Except he DID say it was up for debate. He said anything he could think of to say to make Cruz stop making a fool out of him.

Ok was the guy in denial? or didn't know the facts? or simply pushing an agenda..I say all of the above. Cruz made him look like the fraud that he is. He and the little pointy headed leftist behind him

 

[Jroc]

What does ted cruz know about science? I don't think he knows anything about it so he's just running his uneducated mouth!

Apparently much more than the head of the Sierra club

 

[bripat9643]

What does ted cruz know about science? I don't think he knows anything about it so he's just running his uneducated mouth!

He knows when someone is lying and refuses to answer questions. That numskull from the Sierra Club fits the bill. He's nothing but a cheap con artist.

 

[amrchaos]

Actually, you do not need to know a branch of science in order to question.

However,Cruz attacked the philosophy of science when he introduced data that does not concur to prediction. This suggest the predictive model is off--it may be a counter example while an observable fact, hence the predictive models may be wrong.

(Edit note:language used earlier was too strong)

This goes back to the argument about the preponderance of evidence. To a scientist ears, this means all the evidence is in support of or found to be inconclusive to the hypothesis. There are no counter-examples.

However, Cruz gives a different definition that sinks the discussion. Preponderance of evidence means that the majority of evidence supports the hypothesis. What about counter-examples. By Cruz definition, they can exist!!???!! That is not science.

One true counter-example destroys the hypothesis. That is all that is needed to reject the hypothesis.

Now, if you have data that seems to go against your hypothesis, you are really left with two choices--1)throw out the hyp. 2) make a sound argument as to why the result can exist under the Hypothesis.

In other words, Cruz place a tall charge for the Sierra Club. He is asking them to explain why the Satellite data shows no warming while the hypothesis they support suggest warming. At no point in time does the President of the Sierra Club does this.

The best he could do is
1)Admit he is not a scientist

2)Tell Cruz to ask a scientist to explain the probable contradiction(Hate to admit it--The 'Pause' does not sound creditable!)

3)Agree that he will reject scientific claims when there is proof to the contrary.

It is a take down--But it needed not go that way.
Some of the questions asked by Cruz was best suited to a Meteorologist than the president of an environmental club.

 

[amrchaos]

However, I am interested--How does Meteorologist argue the Satellite data of no temperature changing?

It is a powerful counter-examples to models predicting increases.

 

[rightwinger]

Cruz is being a dick

"Anything can be debated Senator, but the preponderance of the evidence shows otherwise"

Cruz is just pissed that he was told he can't debate his bizarre theories

 

[amrchaos]

Cruz is being a dick

"Anything can be debated Senator, but the preponderance of the evidence shows otherwise"

Cruz is just pissed that he was told he can't debate his bizarre theories

However, Cruz did have a point when it comes to "preponderance of evidence".

In any case, I looked up an explaination for the Satellite data. Cruz my have pulled a fast one!

Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere

 

[bripat9643]

Cruz is being a dick

"Anything can be debated Senator, but the preponderance of the evidence shows otherwise"

Cruz is just pissed that he was told he can't debate his bizarre theories

What "bizarre theories," that the temperature has been flat for the last 18 years? That's a scientific fact, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Cruz is being a dick

"Anything can be debated Senator, but the preponderance of the evidence shows otherwise"

Cruz is just pissed that he was told he can't debate his bizarre theories

However, Cruz did have a point when it comes to "preponderance of evidence".

In any case, I looked up an explaination for the Satellite data. Cruz my have pulled a fast one!

Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere

No, that data shows the temperature has been flat since 1998. Here's the same data without an upward sloping line drawn through it to mislead you:

 

[amrchaos]

Cruz is being a dick

"Anything can be debated Senator, but the preponderance of the evidence shows otherwise"

Cruz is just pissed that he was told he can't debate his bizarre theories

What "bizarre theories," the the temperature has been flat for the last 18 years? That's a scientific fact, moron.

Actually, that may not be the case.

It was demontrated that the satellites did not have the correct equipment to measure temp change in the upper atmosphere. When it was corrected, the satellite data agreed with the models.

 

[bripat9643]

Cruz is being a dick

"Anything can be debated Senator, but the preponderance of the evidence shows otherwise"

Cruz is just pissed that he was told he can't debate his bizarre theories

What "bizarre theories," the the temperature has been flat for the last 18 years? That's a scientific fact, moron.

Actually, that may not be the case.

It was demontrated that the satellites did not have the correct equipment to measure temp change in the upper atmosphere. When it was corrected, the satellite data agreed with the models.

Wrong. I just posted the corrected satellite data. It still shows no warming since 1998.

 

[rightwinger]

Cruz is being a dick

"Anything can be debated Senator, but the preponderance of the evidence shows otherwise"

Cruz is just pissed that he was told he can't debate his bizarre theories

However, Cruz did have a point when it comes to "preponderance of evidence".

In any case, I looked up an explaination for the Satellite data. Cruz my have pulled a fast one!

Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere

Cruz was being a lawyer dick arguing the legal definition of preponderance of the evidence

The point being made was that there is overwhelming evidence to the point it can't be legitimately debated

What is Cruz doing on a science panel?

 

[bripat9643]

Cruz is being a dick

"Anything can be debated Senator, but the preponderance of the evidence shows otherwise"

Cruz is just pissed that he was told he can't debate his bizarre theories

However, Cruz did have a point when it comes to "preponderance of evidence".

In any case, I looked up an explaination for the Satellite data. Cruz my have pulled a fast one!

Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere

Cruz was being a lawyer dick arguing the legal definition of preponderance of the evidence

The point being made was that there is overwhelming evidence to the point it can't be legitimately debated

What is Cruz doing on a science panel?

Wrong again, moron.

 

[Jroc]

Cruz was exposing the fraud

These crony's manipulate the numbers..


97% CONSENSUS? NO! GLOBAL WARMING MATH MYTHS & SOCIAL PROOFS

To gain public acceptance for carbon taxes and renewable energy subsidies, several studies claim a 97% scientific consensus on global warming, implying that the human causes are all about carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases; but a closer look reveals a lot of mathematical manipulation goes into arriving at 97% - a psychological ploy that plays on our primal emotions, ‘herd mentality’ and fear of being the odd man out. Few people know that the Dutch government has called for the IPCC to be overhauled stating: “..limiting the scope of the IPCC to human-induced climate change is undesirable, especially because natural climate change is a crucial part of the total understanding of the climate system..” Not only is the 97% claim faulty, the climate predictions of the IPCC exclude an estimated 65% natural factor influence

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What does ted cruz know about science? I don't think he knows anything about it so he's just running his uneducated mouth!

Cruz knows that 75/77 climate scientists agree. LOL!

 

[g5000]

A great example of a political position being destroyed by facts, yet denied by the one whose political position is being destroyed. Go Cruz!

Some facts: Ted Cruz’s claim that there has been ‘zero’ global warming in 17 years

 

[amrchaos]

Cruz is being a dick

"Anything can be debated Senator, but the preponderance of the evidence shows otherwise"

Cruz is just pissed that he was told he can't debate his bizarre theories

However, Cruz did have a point when it comes to "preponderance of evidence".

In any case, I looked up an explaination for the Satellite data. Cruz my have pulled a fast one!

Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere

No, that data shows the temperature has been flat since 1998. Here's the same data without an upward sloping line drawn through it to mislead you:

The UAH is using data from satellites without the correct equipment to justify their model.

With the correct equipment, the measured satellite data fits most climatologists models. That was just discussed.

 

[amrchaos]

A great example of a political position being destroyed by facts, yet denied by the one whose political position is being destroyed. Go Cruz!

Some facts: Ted Cruz’s claim that there has been ‘zero’ global warming in 17 years

From the article:

"Novack said such explanations of current global warming trends goes directly to Cruz’s point that major policy decisions should not be made on scientific theories that are based on flawed models. They should be based on data, and the temperature plateau shows the models that previously were used projecting continued rise were incorrect, Novack said. Cruz is not denying temperatures are warmer now than they were 50 years ago, Novack said, noting that Cruz voted for an amendment in January stating climate change is real."

Burning both ends of the candle?