ADVERTISEMENT

Cruz: Climate Change Is "Pseudo-Scientific"

bigbadjohn45

bigbadjohn45

All American
Jul 9, 2010
4,301
24
38
Cruz: Climate Change Is "Pseudo-Scientific"
GetFile.aspx

Wednesday, 09 Dec 2015 10:25 AM
Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz dismissed climate change Wednesday as a "pseudo-scientific theory" by liberals seeking to impose government control over the economy and "every aspect of our lives."

Cruz, a US senator from Texas who has gained momentum recently among his party's ultra-conservatives, advanced the claim in an interview with National Public Radio, contending that scientists have switched theories over the decades to favor government intervention.

"First, it was global cooling, then it was global warming," he said.

"Now it is 'climate change,' and climate change is the perfect pseudo-scientific theory for a big-government politician who wants more power."

Their intention all along, Cruz said, has been to attain "massive government control over the economy, the energy sector and every aspect of our lives."

© AFP 2015
 
  • Like
Reactions: ToddMalone
I will bet that everyone who buys into the global warm...wait, climate change (yeah. yeah, that's it. Climate change. Not global warming).

I bet every single person who buys into this who global warm...(doggone it, there I go again). I bet everyone who buys into this climate change stuff STILL drives a car and heats/cools their homes.

hypocrites.
 
here's a science fact for you - we humans are covetous. We look at our neighbor, and if we see he has more than we do, we automatically want to take from him what we feel is excessive, and then redistribute what belongs to him as WE deem fair.

The whole global warmi...doggone it... Sorry. I keep wanting to call it global warming and keep forgetting to call it climate change so we can blame any weather anomaly on capitalism.

This whole climate change stuff is Bush's fault. Everyone except the mind-numbed Limbaugh robots can see that. Bush and his big-oil buddies. Those damn greedy 1 percenters. They're going to kill us all.

It takes a village. Damnit.
 
ToddMalone said:
here's a science fact for you - we humans are covetous. We look at our neighbor, and if we see he has more than we do, we automatically want to take from him what we feel is excessive, and then redistribute what belongs to him as WE deem fair.

The whole global warmi...doggone it... Sorry. I keep wanting to call it global warming and keep forgetting to call it climate change so we can blame any weather anomaly on capitalism.

This whole climate change stuff is Bush's fault. Everyone except the mind-numbed Limbaugh robots can see that. Bush and his big-oil buddies. Those damn greedy 1 percenters. They're going to kill us all.

It takes a village. Damnit.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you should just dismiss it and not even look into it, because our ability to survive as a species isn't really that important.
 
ToddMalone said:
I will bet that everyone who buys into the global warm...wait, climate change (yeah. yeah, that's it. Climate change. Not global warming).

I bet every single person who buys into this who global warm...(doggone it, there I go again). I bet everyone who buys into this climate change stuff STILL drives a car and heats/cools their homes.

hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Most of them, but guess what? We can do all of these things and keep the temperatures in check too. It's not an either or situation.
 
Could it be that perhaps they weren't certain what it would do and were trying to guess the dangers we might face? Could it be that they know more now and are fairly certain what that danger is? Could it be that regardless of warming we have had a huge rise in deaths from COPD and asthma etc and need to do something about the quality of our air?
 
Could it be that perhaps they are scam artists and no matter what they say there are idiots waiting to jump on that bandwagon?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ToddMalone
"First, it was global cooling, then it was global warming," he said.

"Now it is 'climate change,' and climate change is the perfect pseudo-scientific theory for a big-government politician who wants more power."

Their intention all along, Cruz said, has been to attain "massive government control over the economy, the energy sector and every aspect of our lives."
 
For all the brainwashed who are STILL believing all this "we're-all-gonna-die-unless-we-give-goverment-more control"...


images
 
where is Algore these days? Where does he spend most of his time?
His massive house boat on Center Hill Lake or his Malibu beach-front mansion?

(he is SO confident of rising sea levels, he buys a massive energy-consuming home right smack on the seashore.)
 
TheBigBluePeach said:
Coming from a guy that hasn't sniffed a science book in 30 years.
Click to expand...



and how do you know this? Let me guess. He stands in the way of your desire for more government control, so you imply he lacks intelligence.

Sounds like a page right from Saul Alinsky's book if you ask me.
 
Actually, I am siding with scientists. I am not sure of which party each of the 97% of climate scientists that agree with these findings lean towards. I am more of a moderate myself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TeKEraider
TheBigBluePeach said:
Actually, I am siding with scientists. I am not sure of which party each of the 97% of climate scientists that agree with these findings lean towards. I am more of a moderate myself.
Click to expand...


what about the cartoon MTLynn shared?
How long you gonna believe these "scientists"?

I mean, really. First it's global cooling, then it's global warming, and now it's (drum roll, please)...climate change.

and your words say you believe these scientists, but I bet your actions say something completely different, kinda like Algore and his "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do"?

Cruz is spot-on. This whole global warming (wait, I mean, climate change) fiasco is nothing but a massive power and control grab. Even a WKU grad can see that.
 
TekeRaider, quit logging in under your pseudo sign-in TheBigBluePeach so you can like his/your retorts. Or at least be a little less obvious.
 
Haha. You're losing your grip on reality again Todd. I am sure Peach will introduce himself to you if you'd like.
 
http://www.naturalnews.com/052317_climate_change_scientific_consensus_fraudulent_science_survey.html


excerpts:

The “survey” was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.

Not content with such a distorted sample, the researchers then selected 79 of their sample and declared them “experts."

Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from a second supplementary question. So 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent were found to agree with “the consensus”. That’s where the 97 per cent comes from.

Wow, you mean the 97% consensus number comes from just 75 scientists that were hand-picked from an email survey?

Yep. Out of all the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, only 75 of them were selected to "count" for the climate change survey.

Not quite the "settled science" you've been told, is it?

So if I send out an email survey to 1000 people, and then I hand-pick the 75 responses I like the best, then can I proclaim those results to be "settled science" too? Will Al Gore champion my cause and demand billions in reparations from first world nations on my behalf?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigbadjohn45 and ToddMalone
You're right on the money, Lynn. Good post.

MTLynn said:
http://www.naturalnews.com/052317_climate_change_scientific_consensus_fraudulent_science_survey.html


excerpts:

The “survey” was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.

Not content with such a distorted sample, the researchers then selected 79 of their sample and declared them “experts."

Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from a second supplementary question. So 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent were found to agree with “the consensus”. That’s where the 97 per cent comes from.

Wow, you mean the 97% consensus number comes from just 75 scientists that were hand-picked from an email survey?

Yep. Out of all the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, only 75 of them were selected to "count" for the climate change survey.

Not quite the "settled science" you've been told, is it?

So if I send out an email survey to 1000 people, and then I hand-pick the 75 responses I like the best, then can I proclaim those results to be "settled science" too? Will Al Gore champion my cause and demand billions in reparations from first world nations on my behalf?
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ToddMalone
One thing is for certain: Asthma and COPD incidents have gone way up since the invention of the automobile and as the use of coal has increased over the decades in our power plants. We may want to at least look at that and see what we can do about it. I think cancer rates have gone up as well.
 
BlueRaiderFan said:
One thing is for certain: Asthma and COPD incidents have gone way up since the invention of the automobile and as the use of coal has increased over the decades in our power plants. We may want to at least look at that and see what we can do about it. I think cancer rates have gone up as well.
Click to expand...



Yeah? Well, so has sleep apnea. It used to be called snoring and people just lived with it, but now it's called sleep apnea and tons of money gets spent on CPAP machines and follow up doc visits.

Seriously, if all these people really believed theses so-called scientists, they'd be making lifestyle changes.

Cruz is spot-on. This global warmi... (doggone it. Sorry. I did it again)...let me use proper rhetoric here - this whole climate change movement is nothing but a power grab and an effort by the crony capitalists to harness and control the productivity of others.
 
ToddMalone said:
Yeah? Well, so has sleep apnea. It used to be called snoring and people just lived with it, but now it's called sleep apnea and tons of money gets spent on CPAP machines and follow up doc visits.

Seriously, if all these people really believed theses so-called scientists, they'd be making lifestyle changes.

Cruz is spot-on. This global warmi... (doggone it. Sorry. I did it again)...let me use proper rhetoric here - this whole climate change movement is nothing but a power grab and an effort by the crony capitalists to harness and control the productivity of others.
Click to expand...

Sleep apnea is when you stop breathing while sleeping...not just snoring. The surgeon general and AMA have agreed that pollution is causing issues. If you don't believe them, simply look at Hong Kong and several other Chinese cities.




http://usuncut.com/climate/chinas-smog-is-so-bad-its-started-buying-bottled-air-from-canada/
 
MTLynn said:
http://www.naturalnews.com/052317_climate_change_scientific_consensus_fraudulent_science_survey.html
Click to expand...

The first couple of sentences of this article pretty much sum up the nature of the website:

"The brain-dead leftist media isn't really in the news business anymore. It's actually in the business of zombie control... with the zombies being, of course, the leftist libtard obedient propaganda swallowers who are easily fooled by sleight-of-hand trickery being paraded as science."

Do you actually have a credible source that this is what occurred? The book even only references one study, while the NASA article states: "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Here are the peer-reviewed scientific journals in case you guys don't want to read the NASA article to inform yourselves:
J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,"Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-cause, Global Warming], 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

I don't know about you, but I am going to go with NASA on this over some natural news website and book written by Mark Steyn who is just a puppet for the right wing establishment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TeKEraider
Peach,

The one that this conspiracy theory site is referencing is I think from a 2009 survey conducted by a professor from LSU, although I can not find any information on that survey. I think 3,000 were surveyed but only 77 people responded and 74 of that 77 believe that climate change is man-made, I've seen it referenced a number of times.

A 2010 study of over 1,300 researchers and their work showed 97 - 98 percent in that study. Which was mentioned in your post.

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TeKEraider
MidTnBlues said:
Peach,

The one that this conspiracy theory site is referencing is I think from a 2009 survey conducted by a professor from LSU, although I can not find any information on that survey. I think 3,000 were surveyed but only 77 people responded and 74 of that 77 believe that climate change is man-made, I've seen it referenced a number of times.

A 2010 study of over 1,300 researchers and their work showed 97 - 98 percent in that study. Which was mentioned in your post.

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
Click to expand...
You have visited mom's basement down here long enough to know that facts have no place here. What are you thinking? Sorry guys. Please resume posting Rush transcripts.
 
TheBigBluePeach said:
The first couple of sentences of this article pretty much sum up the nature of the website:

"The brain-dead leftist media isn't really in the news business anymore. It's actually in the business of zombie control... with the zombies being, of course, the leftist libtard obedient propaganda swallowers who are easily fooled by sleight-of-hand trickery being paraded as science."

Do you actually have a credible source that this is what occurred? The book even only references one study, while the NASA article states: "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Here are the peer-reviewed scientific journals in case you guys don't want to read the NASA article to inform yourselves:
J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,"Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-cause, Global Warming], 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

I don't know about you, but I am going to go with NASA on this over some natural news website and book written by Mark Steyn who is just a puppet for the right wing establishment.
Click to expand...

But, Peach, his post was "Right on the money."
 
ACtually, Peach cited the study that they are referencing:

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

And I was able to find where they revisited their study because of all the criticism.

http://www.garnautreview.org.au/upd...-'scientigic-consensus-on-climate-change'.pdf
 
MidTnBlues said:
If you read some of these posts using Dale Gribble's voice, this thread becomes comedy gold.
Click to expand...


Hilarious! You're exactly right. It's funny when you imagine Dale reading it.

You know what else is comedy gold? How people still believe all the gloom-and-doomers. Why do suppose the flat-earthers still follow the Church of Goreman?

Global cooling.
Global warming.
Ah, wait! Climate change! Yeah! Yeah, that's it! Climate change! We finally figured out the words we need to use to keep from boxing ourselves into a corner!

And what about the small sample size MTLynn shared?

I bet those "scientists", I bet every one of them STILL drive cars (probably SUVs) and STILL heat and cool their homes. All the flat-earthers still do the same thing. They say one thing but do another.

Cruz is spot-on. It has nothing to do with saving the environment. It's about control.
 
[QUOTE="

I don't know about you, but I am going to go with NASA on this over some natural news website and book written by Mark Steyn who is just a puppet for the right wing establishment.[/QUOTE]


And many organizations like NASA and the EPA are puppets for the collectivists just like the small sample of "scientists" who have been putting out this Chicken Little garbage for decades.

Follow the grant money, son. Follow the grant money.

People like me fight for individual liberty. People like you fight for compulsory collectivism. Some of us have the truth revealed to us. Many more come under a strong delusion.
 
ToddMalone said:
People like me fight for individual liberty. People like you fight for compulsory collectivism. Some of us have the truth revealed to us. Many more come under a strong delusion.
Click to expand...

You see, that is a ridiculous statement. Taking advice from "The Natural News" over NASA is ludicrous. Yes, follow the money...follow the money of the extremely wealthy as it pours into cable news feeds and online media to convince you that it's OK for them to keep doing what they are doing and for us to continue on the course we are on where energy is concerned. I'm for individual liberty as well, but not at the expense of our entire society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MTLynn

Greenpeace founder: Global warming a ‘fear campaign’ by scientists ‘hooked on government grants'

Replies
5
Views
3K
Around the Water Cooler
MTLynn
MTLynn
bigbadjohn45

Climate Alarmists Call Ted Cruz ‘Ignorant’ While Celebrating Lunatic Liberal Politicians

Replies
3
Views
440
Around the Water Cooler
bigbadjohn45
bigbadjohn45
bigbadjohn45

Jeb Bush’s Strategy Is Working Great… For Ted Cruz

Replies
0
Views
849
Around the Water Cooler
bigbadjohn45
bigbadjohn45
bigbadjohn45

Ted Cruz to Koch Group: No, Global Warming Is Not Real

Replies
0
Views
303
Around the Water Cooler
bigbadjohn45
bigbadjohn45
bigbadjohn45

How Ted Cruz Would Balance the Budget

Replies
2
Views
304
Around the Water Cooler
BlueRaiderFan
BlueRaiderFan
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back