Discussion for article #243772
A bucket of cold water and Raphael open to facts just might kill him.
Can we try it?
Caitlin, don’t worry, we don’t hold your cousin’s views against you.
Everytime I see that gun bacon clip, I fill with rage and want to jump thru the TV and beat his stupid fucking face in! I wish he ate that raw bacon and got food poisoning! I have much more hateful things to say, but I will take the high road.
Near 200 countries sign onto an agreement that the earth’s temperature must be held to within 1.5C for us to be sustainable. 99% of climate scientists say the climage is changing and it’s human caused. Yet Cruz is in denial. Personally I’d like to have a reality based person in office.
Actually, there are more problems than just the arbitrary starting point at a hot year. He is only using one of three sets of satellite, and the one run by the climate deniers. There data has been indicated to be faulty at least five times in the past by others. The other two are in much better agreement with ocean and land temperature increase observations.
So, he is cherry picking one data source from one group that happens to meet his claims. When it is honestly probably the least trust worthy source to believe on the matter. Not to mention that the “hiatus” thing does not really mean the same thing in the literature as it does to others. It is still an increase, but some observations were of a slow down, not a pause.
And really, there have been six articles in this past year that indicate that the whole idea of one in the first place is untrue based on the actual evidence. And slight variation in the way measurements are observed. So really, there is no way that is he is correct on really any point.
But it is particularly shady to pull one narrow region of a graph and show it as a flat line out of context with the rest of the graph and present it as absolute fact. If his parents were scientists they should be ashamed of him.
Yeah, but it is pretty weak sauce to keep it that low. I think from a few scientist have said if everything is gone with it would keep it less than 3 or so. And without enforcement it is a bit worrying. There is at least will to do it now but countries will need to go above and beyond in the developed world in particular to stay below 2. At this rate there is almost no way we do not break 1.5C.
Ted Cruz knows global warming is real. He is just lying about it.
It would be tempting to say Cruz is science-illiterate, but the truth is actually much worse. He knows he’s peddling utter bullshit, as do most if not all of the leading voices of climate change denialism. Most of the millions of Americans who cluelessly lap it up are dealing with some level of science-illiteracy. But Cruz is simply a liar, a shill, and of course a political sociopath who would say anything, do anything to gain power. Which is why he must never be President.
Damn, you beat me to it, and so much more concise!
Cruz reply: “Not fair!!! You’re using science on me…”
I am writing not because of Cruz but because I would like to alert folks to the area of Carbon Negative Technology. There is a consensus by a number of analysts that simply reducing carbon emissions will not be sufficient–that there must also be REMOVAL of carbon already in the atmosphere. Ironically, because of how things are set up, the technology part just may be ahead of the part about the honchos writing the checks FOR the technology. A lot of this stuff looks promising…and I would rather hear about positive action as opposed to hand-wringing. Even if there are snags…historically, progress comes in fits and starts. Here are some websites to look for:
- Carbon Engineering
- Global Thermostat Initiative
- Climeworks
- Center for Carbon Removal
AND his main campaign funders are the OIL AND GAS INDUSTRIES.
You’ve taken the words out of my mouth. I have encountered the exact argument that Cruz makes and it is easily refuted. I’m a wetland ecologist who works with a lot of meteorological and hydrological data to predict long-term changes to plant communities and it just makes me mad when I hear people spout off this nonsense like they have any inkling of the science or the presentation of data.
Well, I have never seen Cruz be more correct. However, I have occasionally seen him even less correct.
Pure coincidence, obviously.
It appears that temperatures were rising even during the cherry-picked 18-year period when they were supposed to be flat. According to a NOAA study, the “flat” temperatures were an artifact of differing measurement biases between readings taken by ships and readings taken by buoys. Lamar Smith is launching a congressional investigation to find out why scientists are coming up with results he doesn’t like.