National Geographic "The War On Science"

When are Repukes and Denialists going to stop cherry picking the global temperature timeline ?!?

 

BobW, so glad you told of your SOFIA work.

But 'lips and nose' is just Wth?

 

I would think if the tide gets that high, you would move to higher ground or start swimming. So I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Now I don't personally like Mr. Cruz, and he is a lawyer and politician not a sceintist, but he hasn't made the false statements of imhofe. So let's look here.

Now the first part is false, cruz hasn't said that this is what he said in that link

That is lawyerly, but sounds familiarly lawyerly like hillary has been on why she felt that it was good to not have a government email because that would require she would need two phones and that would be to hard..

The other quote actually is pretty much what curry says.
IPCC AR5 weakens the case for AGW | Climate Etc.

I'm sure lawyer politician cruz would take the other side and talk about risks of human cauesed climate change if he was trying to pass something related to that.

Now Mr. Cruz is not a scientist, and I would prefer someone that was a scientist or understood it better was overseeing NASA. I can't disagree though that I would like more of a focus on space exploration. The comeback that the exploration cuts were because of lower costs from outsourcing space missions make you ask some questions about NASAs future.

Why are earth science projects not also being outsourced to reduce costs, and why aren't we sharing these costs with the Europeans, Russians, and Chinese? One thing driving up the cost of earth science has been the exploding rockets taking up 2 of the satellites, which makes you question how well NASA is being run.. Hey I'm all for getting satellites up there to get earth science questions answered, but we should have at least as large a US budget for space exploration. Also some things appear to be being done in earth science at NASA when they might be better handled in NOAA.

 

By following the "telling CNN" (which is a link), I see he speaks the exact words quoted at 1:02 to 1:14.

-Chap

 

Care to share the false statements?

 

Cruz is a smart cookie, I did not hear him misstep too badly there. If you're looking for the obligatory sky is falling, well he flunks then.

I like Judith Curry, but shes got more explaining to do to us laymen. Even 94-yr old Rep. George Shultz now says ice melting is climbing rapidly each year.

Did I hear CO2 levels at Mauna Loa are taking a little break this year from the every-year rise trend?

 

Him and Hank Paulson both publicly support acting blindly to solve global warming.
Makes you wonder why the 1% are so vocal.

 

I've wondered about that too. Two main reasons I think:

1. The 1% tend to be (quite a bit) smarter than the average Merkin
2. Their wealth gives them leeway to accept change

Obviously I am not including the wealthy who are tied to fossil fuel industries like the Koch bros.

 

He cherry picks one short time interval and decides public policy from it. You and I have a different idea of what a mis-step is.

 

wjtracy, path of atmospheric CO2 concentrations has not (detectably) changed. What you heard was that 2014 global fossil-C burn did not increase above 2013. Such has happened before, and even year-on-year reductions, but this is supposed to be newsworthy because it was not linked to economic downturn.

 

imhofe? He wrote a whole book full of false statements. Here is the killer one that he has repeated numerous times

You can't square that with science, or even with most theologians. That is plain out wrong factually, but by evoking a literal interpretation of the bible being true and science false when it disagrees, you can't even have a discussion.

Now cruz does listen to the scientists, but he lawyerly uses whatever he can. He isn't interested in what it really says, he is interested in how he can use it for his brand of politics. This is not particularly different than many politician lawyers, but it is very different than imhofe.

I don't want to be drawn into the lawyers game as he was quite precise.

I heard [quote"the data is not supporting what the advocates are arguing. Over the last 15 years there has been no recorded warming"[/quote]

Check back and that is a way to say what Curry interprets IPCC V as saying but 1998-2012 (not really 15 years though). Statistically there is no or very little warming, counter to the predictions of IPCC IV.

Again Cruz gives a lawyers answer to back up his case. I think it was to make Kerry look foolish for his statement

Which of course is of course a diversion from Iran and nuclear weapons.

 

The Earth has been warmer than today for most of the past 10,000 years.
You want to cherry pick?

 

Perhaps I mistook what you were up to in post 86?

Bob Wilson had included a quote in post 81 of Cruz saying "The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming .... Contrary to all the theories that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn’t happened."

In post 86 you replied to that part of Bob's post and you said "the first part is false, cruz hasn't said that this is what he said in that link" followed by a different Cruz quote (the "never be disproved" bit).

I couldn't tell exactly what you meant, or whether you had skipped over some punctuation that would have made it clearer, but it seemed like you might be disputing whether Cruz actually said the words Bob quoted in post 81. So it seemed worth clarifying that Cruz did say exactly those words at 1:02 to 1:14.

-Chap

 

What I was objecting to was this from bob's source

This is not what cruz in fact said, and I pulled the exact quote out of the interview. What cruz said was correct, and he didn't say there was no data for climate change. There is plenty of data, and this supports human contribution to ghg warming of the earth. What the data does not support is the IPCC climate models.

What bob quoted directly cruz did say, but it is Judith Curry's evaluation of things in IPCC V (possibly no statistically significant warming in the period 1998-2012) and IPCC IV (predicting warming that was statistically significant, but has not occurred in the period 1998-2012). So cruz's statement is factually not incorrect is possibly a good scientific interpretation of the data. Now it is lawyerly and misleading, because it didn't also talk about the other data outside the time period or the physics of ghg.

 

I don't remember the "global cooling" scare of the 1970's that Cruz talks about. My first school term paper on global warming was 1971 and I had Florida flooding by year 2000.

I'd post my old paper, but it would not stand up to peer review.

 

I'm glad your prediction didn't come true. I don't remember it either, but I'm too young, and I doubt Mr. Cruz remembers it either as he would have been a small child. There are some that like bringing it up and they are talking about pop science reported in magazines and newspapers at the time. The two prime examples are newsweek and time. A quick google brings these up from 1974 and 1975.

Another Ice Age? - TIME
Newsweek on the cooling world

 

A denier is someone whose beliefs are based in ideology, not a rational analysis of the data.
A denier is someone who isn't interested in examining the data for fear that it will contradict their ideology.
A denier is someone who doesn't seek out a consistent worldview.

Subject matter, or views on specific questions isn't relevant to the label.

Thank You kindly.

 

Concerning Mojo @94, our newer readers may not know that he has made this assertion several times at PriusChat. In some cases it led to discussions (debunking). Not always, because fatigue sets in. Anyway, archives can be searched.