What Fresh Hell Is This?

December 10, 2015

The Many Science Errors Of Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz

From NPR, yesterday:
Well, I believe that public policy should follow the science and follow the data. I am the son of two mathematicians and computer programmers and scientists. In the debate over global warming, far too often politicians in Washington - and for that matter, a number of scientists receiving large government grants - disregard the science and data and instead push political ideology. You and I are both old enough to remember 30, 40 years ago, when, at the time, we were being told by liberal politicians and some scientists that the problem was global cooling...
Yea, but that was definitely a minority position among the climate scientists back then:
A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.
Ted goes on:
But then, as you noted, the data didn't back that up. So then, many of those same liberal politicians and a number of those same scientists switched their theory to global warming.
Yea, that would be the data showing the planet was warming up.

I don't understand how Cruz' use of the "70s Ice Age!" story undermines his skepticism of the current scientific consensus.  A minority of papers supported it back then and when more evidence was found it was abandoned for a theory explaining that evidence: the planet's warming up and we're to blame.

Then he goes with the tried and (basically un)true:
The scientific evidence doesn't support global warming. For the last 18 years, the satellite data - we have satellites that monitor the atmosphere. The satellites that actually measure the temperature showed no significant warming whatsoever.
This is also simply not true.

Then he dodges on evolution:
INSKEEP: Do you question the science on other widely accepted issues - for example, evolution?

CRUZ: There is a fundamental difference, which is in the name of global warming, you have politicians trying to impose trillions of dollars of cost on the world. In the I-95 Corridor, among the Washington elite, global warming is very popular because it makes you feel good about caring for the world. But I'll tell you, you know who I'm concerned about? I'm concerned about the single mom waiting tables right now, who for seven years of the Obama economy has been trapped in stagnation. Her wages have been stagnating. It's harder and harder to make ends meet. And what the Washington elites are trying to do is double her energy bill.

INSKEEP: Do you question other science, like evolution?

CRUZ: Any good scientist questions all science. If you show me a scientist that stops questioning science, I'll show you someone who isn't a scientist. And I'll tell you, Steve. And I'll tell you why this has shifted. Look in the world of global warming. What is the language they use? They call anyone who questions the science - who even points to the satellite data - they call you a, quote, "denier." Denier is not the language of science. Denier is the language of religion. It is heretic. You are a blasphemer. It's treated as a theology. But it's about power and money. At the end of the day, it's not complicated. This is liberal politicians who want government power.
Notice he doesn't actually answer the very simple question.  For the record, there are no credible scientists who "question" (ie "doubt") evolution.  They may "question" the details but "doubting" the idea as a whole?  Nah, not a chance.

The science is there.  It's true whether you or Ted Cruz believes it to be true.

4 comments:

Zeus0209 said...

The anthropogenic global warming v. science deniers debate is EXACTLY where the GOP et.al. want this debate to fester. The argument is a great avenue to inject doubt, however absurdly rooted, into the progress.

At what point do we progressives sidestep this nonsense argument and focus the consideration in the next level? The sun is there, abundant and free. As is wind, as is moving water. These would be raw materials. It is ridiculous that our leadership doesn't paint a picture of progress rooted in evolving from excavating coal from a mine deep in the ground or pumping & refining oil from sand fields to building panels that can be mounted on rooftops - which BTW is a one time installation (as opposed to dig coal, burn, dig more coal, burn, dig more coal, burn, bury a miner, dig more coal, burn...) Today, I'm going to add up the number of solar panel workers who died installing the panels on my roof and who have died performing panel maintenance since installation. Also, I'm going to add up the amount of money spent on cleaning up the oil spills which occurred as a result of the panel fabrication.

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/morning-news/2015/12/aruba-paves-the-way-in-green-initiatives.html

Ol' Froth said...

IIRC, the big "Global Cooling" story was sparked not by widespread laypersons understanding the science, (how many of us read 7 peer reviewed studies?) but by a single cover story in one of the national news magazines, can't remember if it was in Time or Newsweek.

Omega Supreme said...

But pointing out Science Errors Of Richard Dawkin's is wrong as it was not his field.

Ol' Froth said...

The muttering acceptance relaxes below the jury gibberish.