Patterico's Pontifications


Sen. Ted Cruz Unfit To Run For President Because He Questions The Science On Climate Change

Filed under: General — Dana @ 2:52 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Tomorrow is looking like it will be a big day for Ted Cruz. In a speech to be delivered at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, he is expected to formally announce he is throwing his hat in the ring and running for president in 2016. He will be the first major candidate to do so.

With that, the left is wasting no time in warning voters about his “extreme” views. Some even going so far as to ridiculously claim he is unfit to be a candidate. All because of his stand on climate change:

“That man betokens such a level of ignorance and a direct falsification of the existing scientific data. It’s shocking and I think that man has rendered himself absolutely unfit to be running for office.”

It’s unsurprising when you consider the left’s fealty to climate change. Believe, or pay the price:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency is making it tougher for governors to deny man-made climate change. Starting next year, the agency will approve disaster preparedness funds only for states whose governors approve hazard mitigation plans that address climate change.

This may put several Republican governors who maintain the earth isn’t warming due to human activities, or prefer to do nothing about it, into a political bind. Their position may block their states’ access to hundreds of millions of dollars in FEMA funds.

State governments will either have to agree that man-made global warming is real and come up with acceptable plans using taxpayer money to combat its impact or risk losing millions in relief monies.

Again, no surprise that this will not be open to public scrutiny or debate. As the report points out, FEMA is an unelected body, yet they will determine whether to withhold federal money if states aren’t meeting the new standard.

When we have the President of the United States asserting that there is no greater threat facing future generations than climate change, and gets testy when reporters deign to ask him about actual greater threats like negotiations with Iran when he just wants to talk about climate change, the presence of a reasonable Ted Cruz in the ring will likely aid in cutting through such noxious emissions of gas and hot air.


55 Responses to “Sen. Ted Cruz Unfit To Run For President Because He Questions The Science On Climate Change”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. At this moment, there is no greater threat to future generations of Americans than the Obama administration. Doctrinaire, dishonest, arrogant, incompetent and petulant… Obama is a pathological liar. Because Science!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  3. God help this nation
    coffee-colored Fonzie’ll
    be death of us all

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  4. There are few greater threats to the future of mankind than the Climate Change hoax and the power hungry swine who flog it.

    C. S. P. Schofield (a196fd)

  5. Actually, I think an expressed skepticism of climate change apocalypse would help a candidate of either party among all voters. not people who answer polls, not pundits . But real life voters I think would approve of skepticism. Maybe not full blown rejection though (justified as it would be)

    seeRpea (1925e7)

  6. I’m going ahead and endorsing him now. Sen. Cruz has the right mix of qualities to be President. Whether he is “electable” is not within my area of expertise, and I’m not going to worry about it. What I am concerned with is whether he is the right guy — and he is, in every way.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  7. When politics became a science, science became politics.

    crazy (cde091)

  8. The people who will vote for Sen. Cruz are for the most part not members of the church of climate change and the folks who fervently buy into the church of climate change are never ever going to vote for Cruz in the first place. To appeal to those voters straddling the fence about climate change or who think it’s way down on the list of concerns, he will need to hone his message to show that like them, he is cautious and practical–and far from extreme.

    elissa (a1df99)

  9. Elissa,

    There is a big difference between being cautious and practical, and extreme. I think the average American is practical and cautious, especially after six years of this president and his impulsively disastrous policies. However, it’s really not about climate change, it’s about a Republican with a following needing to be degraded and put down quickly. Any way they can.

    Dana (86e864)

  10. I’ll favor just about any candidate who isn’t (a.) a Democrat, (b.) a liberal, (c.) a squish-squish.

    Beggars can’t be choosers, and the US in 2015 is forcing Americans (or at least me) with a bit of sanity to feel like scavengers on Skid Row or in India.

    Mark (c160ec)

  11. Further,

    I cannot name one person, whether a colleague or family member or friend who is the least bit concerned with climate change. Illegal immigration, healthcare, economy and ISIS seem to be the top concerns. There is the ongoing sense that a small segment of society (including this administration) continue to desperately push the narrative. While my little survey is anecdotal, I just don’t see it as a big worry at large.

    Dana (86e864)

  12. I think that any governor of a Northern state who doesn’t have a plan for coping with a return of massive glaciation should definitely be denied FEMA funding. Although a half-mile thick glacier covering Detroit may be our best option at this point.

    Gary (03ed98)

  13. 9. Yes, Dana. I agree. Did it not come across that way? I was in fact focusing primarily on climate change because the thread intro seemed to focus on climate change. I do think the word “extreme” has been so overused in leftist political advertising and commentary that it has lost a great deal of its impact on viewers and voters. “Controversial” is the one that gets me going lately. It’s a word frequently used by the media on Rs in the news– almost never used by the media to describe Ds.

    elissa (a1df99)

  14. Script for any candidate in response to the expectable question, “Do you believe in climate change?”

    “What, is the climate like a fairy in a pantomime? I close my eyes and clap my hands, and say ‘I believe’ louder and louder, and it will get better? Do you really mean to ask me a question like that? Look, the science used to predict global warming. I see that the term has changed in the last decade. That’s because the SCIENCE has changed. What science has settled on, currently, is that whatever effects our civilization impose on our climate, those effects are different in different places. It’s not ‘global’ and it’s not always ‘warming'; weather will be different depending on the local geography and ecology. The north pole gets warmer, but the south pole gets icier. Maybe the forests of Brazil will get drier, and forests in Europe may get wetter. There MAY be changes, but they are NOT likely to all be ‘warming.’ It’s also not very likely every change will be a problem. And even if there is a problem with climate change — which I still have reasonable doubts about — the solution will NOT include a global treaty for all nations to sign promising all to do the same one, relatively stupid, thing: raise taxes on fossil fuels. I do NOT believe — quote me accurately, here — I DO NOT BELIEVE it is right –morally right, politically right, or stragetically right — to deliberately raise the costs of electricity and transportation and industry and agriculture and food and shelter and civilization generally. It is cruel and evil to make energy MORE EXPENSIVE, to lower the standard of living and quash the dreams of families around the world. Alternative energy — windmills and thorium fission plants; solar panels and ethanol fuel cells — can and will come on fastest and most efficiently in a free market and fair trade economy, and NOT, I believe, in a command-and-control, centrally-planned, crony capitalist scheme of subsidies, tax credits, and political favoritism.

    Now, all that said, I have to admit I believe Tinker Bell is really cute. I believe she will continue to light up our lives for generations to come. “

    Pouncer (ed0078)

  15. I was just piggybacking on your thoughts, Elissa. The word “alarmist” comes to mind whenever I think about the left and their need to have a distraction in play, lest we become like the reporter in the link and ask about the serious issues confronting us.

    Dana (86e864)

  16. The rhetoric from the left is predictable to say the least.

    elissa (a1df99)

  17. It’s surprising climate change is what they’re trying to nail him on. But it’s early yet.

    Dana (86e864)

  18. It’s crazy, but it’s their litmus test. They are so invested in climate change that they really do not see how anyone can not be. It’s like that Pauline Kael who once famously wrote that she couldn’t believe it when Nixon won because no one she knew had voted for him.

    elissa (a1df99)

  19. if carbon dioxide molecules comprise 300 parts per million of the atmosphere god’s in his heaven all’s right with the world

    but if you have 500 parts per million it’s game over what the eff are we supposed to now huh what are we gonna do

    global warming science lol

    happyfeet (831175)

  20. re #18: Sorry, but she never wrote that. The closest thing to that line is that she said in a speech she only knew one person who voted for Nixon. And she meant it in a self-critical way, she was commenting on how her world in NYC was not the real world.

    She is someone who was really quite interesting. She wrote for the New Yorker but she inssisted on using her own voice, which was not elitist. She was super duper liberal left, but didn’t just give a pass to the leftist in Hollywood. And even then she was so wrong, wrong, wrong about amany films and the history of key films , she was such a force that no other reviewers were allowed wot view screenings with her as her verbal comments influenced the other critics in the room.

    umm, B.O.T. –
    re #10 , I would not automatically not vote for a candidate because they belonged to the Dem Party. an avowed liberal – yeah , automatic no vote. But the two terms are not quite the same. Heck, sometimes it takes a “5th column” to create a breakthrough. Or a matter of convenience, like Eisenhower being a Republican. There are quite a few Dems who are upset with their leadership being too far left and may decide to work up within the party due to the constituent makeup of their locale.

    seeRpea (1925e7)

  21. edit for #20:
    And even though she was so wrong, wrong, wrong about many films and the history of key films

    seeRpea (1925e7)

  22. Re: 18, yes, Elissa, per Brian Kellow’s “Pauline Kael: A Life In The Dark”, she did say that about Nixon and was reported to take great joy in hearing it repeated.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  23. re #22: Bernard Goldberg used the quote as well. Still not a true quote. It never happened by her and you will not find an original source for it that is hers.

    seeRpea (1925e7)

  24. Wiki is not your friend, seerpea. It has been quoted for years and it’s only liberal blogs who have called it into question. Far from convincing.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  25. It is amazing how these political hacks think that the precedents they set now with their misuse of authority won’t come back to bite them under a Cruz administration.

    For example:

    All states that do not allow fracking on all private land will have their highway money withheld.

    All states that do not have a fast-track approval process for critical infrastructure will have all federal matching funds for all infrastructure rescinded.

    All states that do not handle death penalty appears in a timely manner, as determined by the Attorney General, will have all law enforcement funds withheld.

    With this phone and pen I so rule!

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  26. Cruz is so dumb! Where did he go to school, anyway?!! Probably won’t let us see his transcripts or recommendation letters. Bet he just bummed around after school, too!

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  27. find something other than a blog to support what you contend. It has been often quoted in books and remembrances of Kael’s friends and colleagues.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  28. point taken, but this suggests she still believed otherwise:

    However, Kael responded negatively to some action films that she felt pushed what she described as “right-wing” or “fascist” agendas. She labeled Don Siegel’s Dirty Harry (1971), starring Clint Eastwood, as a “right-wing fantasy [that is] a remarkably single-minded attack on liberal values”.[37] She also called it “fascist medievalism”.[38] In an otherwise extremely positive critique of Peckinpah’s Straw Dogs, Kael concluded that the controversial director had made “the first American film that is a fascist work of art”.[38]

    narciso (ee1f88)

  29. A lot of people do not know Cruz is one of The Elect.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  30. re Kael false quote:
    you want Wiki as a prime source? fine,
    section titled “Alleged Nixon quote”

    but i think i already know your game C.H. anything that disagrees with you is just a liberal sink hole. So while I don’t take anything you say with any weight, spreading false information is spreading false information.

    seeRpea (1925e7)

  31. Jaysuuus people! I’m sorry I brought up Pauline Kael.

    elissa (a1df99)

  32. Chillax, seerpea. Wiki doesn’t do it. VF is pathetic. “straight dope”? okay then…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  33. I assume Cruz is one GOP candidate would not back down from challenging the AGW “consensus”. But he or any other candidate who wants to do so needs to really prep himself on it and be able to give a fairly detailed answer when asked. Recall the GOP debate in 2012. Gov. Perry was very bold in labeling AGW a fraud. Brian Williams asked him what scientists were the source for his views and he was caught totally off guard by the question. I have a feeling what Cruz might do is just say “It hasn’t warmed in 19 years” and have nothing else to say about it.

    People on the pro-AGW side can have no idea what they’re talking about even when it’s their job, but conservatives cannot.

    Gerald A (6b504a)

  34. for those who don’t want to acknowledgement the falseness of the
    “don’t know anyone who voted for Nixon” quote to Kale, I don’t want to hear peep from you when the “can see Russia from my house” quote is used.

    seeRpea (1925e7)

  35. Heh, was Pauline Kael running for Vice President of the United States? I must have missed that.

    elissa (a1df99)

  36. they would go so far as to scrub an expression that shows their insularity, yet promote a lie
    that was promoted by the same parties, the Kennedy whelp and Chavez shill, brought the lancet fraud into the Huffington Post, so it’s no surprise,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  37. LOL… man, underoos in a bunch! Why so much frothing? “those who don’t want to acknowledgement the falseness”? Well, there’s one vote for the Hildebeast!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  38. But he or any other candidate who wants to do so needs to really prep himself on it and be able to give a fairly detailed answer when asked.

    Gerald, a week ago Ted had a really good response on the issue. Indeed, the host could do nothing in response but change the subject, even though it appears he was attempting a gotcha.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  39. I hope those Governors have the courage to sue FEMA and make them support their

    There now is way too much information at least refuting the climate models
    that have been used to claim that there is such a thing as man made climate
    change and that they steps they propose will do anything meaningful about it.

    Besides that their is the basic assumption that there is a certain “normal”

    We’ve only been accurately measuring enough data to make guesses about climate.

    We know enough to know we don’t know enough.

    jakee308 (49ccc6)

  40. Jerry Brown, has flushed the rivers into the ocean, to save the smelt, and wonders why there is a drought, by Barsoom!

    narciso (ee1f88)

  41. It’s unsurprising when you consider the left’s fealty to climate change. Believe, or pay the price:

    Hey this sounds familiar. Oh yeah:

    We all must believe in and accept Jesus is the son of an invisible man in the sky as our savior or we will suffer an eternity in Hell.

    Which of these 2 claims is more plausible? The one made by iron age peasants who didnt know the earth was round or the one with actual data (however tenuous it may be) to back it up?

    Gil (febf10)

  42. Oh, boy, Gil is back!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  43. Say, where is Sammy? Is he now (like me) a lurker?

    felipe (56556d)

  44. Gilgamesh – thanks for your predictable nonsense.

    JD (86a5eb)

  45. Hi JD ill clarify. Im comparing 2 things.

    The first is loosely is Dana showing contempt for the “Beleive in global warming or suffer the consequences” attitude on the left.

    The second is “Belive in Jesus or go to hell for eternity”.

    Both seem to me to be about the same but for one clear difference: one is measureable and one is not.

    Gil (27c98f)

  46. Also, Bonobo monkeys believe in global warming according to people who have studied them.

    nk (dbc370)

  47. Ted cruz running for president. Every democrat car will have the bumper sticker ted cruz for fuhrer!

    truther (f074d7)

  48. I believe the Senate voted 98-0 or similar that the climate is changing. So why shouldn’t states be required to prepare for this eventuality that the entire Senate believes is going to happen?

    Northener (162df5)

  49. the easter bunny ate my global warming

    happyfeet (831175)

  50. That wasn’t the easter bunny, that was your candidate Hillary.

    mg (31009b)

  51. well it’s not fair cause i was saving it for a treat

    happyfeet (831175)

  52. There are a number of reasons for me not to support Ted Criz for preseinet – mainly that he is a fraud – he says things he knows are highly unlikely to be true, especially on the form of predictions – but this is isn’t one of them.

    It’s not really so surprising to me that the Democrats would pick something on which he is right – because they are more interested in discrediting opposition to their dogmas than they are inn discrediting any particular candidate – they want something that works for all, or for any honest person.

    Sammy Finkelman (033fec)

  53. Gerald, a week ago Ted had a really good response on the issue. Indeed, the host could do nothing in response but change the subject, even though it appears he was attempting a gotcha.

    Dustin (2a8be7) — 3/22/2015 @ 8:06 pm

    Actually Cruz did exactly what I predicted, saying that it hasn’t warmed in 17 years according to satellite data (which I think is actually over 18). He did mention that it was satellite data that shows that, but he failed to point out what was wrong with “the hottest year ever” remark. First nothing shows it was the “hottest year ever”, the “data” shows it was the hottest year on record going back around a hundred years or so. Second, he didn’t point out that that’s according to surface temperature data and that there are problems with that. Then the host says “You trust satellites more than computers”, seeming to indicate he was under the impression that the computers somehow figured out it’s getting warmer. His point about computer models was totally lost on the host I believe.

    I know there’s a limit what you can do in a format like that but in a debate he needs to do quite a bit more.

    Gerald A (6b504a)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3829 secs.