Wednesday, December 09, 2015

Ted Cruz on NPR

On the way in to work this morning, I heard part of an interview with Ted Cruz, who was asked pointedly if he accepted the current position on global warming.  He clearly said that he did not and said that the pursuit of climate change strategies are, in fact, thinly disguised attempts by liberal politicians and crony capitalists to gain power.  I think that he is, perhaps, at least partially correct about that.  I also know that the climate of the planet does change.  Our planet is 4.5 billion years old and has undergone considerable change.  What is not clear is how much we are responsible for the current trajectory.  Some, I am sure, but how much I honestly don't know.

Then, because he clearly rejected the science on climate change, he was asked if he accepted other mainstream science perspectives, such as, pointedly, evolution.  He refused to answer the question. Rarely have I seen a better evasion of a question. He remarked that it was the job of scientists to question all of science and then went right back to climate change.

He clearly doesn't want to rile a large segment of his base by coming right out and agreeing with evolution but he also doesn't want appear anti-science. I am quite sure that he has advisers that are keenly aware of how most Republicans are perceived with regard to science and they want to avoid the recent example of Ben Carson's missteps in this area. That Cruz launched his candidacy from Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia did not help, or that his father was quoted as saying that evolution is a lie perpetrated by Marxists. He has taken no official stance on this issue (unlike Carson, who thinks that Satan had a hand in crafting the theory!) but is not going to be able to avoid the question forever.


  1. I was a climate change denier until I started actually looking at some of the data. It was a Canadian climate scientist from Texas Tech, Time 100, and Christian, Katharine Hayhoe who softened me up to the reality...just as others did about evolution.

    Here is her most recommended reference site for climate change questions and answers.

    1. Although I can see why she recommended this site if she was trying to convert you just be aware this is a smear site run by none other than John Cook (the same non-scientist that was commissioned to create the study the 97% consensus was based on). Cook has no problem lying about real scientist such as Spencer, Lindzen, Curry, Singer et al and calling them liars, deniers and climate misinformers without backing up his slander with any facts. It's basically "the alarmist guidebook" on how to conduct and win a climate change argument on social media. Personally I won't accept any information if the source is from this site and I make this very clear in my discussions.

  2. The main debate is whether or not people believe climate change is a real threat. Regardless of where people stand, why not take the steps to creating a healthier living environment for everyone either way? Encouraging recycling, renewable energy, and other clean practices will benefit us all regardless if climate change is real or not.

  3. That is the perspective that a lot of people take. My brother's take is that this is something we cannot afford to be wrong about.

    Emanuel Kerry sees himself as a conservative. He believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He backs a strong military. He almost always votes Republican and admires Ronald Reagan. He takes the position that uncertainty in the science recommends that we take action now because the risk of underestimating the risk could be catastrophic.

  5. Jimpithecus wrote “What is not clear is how much we are responsible for the current trajectory. “
    See the following article: and the following graphic: