Sen. Cruz says he would withdraw U.S. from Paris climate accord if elected
Sen. Ted Cruz, who has questioned the existence of global warming, said Tuesday that if he were elected president, he would withdraw the United States from the landmark climate agreement reached in Paris earlier this month.
“Barack Obama seems to think the SUV parked in your driveway is a bigger threat to national security than radical Islamic terrorists who want to kill us. That’s just nutty,” Cruz told reporters in a high school classroom here. “These are ideologues, they don’t focus on the facts, they won’t address the facts, and what they’re interested [in] instead is more and more government power.”
Cruz has long sounded a skeptical note on climate change. He chairs the Senate subcommittee that oversees NASA and has said that the space agency needs to focus more on getting off Earth and less time studying what happens on the planet, specifically when it comes to matters of climate change.
The Texas Republican said at a Senate hearing earlier this month that temperatures on the Earth haven’t changed in 18 years, sparring with a retired Navy rear admiral and meteorologist who said that the Earth’s temperature had risen during that time.
“Those facts are, to use Al Gore’s phrase, an inconvenient truth,” Cruz said in Knoxville. He accused the administration and other countries of using climate change as an excuse to increase regulations and make life more expensive.
“So they set them aside and continue to propose jacking up the cost of millions of Americans’ day to day living. Jacking up your car bill, jacking up your electric bill, jacking up the cost of people who are struggling,” Cruz said.
…‘Climatarian’ Makes New York Times List of Top New Food Words for 2015
Via: http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/22/what-is-a-climatarian/
The New York Times published its list of the top new food words for 2015. Words and phrases that made this year’s list range from “beer o’clock,” one’s personal assessment of the right time of day to start drinking, to “hangry,” the state of being so hungry that you become angry or irritable.
But, the one word most relevant to the environmentally conscious is “climatarian.” The New York Times defines it as “a diet whose primary goal is to reverse climate change. This includes eating locally produced food (to reduce energy spent in transportation), choosing pork and poultry instead of beef and lamb (to limit gas emissions) and using every part of ingredients (apple cores, cheese rinds, etc.) to limit food waste.”
The word gained popularity this year in part because it was promoted by a group calledClimates (yes, the organization’s official name is formally half-bold). They encourage people to “go climatarian” and save a tonne (1.1 short tons) of carbon dioxide equivalent, which includes carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases.
‘Poop burgers’ to save the planet! Japanese scientist creates artificial meat from human feces – ‘Poop burgers’ will be good for the climate because ‘the meatpacking industry causes 18% of our greenhouse gas emissions…hopefully people will be able to overlook that ugly detail (eating human feces) in favor of perks like environmental responsibility’
Now Global Warming Believers Want To Take Away The Joy of Eating Steak
PAUL DRIESSEN: Movies, computer models create climate change fears
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/20/paul-driessen-movies-computer-models-create-climat/…
Conrad Black: ‘How the Post-Soviet Left Latched Onto the Climate For Crusade on Capitalism’
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/how-the-post-soviet-left-latched-onto-the-climate/89372/
What seems to have happened is that the international far left, having been decisively routed with the collapse of the Soviet Union and of international communism, has attached itself to the environmental movement, usurped the leading positions in it from the bird-watching, butterfly-collecting, and conservation organizations, and is carrying on its anti-capitalist and anarchist crusade behind the cover of eco-Armageddonism.
While this has been rather skillfully executed, many office-holders and aspirants, including Mr. Obama, have used dire environmental scenarios to distract their electorates from their own policy failures, much as Arab powers have long diluted anger at despotic misgovernment by harping on the red herring of Israel.…
‘Is Naomi Oreskes Using the Same Merchant of Doubt Tactics She Criticizes?’ she smears fellow warmists as ‘deniers’
Oreskes attacks four world renowned climate campaigners as “deniers” … because they argue that nuclear power must play a role in decarbonizing energy production, and they don’t believe renewable energy alone will be enough to stave off serious climate change. Here’s how Oreskes uses the loaded language of denialism;
“A strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs.”
“We probably won’t get very far if the alternatives to fossil fuel — such as renewable energy — are disparaged by a new generation of myths. If we want to see real solutions implemented, we need to be on the lookout for this new form of denial.”
Oreskes has been roundly criticized for her ad hominem and polarizing use of “denier” semantics. (See Michael Specter’s How Not to Debate Nuclear Energy and Climate Change)
But she must also be taken to task for intellectual hypocrisy. She does just what she has made her name criticizing inMerchants of Doubt, knowingly playing fast and loose with the evidence, and selectively citing scientific experts, to support her view of “the facts” in a way that clouds public understanding of scientific evidence in order to advance a clear political agenda.…
Obama ups ‘consensus’ to 99.5% ‘Mr. President, Here’s Why That Claim of a 97% Climate Change Consensus Is Bunk’
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/no-mr-president-claim-climate-change-consensus-bunk
Recently, President Obama scrapped the “97% consensus of scientists believe in climate change” claim – andraised it 99.5%:
While the president noted that “99.5 percent of scientists and experts [and] 99 percent of world leaders” agree human-caused climate change needs to be reckoned with.
If the President relied on facts rather than hyperbole, he would admit that there is no study claiming that 99.5% of scientists agree with the climate change thesis, and that even the study claiming a 97% consensus of scientists is total bunk.
The study reporting the 97% consensus, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,” by John Cook and friends, under the halo of the University of Queensland was published in 2013 and, according to Watts Up With That, when the source data for the study was published online, the University of Queensland got so worried they threatened a lawsuit over use of Cook’s “97% consensus” data for a scientific rebuttal.…
What’s Really Going On With the Earth’s Climate
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/12/whats-really-going-on-with-the-earths-climate.php
The most accurate record we have of modern temperatures comes from satellites. Their readings are, in fact, the only transparent, uncorrupted temperature records in existence. Surface temperature records are unreliable because of siting issues, poor coverage of the oceans, failure to recognize the urban heat island effect, and deliberate falsification by alarmist climate scientists, who constantly revise temperatures recorded decades ago to make the past look cooler. The problem with satellite temperature data, of course, is that it only goes back to 1978.…