They laughed at Bozo the clown too, Ted Cruz

Latest Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz pulls the Galileo gambit and reveals he knows as much about history as science.

Ted Cruz invokes Galileo to defend climate skepticism — and historians aren’t happy – The Washington Post.

In recent comments reported on by our own Philip Bump, Ted Cruz again brought up the idea […] that satellite measurements suggest there’s been no global warming in 17 years. But now, Cruz says these measurements show “no significant warming whatsoever” [my italics added], rather than “zero warming. None whatsoever,” as he stated before.

This is a tad more defensible. There has indeed been warming over the last 17 years, but by throwing in the word “significant,” at least Cruz made it more a matter of subjective interpretation, turning on how much warming really counts.

But at the same time — this is the bad news — Cruz brought in some mangled history of science […]

On the global warming alarmists, anyone who actually points to the evidence that disproves their apocalyptical claims, they don’t engage in reasoned debate. What do they do? They scream, ‘You’re a denier.’ They brand you a heretic. Today, the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat-Earthers. It used to be [that] it is accepted scientific wisdom the Earth is flat, and this heretic named Galileo was branded a denier.

When all you have is an appeal to a myth of history to make your view look good, you are in DEEP trouble. (Melba Ketchum, who said she found proof of Bigfoot, also pulled the same excuse.)

Yes, he compared anti-science climate denialists to Galileo (the heretic). And he calls the tons of solid data from various areas of science “apocalyptical” and those who support it “alarmists”. He may need to be told that Galileo and other “persecuted” scientists were right because they had evidence, not because they were heckled.

Keep digging the dumb hole, Cruz. And then stick your head in it. We haven’t had this degree of self-righteous inanity since Sarah Palin!

"You're on your way, Ted!"

“I did good, right?” “You’re on your way, Ted!”

Josh Rosenau at the National Center for Science Education (yes, they are kind of experts at this) demolished Cruz’ embarrassing ignorance of science present and historic here: Ted Cruz and the Edge of the Earth | NCSE. Seems like Cruz learned his history from some less than accurate sources. Galileo was not attacked by fellow colleagues, he was suppressed by the church for various complicated political reasons. I guess Cruz can’t really understand complex politics, either.

Yes, I’m being particularly nasty with this post and people often do not enjoy when my political views seep through into the commentary. But Cruz and a few of the major Conservative leaders are insulting the American public by their profound ignorance and outright lying, not to mention they are deliberately disregarding critical information about the future of the U.S. and the well being of society. It should not be tolerated when our so called leaders want to make and keep us stupid.

See also, FactCheck: Cruz on the Global Cooling Myth and Galileo.

Seriously, is he BLIND? Global temperature trend, 1880-2014, NASA

Seriously, is he BLIND? Global temperature trend, 1880-2014, NASA

Tip: Jan Malcheski

  28 comments for “They laughed at Bozo the clown too, Ted Cruz

  1. skeptictmac57
    March 27, 2015 at 8:16 PM

    That interview was painful to watch. Cruz is supremely arrogant in his stance, and I predict that it will haunt and hurt him through his run for the presidency, unless he can manage to walk it back somehow. Voters are getting smarter about this issue, and the deniers are now in a growing minority.

  2. drwfishesman
    March 27, 2015 at 9:56 PM

    It’s like he lives in an alternate universe. Ridicule is not the same as being threatened with a violent death unless he recants his blasphemy.

  3. Dubious f
    March 27, 2015 at 10:04 PM

    What is the reason to deny all this? I possibly can understand why a political figure would twist the facts and history to satisfy his constituents. Them being maybe a mr or mrs Doe, living in Vermont making their income on snowplowing and still deniers. Lack of education, religious belief, bad alma mater, the reasons are many. But deep down, we deny because the truth will lower our future comfort. I think the political elite as been skimmed down to fit the short term (15 years) downfall of energy, water and food. Any speech to rally the few has no price, gladly paid. All of this, fueled by making more and more, from much less.
    First you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the …

  4. Colonel Tom
    March 27, 2015 at 10:40 PM

    Why do you think that it is the uneducated are the ones behind climate denial. The climate denial industry and the sector of the economy that funds the climate denial industry are not uneducated nor fundamentalist. They are, optimizing their economic interest in the short-term at the expense of long term viability. Hardly an alien strategy to American capitalist that would sell off factories for increases in short-term gain.

    The uneducated are swayed by a massive propaganda machine, spear-headed by Fox News but certainly they are not the only prong of the propaganda machine. Some churches have been swayed by the propaganda, although a surprising number have not.

    Do not, blame ignorance when it is directed intent is evident. Ted Cruz is the bought and paid whore for certain short-sighted interest that would betray the seven generation yet to be, for a few dollar today. He may sound insane to you, but it is hard to attempt to produce a political argument that is biased upon a tissue of lies.

  5. One Eyed Jack
    March 28, 2015 at 3:39 AM

    What is with the disparaging comment about snow plowing? It’s honest work and there is no reason to imply that people who do this work are stupid. It actually pays fairly decent. If you have your own snow removal business, it can be rather lucrative. How about we stop stereotyping people by occupations? It doesn’t help your position to look down your nose at people.

  6. Dubious f
    March 28, 2015 at 6:23 AM

    Jack, colonel , whâ? You reading my post as me saying snowplowing is stupid? Was simply an example of why it would obviously affect, eventually, their business. Thus reason for them being in warming denial. As mentioned, reasons are many, on a constituents point of view. I could have also given the example of a Florida republican creationist that believes it’s god’s will to raise the ocean level and flood his lands. Or would have this been stereotypical too! Galileo Doe is rolling in his grave…

  7. Steve
    March 28, 2015 at 8:01 AM

    The real problem is what drives climate? Is it Co2? OK well it is under 4 parts per ten thousand in air so I have a problem with that (also that the experiments to prove it were at over 90%). My other logic problem is people think it acts a bit like Gore-tex but with heat. OK first you need distinct different layers like GT and then you need all the air to remain”right side up”. Why? because the miracle claimed for Co2 is that it allows heat one way (down) but stops it the other (up) – and even then becomes a reflector???
    If it is any insulator like water vapour (clouds) then it would slow heat transfer up at night but also down in daytime – cloudy day cooler, cloudy night – warmer.
    Of course we all want to be “green” and pollute as little as possible but blaming climate on a tiny trace gas is mad.

  8. RandyRandy
    March 28, 2015 at 8:11 AM

    Maybe Cruz meant “apocryphal”? Can’t read his talking points? Still, there’s no excuse for continued ignorance in the face of facts. This whole “I’m stupid just like you folks” failed campaign strategy of the GOP died with Sarah Palin’s and GW Bush’s campaigns. It’s 2015, and I think people want leaders who represent our best and brightest, not the bottom of the barrel. Sorry, Ted. This is not your strong suit.

    Playing the Galileo Gambit only works if you’re right and you can back up your claims with data. Galileo had science on his side; the Church did not. Science does not support Ted Cruz’ claims. If today’s field experts attack you and claim you’re wrong, you’re probably wrong. A lot of charlatans and alchemists were also persecuted thru the ages, because they were dead wrong. When it comes to science, I like to think actual proven data matters more than idealistic tales of martyrs co-opted to serve a political/corporate agenda. AGW will most assuredly kick our butts whether we ‘believe’ in it or not.

  9. skeptictmac57
    March 28, 2015 at 9:41 AM

    Steve, if you are truly wanting answers to those things that you discuss then I suggest that you read and follow the arguments and answers provided here:

    If you are just trolling for an argument, then I would go to another web site for that.

    I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

  10. Bill T.
    March 28, 2015 at 11:03 AM

    Please post your credentials that demonstrate your competence to analyze the contribution to atmospheric heat gain due to CO2 and how it affects (or not, as the case may be) synergistic effects, such as water vapor content.

    The atmospheric and oceananic systems are extrmely complex and are not amenable to inuitive types of analysis, real work is required.

  11. Bill T.
    March 28, 2015 at 11:07 AM

    People can sneer at puns if they want, but people smarter than me have made the case for it being the most civilized form of humor. I like ’em.

    As far as the point that Galileo had actual data on his side, that is the crux of the matter, isn’t it? The problem is the age-old Dunning-Kruger Effect, Cruz does not appear to have the knowledge base to have a clue how much he lacks understanding of the issues.

  12. Perry
    March 28, 2015 at 11:25 AM

    “It’s like he lives in an alternate universe.”

    Believers like him really do think they live in an alternate universe.

    “Ted Cruz’s Father Suggested His Son Is ‘Anointed’ to Bring About ‘End Time Transfer of Wealth'”

    “…Cruz’ father Rafael Cruz indicated that his son was among the evangelical Christians who are anointed as “kings” to take control of all sectors of society, an agenda commonly referred to as the “Seven Mountains” mandate, and “bring the spoils of war to the priests”, thus helping to bring about a prophesied “great transfer of wealth”, from the “wicked” to righteous gentile believers.”

    See the strange company the Cruz’s are in at:

  13. busterggi (Bob Jase)
    March 28, 2015 at 1:19 PM

    “Cruz and a few of the major Conservative leaders are insulting the American public by their profound ignorance”

    Problem is a good size chunk of the population takes pride in ignorance – they consider education beyond 3rd grade to be elitist.

  14. March 28, 2015 at 1:41 PM

    Cruz’s statements are not about global warming or climate change. The “facts” he blathers on about, his misuse of both Galilleo and flat earthers, are not what he’s talking about. Those are all just smokescreens for his real gambit: “Big government and Big (fill in your blank) are out to get you.”

    Of course I was aghast listening to the Cruz interview with the Texas Tribune reporter, not only because Cruz kept bringing up one dumb point after another…but also because the reporter just let him rant on without a challenge, until finally coming forward with the lamest of all “But what if it were real?” I mean, here we have a guy — who apparently thinks getting his news from a 1970’s Newsweek article is how to stay up to date — ranting, shaking his fist as he adamantly cites “evidence,” and making numerous nutjob “Palindrones” (a term I made up 4 years ago*), and all the reporter can do is stare at him.

    But that’s when I had my epiphany. It really doesn’t matter to Cruz whether anyone refutes him. He could care less if someone posts a rebuttal. Because he’s not addressing the community of people trying to find answers to health care or climate change. He’s simply dog-whistling his own already-sold electorate.

    He could have spoken pig Latin, or mumbled charismatically in tongues because all he cares is that his people hear two words: “La la la la blah blah blah obal-glay arming-way ealth-hay are-kay BIG GOVERNMENT sham a lamma ding dong.”

    We might as well save our breath, fellow Doubtful Newsers — he’s not talking to us.

    *“Capitalizing to succeed” and more Palindrones

  15. Blargh
    March 28, 2015 at 2:39 PM

    The real problem is what drives climate? Is it Co2?

    Climate is a complex interplay of factors, but CO2 (and the other greenhouse gasses) is the main factor we’ve changed, yes.

    OK well it is under 4 parts per ten thousand in air so I have a problem with that

    Intuition is a powerful tool for quickly arriving at the wrong conclusion. 🙂

    If you were offered a glass of water with 0.04% plutonium in it, would you drink it? It’s just 400 parts per million, so what harm could that tiny amount possibly do?

    My other logic problem is people think it acts a bit like Gore-tex but with heat. OK first you need distinct different layers like GT and then you need all the air to remain”right side up”. Why? because the miracle claimed for Co2 is that it allows heat one way (down) but stops it the other (up) – and even then becomes a reflector???

    I suggest you watch Potholer54’s climate change videos. They’re neutral videos on the science of climate change, aimed at laymen, and have references and errata. He explains the mechanism in the first, linked, video.

    skeptictmac57 has also linked you to the excellent Skeptical Science website, which debunks all the common myths around climate change, with different levels of explanations to suit your particular level of knowledge.

  16. March 28, 2015 at 4:48 PM

    It’s so refreshing to see the skeptical community come together in defense of climate science.

    It wasn’t many years ago it wasn’t that way. Penn & Teller, whom I otherwise love, had their anti-global warming Bu!!sh!t episode which many in the skeptical community embraced. Michael Shermer was a skeptical voice against climate change science. Randi I believe was doubtful.

    I’m an environmental professional who at times works on air and climate issues, and on a fundraising trip by a certain skeptical organization, was startled and disappointed that the director and a number of other attendees were loudly mocking of climate change and environmentalism. I kept asking how persons responsible for encouraging scientific thinking could really be claiming that a massive global scientific consensus was dumb, or politics, or a conspiracy, or whatever.

    Things have changed dramatically. Shermer publicly announced he was wrong, Randi I think came around, P & T I believe have made some positive noises. And all the major skeptical websites and organizations are now fully on board with climate science and challenging the deniers.

    We applied our skepticism to ourselves and had the humility to let that change us, which proves we take our scientific skepticism seriously. So glad!

  17. Steve
    March 28, 2015 at 5:03 PM

    Firstly I probably do drink water with 0.04% of Plutonium in it – I certainly live near a beach where a few radiocative particles were found and still go there. Looked at skepticalscience – a few points. Some scientists say ancient Co2 increases LAG temperature increase not the other way round.
    Co2 as a trigger? maybe but why any worse than any other thing?
    Man made Co2 is tiny compared to natural Co2? Yep – seems to be (and if we all left the planet tomorrow (after switching everything off)….
    Solar output not a factor? Well here they seem to limit their explanation to light and heat. But it emits the entire known electromagnetic spectrum at us in a sort of variable blizzard so what? our planet with its electromagnetic field is not going to “dance” to those tunes – affecting weather and long term climate and probably many other things? That effect isn’t going to be a few thousand times more powerful a driver than a trace gas?
    No one except a god will know for sure but what is most likely? What makes most logical sense?

  18. Steve
    March 28, 2015 at 5:16 PM

    And by the way – as I said in my first post – I and every sensible person will want to minimise our impact on and their pollution of this home planet of ours. We are probably all in agreement about that and are only divided in what drives the constantly changing climate – and possibly whether we can reconcile our few decades of measurements with millenia of geological time.

  19. skeptictmac57
    March 28, 2015 at 5:40 PM

    Steve, I’m glad that you took some time to check out SkepticalScience, but judging from your follow up comments, you didn’t spend enough time there since they have answered every single one of your points already.
    The site is laid out in a very user friendly way, and if you are intellectually honest in your approach (that is, do you really want answers and the latest science on AGW, or are you just taking in only information that bolsters your existing ideology?) you will be able to spend months educating yourself about the current state of climate research, and why scientists in that field have a very high level of certainty that Co2 is the main driver of global warming, and that we are causing that by raising the levels of all greenhouse gasses. Are you up to the challenge, or are you unwilling to have your views changed in light of new information?

  20. Russian Skeptic
    March 29, 2015 at 12:42 AM

    Well, politicians are apparently bred on purpose by the Intelligent Designer who selects the stupidest ones.
    Our Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky once said that Russians have an extra chromosome (no, this is not a parody nor hoax! this is what he actually said!).

  21. Phil
    March 29, 2015 at 2:39 AM

    Cruz didn’t even get the Galileo argument correct. Galileo refuted heliocentricity, not flat earth. If he can’t even get this story straight, why listen to him about a subject he knows nothing about?
    Also here.
    Yearly CO2 emitters
    Billion metric tons per year (Gt/y)
    Global volcanic emissions (highest preferred estimate) 0.26
    Anthropogenic CO2 in 2010 (projected) 35.0
    Light-duty vehicles (cars/trucks) 3.0
    Approximately 24 1000-megawatt coal-fired power stations * 0.22
    Argentina 0.20
    Pakistan 0.18
    Saudi Arabia 0.44

  22. Steve
    March 29, 2015 at 5:22 AM

    The whole point of this website is that we run everything into the crucible of logic and reason. There are certain graphs and statistics from certain bodies that have needed FOI requests to get at the raw data why? nothing to hide? no upward “adjustment” of temps in past decades? no “extrapolation” of data from disused sites or places with no apparatus? no discounting of the roughly 1/3rd of data from cooler sites? no cheerful use of sites developed around to form heat islands? I wonder why any “settled science” would need to do that and I have lived long enough to see many a scientific certainty overturned by new knowledge so are you up to the challenge of testing the facts and figures you know for any odd “adjustments”?
    In the end both sides of this argument will believe what they want – they both will have “hard”data – the same as when we see photographic “proof” of say UFOs: yes we have cameras, phones etc but we also have faking techniques, odd lighting etc so that too becomes belief and “proof” on either side. Bottom line – who knows? so in my mind at least the verdict is “not proven”.

  23. Richard
    March 29, 2015 at 7:57 AM

    Ignorance (or stupidity) may be a factor, but what about the self-deluded? Many of the Anti-Vaxxers are quite wealthy & well educated (and I suspect they do not treat their 401k elections with the same level of “evidence” they use to justify their opposition to vaccines). People have a sad propensity to believe what they want to believe, in spite of evidence. Look at all the people who stuck with Jehovah’s Witnesses & 7th Day Adventists, and in our own day still believed Harold Camping, even when Jesus did not reappear on schedule? Cognitive Dissonance, any one?

  24. Blargh
    March 29, 2015 at 10:27 AM

    Firstly I probably do drink water with 0.04% of Plutonium in it – I certainly live near a beach where a few radiocative particles were found and still go there.

    300 ml of water containing 0.04% plutonium by weight (by volume would be even worse!) would contain 120 mg – more than a tenth of a gram – of the stuff. Downing that glass would not be a wise move.

    And so my point is made, albeit in another way than the intended. How you feel about the concentrations involved (0.04% vs “near a beach where some radioactive particles”) has nothing to do with the actual effect said concentrations have.

  25. Blargh
    March 29, 2015 at 10:32 AM

    Literally all of those points are answered at Skeptical Science, so I have to come to the conclusion that you’re being intellectually dishonest and not in fact asking questions to learn anything.

    Sadly, I am not surprised.

  26. skeptictmac57
    March 29, 2015 at 10:57 AM

    Nor am I (surprised) Blargh. I’ve been down this road before with a “just asking questions” commentor on another skeptical blog. He would put up point after point of ‘skeptical’ objections on AGW, all shopworn and easily refuted. After knocking them down tediously one by one, and even getting concessions of his misinformation, a few months later he would be right back making exactly the same errors, showing either dishonesty, or blindly motivated reasoning. Either way, the only benefit that I could see, was just putting the information out there and hoping that a fair and reasonable observer would make their own judgement about who had the better information.

  27. Geoff
    March 30, 2015 at 4:29 PM

    I am so screwed…

  28. Geoff
    March 30, 2015 at 4:36 PM

    “Some scientists say ancient Co2 increases LAG temperature increase not the other way round.”

    So? The fact that it’s not the case now should tell you something.

    “Man made Co2 is tiny compared to natural Co2?”

    If you have a pot on a stove, you can keep a steady temperature by keeping the flame the same. If you increase the flame by just a bit, the water will eventually come to a boil. Of course, this is a crude analogy. In reality, there are other GHGs and feedback effects to consider.

Comments are closed.