A progressive climate alarmist website has an invaluable voting guide for the presidential election: just pick the candidates it rates least highly – and you’re surely backing a winner.
It purports to judge them on the extent of their knowledge of climate change.
Hillary Clinton comes right at the top with a score of 90 percent.
At the bottom, with a hugely impressive 0 percent is Ted Cruz.
But perhaps we shouldn’t be so surprised by this given that the judges for the competition include several of the most fanatical alarmists in the field of climate science, among them Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth and the author of the widely discredited Hockey Stick, Michael Mann.
The candidates were judged according to public statements they had made on climate change, as carefully selected by Associated Press’s resident environmental activist Seth Borenstein.
What’s interesting about Candidate 80 – aka Ted Cruz – is that though the judging panel gave him zero points, he in fact deserves full marks. Every single one of his statements is unimpeachably correct as I’ll show you now.
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.
True. The term “climate denier” was deliberately chosen by the alarmist establishment as an insult to make skeptics look as weird and marginalized as Holocaust deniers.
Guardian environmental writer George Monbiot made this connection explicit in a 2006 article:
Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial.
Yet as Cruz rightly says it is the skeptics who have the scientific truth on their side. There is no evidence that late 20th century/early 21st century global warming has been in any way unprecedented or potentially catastrophic.
If you look at satellite data for the last 18 years, there’s been zero recorded warming. The satellite says it ain’t happening.
True. There has been no recorded global warming since January 1997.
They’re cooking the books. They’re actually adjusting the numbers. Enron used to do their books the same way.
True. Official record-keepers such as NASA GISS and NOAA simply cannot be trusted. Their unexplained adjustments to the raw temperature data have turned cooling trends into warming ones. This isn’t science. This is fraud.
The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn’t happened,”. “You know, back in the ’70s — I remember the ’70s, we were told there was global cooling. And everyone was told global cooling was a really big problem. And then that faded.
True. But it’s typical of the climate alarmists’ breathtaking chutzpah and wanton disregard for history that you often find them claiming that the “ice age is coming” stories promulgated by scientists and magazines in the 70s are a right wing myth. Here are a few examples.
Climate change, as they have defined it, can never be disproved, because whether it gets hotter or whether it gets colder, whatever happens, they’ll say, well, it’s changing, so it proves our theory.
True. Now Cruz is really showing his intellectual mettle. What he is talking about is one of the main problems with Anthropogenic Global Warming theory: that the null hypothesis is so weak as to make the theory almost meaningless. Yes, it seems highly likely that human activity does contribute – in however small a way – to climate change. But what the alarmists won’t admit is that the difference we make is so infinitesimally small as to be insignificant.
Climate change is not science. It’s religion.
True. For more details see here passim. Science is only science when it follows the scientific method: openness; rigorousness; reproducibility. Instead it has been suborned by political activists with the zeal of religious converts.
The very existence of the Climate Feedback site which produced this bogus survey is proof of the problem. It purports to be an unbiased source – a “community of scientists” motivated by “civic duty” – to inform the public about the truth of climate change. In fact, there’s not a single person among their membership who is not a committed climate change alarmist.