Thursday, September 3, 2015

Cruz Control

As is well known by now, Sen. Ted Cruz is one of the smartest guys around. He was a champion debater at Princeton and was, according to Prof. Alan Dershowitz the smartest student who ever took his course at Harvard Law School.

Recently, when campaigning in New Hampshire Cruz was vigorously questioned about climate change. Those asking the questions were clearly activists and were clearly trying to get Cruz to say that he denied climate change. In the Church of the Liberal Pieties, climate change denial is a heresy.

Here is a portion of the transcript,  m which Cruz explains that, of course, the climate is changing. The climate is always changing. And yet, there is very little if any substantive evidence to demonstrate that human beings are causing it to change. On that score Cruz is on the same page as Prof. Richard Lindzen, retired head of climate science at MIT, a man who, one assumes, knows the science better than a couple of young activists.This being the case, what is the purpose of calling for draconian measures to stop the problem, especially when considering the cost of these measures. 

Cruz continues to suggest that we ought to ask ourselves about the true agenda of environmental activists.
  
CRUZ: Sir I told you I’m not going cross-examined. Let’s step back for a second and look at this with some historical perspective. Thirty to forty years ago there were a group of political liberal and scientists who said we were facing global cooling. They said we were headed toward a global ice age and the solution to global cooling was increased was massive government control of the economy, the energy sector, and every aspect of our lives. Then the data disproved it. It was not in fact correct that we were seeing global cooling. So that was kind of a problem. Then many of these same political liberals, and many of these same scientists they then latched on to a new theory, it’s called global warming. And the new theory of global warming interestingly enough, the solution was the exact same as the solution had been for global cooling. It was massive government control of the economy, the energy sector, and every aspect of our lives. But then the problem became the data and evidence didn’t back up global warming. In particular if you look at the satellite data. Listen I am the son of two scientists and mathematicians. It is the essence of science to look to the evidence. In the last eighteen years there has been no meaningful recorded warming according to the satellite data. So all of a sudden all these political liberals, the evidence and data didn’t back them up. So then the theory changed to a third version, it’s just been in the last few years when the theory magically transformed into climate change. And climate change from the perspective of a political liberal who wants government power climate change is the perfect pseudo-scientific theory. Why is that? Because it can never be disproven. Whether it’s hotter or colder, whether is wetter or drier the climate is always changing. Now you asked a question, ‘do you believe in climate change?’. Of course! From the dawn of time the climate has been changing. Until the end of time the climate will change. And yet interestingly enough the political liberals, their solution to climate change is exactly the same as it was to global cooling and global warming. Massive government control of the economy, energy sector, and our lives. And when you start to see politicians who propose the exact same solution to every problem regardless of the facts or the data you start to think these are politicians who just want power over our lives. You know what I’m interested in? I’m interested in the single moms who are working here who are struggling to feed their families and are seeing their electric bills skyrocketing because these political liberals are driving up their electric bills, driving up their energy bills, making it harder and harder to provide for their kids. We need to follow the facts and data and not just give power to a bunch of out of touch elites in Washington over our lives.   

I post this for your interest. It’s good to see a presidential candidate offer a clear, intelligent and substantive response to a question. It doesn’t happen every day.

11 comments:

Ares Olympus said...

It is funny how when someone offers a narrative you want to believe he is being "clear, intelligent and substantive."

Cruz is practically a socialist, wants to help single mom's have cheap electricity so they can raise their children who never need to be in the dark, all without needing any child support.

Why not add a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage too? Or is that too 1928?

Lindsay Harold said...

Crux isn't a socialist! Not even close. Do some looking at his actual positions.

What he said about single moms and electricity was using the single mom (which is a liberal "cause") to illustrate that liberal policies don't help the people they claim to want to help. And of course, we should care if the single moms (and everyone else) are struggling to provide for their families because of liberal policies that drive up prices out of some misguided notion that we have to do it this way to save planet. That was the point. He never said anything about giving special treatment to single mothers.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares, why do you care if Cruz is a socialist?

Ares Olympus said...

IAC: Ares, why do you care if Cruz is a socialist?

I actually considering attending the Democratic caucus for 2016, just to offer my vote for Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist.

So sure, I'm willing to go for Cruz vs Sanders for president.

I don't know if the excesses of socialism can help moderate the excesses of capitalism, but slightly cheaper electricity for a couple more years in exchange for shorter appalachian mountains forever seems like short term thinking that bleeding heart socialists are famous for.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Thank you for clarifying. That's why I don't particularly care about your characterization of him as a socialist.

Ares Olympus said...

P.s. In regards to Cruz's vow to "follow the facts" I wonder how well he has done?

Looks like he's batting 0.320 at least (half true), which is good for baseball at least. If we add (mostly false) "partly true", he can get up to 61%. That's gotta beat Michele Bachmann at least.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/
-------
True 1 (2%)
Mostly True 8 (15%)
Half True 8 (15%)
.............
Mostly False 15 (29%)
False 16 (31%)
Pants on Fire 4 (8%)
-------

What about Sanders? Much better at 74% (at least half true), and zero pants-on-fire, or 81% if we had (mostly false) "partly true". Yes, 22% is still too low for "true", but the world is a complicated place for sound bites.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/
---------
True 6 (22%)
Mostly True 9 (33%)
Half True 5 (19%)
.............
Mostly False 2 (7%)
False 5 (19%)
Pants on Fire 0
---------

Ares Olympus said...

On Cruz's global warming quotes:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/mar/20/ted-cruz/ted-cruzs-worlds-fire-not-last-17-years/
-----
Mostly false: "Many of the alarmists on global warming, they’ve got a problem because the science doesn’t back them up. In particular, satellite data demonstrate for the last 17 years, there’s been zero warming."

Cruz responded, "My view actually is simple. Debates on this should follow science and should follow data. Many of the alarmists on global warming, they’ve got a problem because the science doesn’t back them up. In particular, satellite data demonstrate for the last 17 years, there’s been zero warming. None whatsoever. It’s why -- you remember how it used to be called 'global warming' and then magically the theory changed to 'climate change'? The reason is it wasn’t warming, but the computer models still say it is, except the satellites show it’s not."

By starting his 17-year count with 1998 -- an abnormally hot year because of the El Nino -- Cruz exaggerated the nature of the pause.

Cruz Spokesman Phil Novack said the senator was not intending to cast doubt on climate change science. He said Cruz recently voted to affirm that climate change is real (though the statement voted on did not attribute those changes to human activity, a key point for climate-change activists who say changes to human activity will be required to keep the environmental impact from worsening).

Rather, Novack said, Cruz was trying to emphasize the fact that "the computer models that climate scientists rely on predicted the Earth should be significantly warmer than it is now" based on satellite measurements. What Cruz is casting doubt on is the idea that we should make major policy decisions affecting the livelihoods of millions of people in the name of theoretical conclusions that in fact cannot currently be drawn from science or data," he added.

Cruz’s statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.
----

On the cherry picking of the extreme 1998 El Nino event, perhaps we'll get a rematch on that for 2015/16, and
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/08/17/3691712/godzilla-el-nino-global-warming/
--------
Whatever you call it, the short-term burst of regional warming in the tropical Pacific (from the monster El Niño) combined with the strong underlying long-term global warming trend means that 2015 will easily be the hottest year on record — blowing past the record just set in 2014. And if the global temperature pattern repeats that of the last super El Niño (1997-1998), then 2016 could well top 2015 record.
-------

So perhaps when Cruz loses his presidential bid, he can go back to his lab and reanalyze the new data next winter and see if he wants to amend his scientific opinion.

This article shows the natural variations seem to average out with a 132 month (11 year) running average, with a smooth rise of about 0.5C over 25 years, or 2C per century. So armchair scientists can make their bets and hopefully by 2020, the old trends will become apparent, or global cooling will take over, and we'll be so happy we worried more about 300 trillion dollar derivative markets than slowly boiling frogs just before the new ice age.

http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2015/08/24/global-temperature-update/
---------
Figure 1 is the monthly global temperature anomaly and its running mean over 12-month, 60 month (5-year) and 132-month (11-year) periods. When we reach December the 12-month mean becomes the commonly reported annual mean. It is clear that 2015 will be the warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, as an ongoing El Nino adds to a warming trend. We can already predict that the 2015 global temperature will exceed the prior warmest year (2014) by an unusually wide margin (~ 0.1°C), exceeding 1998 (“El Nino of the century”) even further.
--------

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

C'mon, Ares... Why stop now??? I'm hungry for more from you on this topic... so much more. Please keep writing. I cannot get enough.

Ares Olympus said...

IAC, I think to have a dialogue or debate, you have to listen also, so I yield the floor.

Maybe we could read from Cruz's pretend filibuster against obama care?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2013/09/25/transcript-sen-ted-cruzs-filibuster-against-obamacare/
That Sam-I-am!
That Sam-I-am!
I do not like that Sam-I-am!
Do you like green eggs and ham?
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
Would you like them here or there?
I would not like them here or there.
I would not like them anywhere.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
Would you like them in a house?
Would you like them with a mouse?
I do not like them in a house.
I do not like them with a mouse.
I do not like them here or there.
I do not like them anywhere.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
Would you eat them in a box?
Would you eat them with a fox?
Not in a box.
Not with a fox.
Not in a house.
Not with a mouse.
I would not eat them here or there.
I would not eat them anywhere.
I would not eat green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
Would you? Could you?
In a car?
Eat them! Eat them!
Here they are.
I would not, could not, in a car.
You may like them.
You will see.
You may like them in a tree!
I would not, could not, in a tree.
Not in a car! You let me be.
I do not like them in a box.
I do not like them with a fox.
I do not like them in a house.
I do not like them with a mouse.
I do not like them here or there.
I do not like them anywhere.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
A train! A train!
A train! A train!
Could you, would you, on a train?
Not on a train! Not in a tree!
Not in a car! Sam, let me be!
I would not, could not, in a box.
I could not, would not, with a fox.
I will not eat them with a mouse.
I will not eat them in a house.
I will not eat them here or there.
I will not eat them anywhere.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
Say!
In the dark?
Here in the dark!
Would you, could you, in the dark?
I would not, could not, in the dark.
Would you, could you, in the rain?
I would not, could not, in the rain.
Not in the dark. Not on a train.
Not in a car. Not in a tree.
I do not like them, Sam, you see.
Not in a house. Not in a box.
Not with a mouse. Not with a fox.
I will not eat them here or there.
I do not like them anywhere!
You do not like green eggs and ham?
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
Could you, would you, with a goat?
I would not, could not, with a goat!
Would you, could you, on a boat?
I could not, would not, on a boat.
I will not, will not, with a goat.
I will not eat them in the rain.
I will not eat them on a train.
Not in the dark! Not in a tree!
Not in a car! You let them be!
I do not like them in a box.
I do not like them with a fox.
I will not eat them in a house.
I do not like them with a mouse.
I do not like them here or there.
I do not like them ANYWHERE!
I do not like green eggs and ham!
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
You do not like them.
So you say.
Try them! Try them!
And you may.
Try them and you may, I say.
Sam!
If you will let me be,
I will try them.
You will see.
And on this page he is simply holding green eggs and ham on a fork preparing to bite them. Say!
I like green eggs and ham!
I do! I like them, Sam-I-am!
And I would eat them in a boat.
And I would eat them with a goat . . .
And I will eat them in the rain.
And in the dark. And on a train.
And in a car. And in a tree.
They are so good, so good, you see!
So I will eat them in a box.
And I will eat them with a fox.
And I will eat them in a house.
And I will eat them with a mouse.
And I will eat them here and there.
Say! I will eat them ANYWHERE!
I do so like
green eggs and ham!
Thank you!
Thank you,
Sam-I-am!

Dennis said...

IAC,

You actually pay attention to such gibberish or are you allowing Ares to prove how little he knows?
Cruz is a very intelligent man and I would have no trouble voting for him if he was the nominee. Some times using the absurd to demonstrate the absurd works and some times it doesn't.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Dennis @September 4, 2015 at 5:43 AM:

Oh, the Places Ares Olympus Will Go! I did find it humorous that he chided about "dialogue and debate" and then cut-and-pasted a Dr. Seuss piece, ostensibly because it tied tangentially to Ted Cruz. More cutting-and-pasting of nonsense from the Olympian god-man from Minnesota. What a pest. He contributes pestilent gibberish. How's that? He says Cruz is "practically socialist" while being a socialist himself. And then he drops in the piece about "... you have to listen also." HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

That said, I must have more... more Ares Olympus! More, more, MORE!!!

Cruz may be intelligent, and a great debater. However, I find his penchant for self-promotion troubling. He seems to like stunts. My other problem is that he has not completed his first term in the Senate, nor have Rand Paul or Marco Rubio. And not one of them has executive experience. Haven't we learned in the last 7 years that this is a problem? If only he had more experience, I really like Marco Rubio. I'd love to see a Rubio-Fiorina ticket. But I find it difficult to stomach with the lack of experience. The other thing about Cruz I do not like is the tone of his voice and his painfully sincere manner of speech. I feel like I'm being talked down to, like a child. It strikes me as condescending and patronizing. I cannot imagine listening to that for 4-8 years. And his A++++++ conservative record gives me pause. It's like he doesn't think. While the Republicans certainly do not need another John McCain, I would like to see an issue or two where Cruz is his own man. Perhaps it's in his "socialist" policy leanings with single mothers. I'll have to noodle on that...