[Climate Change] Lake Erie up to 60% Covered in Ice

I and many others have been saying the same thing. Even without the threat of climate change there are still many reasons to move away from fossil fuels.

 

I fail to see how he got the best of someone or made a decent point?

By trying to trip up someone who might not have had a firm, 100% grasp on the exact scientific points.

Mind you, the "Pause" Cruz tries to trip him up on has also been shown to be not true.

 

It's a sad day when closed-minded fools like yourself accept the fake skepticism of a fraud like Cruz just because he mimics your aversion to the facts on climate change.

Read this - and its many links - and learn something for God's sake. Youve wasted way too much bandwidth sharing your misunderstanding of science.

 

Ok, that's a new low quoting Cruz. But honestly is the best. That snake skin has almost completely shedded. Bravo.

 

That is a great link. This isn't the only example of Cruz vs. Reality, but it is a great one and appropriate to this thread.

 

I'm not a TCruz supporter, nor do I pretend to be knowledgeable about climate change, BUT TCruz did have that person in a corner! In ANY debate/hearing you can't (imply) that you wouldn't retract your statement if the evidence proves that you're wrong. I'm not saying that TCruz was right, just saying the other guy came across as being MORE deceitful (than TCruz) by not agreeing to want to side with (alleged) facts! Whether the facts (the pause) TCruz was presenting were true/false is up to you guys to debate!

CHEERS!!!
.......
.......
.......

 

He didn't really make any good points at all, though.

He tried to out logic someone into contradicting themselves to invalidate themselves.

The correct response was made and Cruz was left with nothing but wordplay.

The intelligent folks, who side with the scientists, see right through it for what it is.

The lemmings, who base their political opinions on zingers, are further hypnotized into thinking something stupid.

Rinse/Repeat

 

And what misleading and distorting comment would that be?

 

these are super-market tabloid links??

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/

i'm confused can you explain mr. red rocket??

 

What? When did Slate Magazine become a supermarket tabloid?

 

there are 5 "nope" links on there. it's the middle one. then it's the hadCRUT4 data link. i spent close to an hour reading different articles on there last night. there were several scientific, peer reviewed links refrenced.

the point is why do you refer to it as supermarket tabloid stuff when it's clearly not?

 

Since when is the Sierra Club the the voice of science?

They are interrogating people who shouldn't be speaking as experts.

 

Why? Ted Cruz isn't a scientist. He's a politician... and, you know, his personal wealth and campaign finance funds are heavily heavily tied to the oil industry.

I think it makes more sense for Ted Cruz to actually show that there is a global warming pause, and more to his point, a pause that somehow casts some level of doubt on global warming happening.

but, if you insist, plenty of info to get you started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

 

Yes, I'm looking into solar for my home right now. It just makes sense... for my home and in the grander scheme of things.

Can't find a debunking of this anywhere:

http://yournewswire.com/top-scientist-resigns-admitting-global-warming-is-a-big-scam/

 

Mr. Lewis wasn't a climatologist - he was a physicist who for whatever reason didn't share the views of his professional organization. The APS (from which he resigned 5 years ago, btw - this isn't exactly news) answered with the following:

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201011/memberresigns.cfm

A quote:

And regarding his claims that money was the reason for APS' acceptance of AGW science:

Also this:

Lewis (RIP) is certainly entitled to his opinion, but it's just that - an opinion. He didn't publish anything or present any data that raised doubts on the validity of AGW (or any evidence that the APS was unduly influenced by money). So there really isn't anything to debunk here.

 

I wonder if that Senator that held up the snowball saw it was 94 in Houston on October 14?