@hamace The scientific method cannot be bought. The science is clear on Climate Change: Human activity is accelerating Climate Change. It's not even a debate anymore. Even Epson Mobil's own scientist produced the same findings. I'm sorry you're so far behind the times.
Chuck Stewart I haven't shat in the last 8 hours. That means humans don't shit. Guys don't buy toilet equipment, because my "data" shows humans don't crap. LOL. The logic is the crap Ted. We need toilets for your crap logic, if not for human waste.
Always be suspicious of abnormal time periods. Over 18 years it may seem like there is no warming, but that is because the standard deviation is more than the average decade increase, so you need more than almost two decades to see a trend. If you pull up the past half century you see how that 18 years fits into the full context of the data.
Here's a summary: Educated person: 'Your graph is misleading and unscientific.' Cruz: 'But the graph shows no climate change!' Educated person: 'Your graph is misleading and unscientific.'
+unifieddynasty While Ted Cruz's own graphs have been conjured up by blogger Steven Goddard. Look up the Wikipedia article about this interesting character.
+unifieddynasty Looks like you need an education. We live in an Ice Age and global warming is good. You know, thaw the ice so that life has a better chance of survival.
***** The recent acceleration in the rate of sea level rise, and the increasing heat content of the oceans, very strongly suggest that the warming over the last few decades has been mostly man made. That's because a warming caused mainly by internal variability (more heat rising to the ocean surface) would tend to cause oceans to radiate more heat to space, and sea levels to drop. And we also know independently that the Sun didn't warm up at all since 1960. Indeed, it cooled little (the total solar irradiance -- TSI -- dropped). The enhanced greenhouse effect, though, is well understood and accounts for all the observations.
@@bigjake2061 Nope the data is produced independently and every organisation in every country find the same thing. That data the Cruz cherry picked was also found to be flawed due to them not accounting for satellite drift. But Cruz is paid by his FF donors to lie. But reality doesn't fit the official narrative so you'll stick to feelings I guess.
He understands he just gets bribed to not "understand". He's called Lyin' Ted for a reason. thinkprogress.org/more-than-half-of-ted-cruzs-super-pac-money-comes-from-fossil-fuel-sources-1bd72250797d/
Too bad it's willful ignorance. He gets paid to call people names like "climate alarmists", works great with his constituency because that's what a couple of decades of bad education will do to you.
@@LK-gw6to please elaborate... The entire economy is fossil fueled. Transportation, industry, heating, lighting, agriculture, etc. Fossil fuel is the source of trillions of dollars in paychecks. It is the status quo. It is using its incumbent position to fend off threats to its supremacy.
I wonder what Upton would say if a group may be promoting a crisis to enrich themselves and take political power. How many scientists have received massive grants from taxpayer dollars? Is that not also a salary?
@@proudkafir926 Not really. The scientists see very little of the grants and most are not in it for the money. A Nobel Prize, an epic scientific break through yes, money and the destruction of their career for falsifying evidence? No.
@@proudkafir926 The beauty of the scientific method is that it removes the bias of people, even the bias of those who conduct the study. So may I ask: Have you read any study in your life?
I believe it was John Boehner who said there was a joke going around Washington about Ted Cruz that went: Q: Why is it a good idea to dislike Ted Cruz as soon as you meet him? A: It saves you time.
alpha beta - spot on mate... it’s disturbing tho how folks try to project the corruption of their party (republicans) on to everyone else... _”how much money does scientist X get from green energy?”..._ it’s a ludicrous position and shows how truly divorced from reality the right-wing has become. To those right-wingers, *Ted Cruz* was looking at only *_two_* datasets and only on certain portions of them... that’s *_two_* datasets our of _literally _*_millions_* of them... cherry-picking at its finest. If you still think global warming is a hoax in 2018, I don’t know what to say... except to ask *_why_* would millions of scientists create said hoax? What advantage do they gain? While the renewable energy industry is growing larger every day (disclaimer, I own a business distributing a particular renewable energy product), it’s nowhere *_near_* big enough to pay off all those scientists, so that’s not the case, so what is? *_Why_* create what would be the most elaborate hoax in the history of the world?
The undeserving arrogance of these politicians to act like that and have that condescending tone towards academically-accomplished scientists is irritating.
The people have their head up their ass, these people know way more about this topic compared to us, and they are almost universally dreadful about the future prospects if we don't act. And we are saying that we are going to take a wild guess on the matter siding with the most degenerate conspiracy theorists among us, instead of the people that studied this topic deeply and want to save civilization. It's easy to perceive their words as arrogant , but at one point we either have to accept what they say, or do our own research and open it to scrutiny.
How does someone who knows nothing about science check someone who does? If there is a need for checks and balances it surely can not come unqualified politicians.
+falcon tinker do you think scientists are stupid enough to take thousands of usd in grant money to tell a lie instead of taking millions in oil money to tell the truth? seriously?!
Cruz realizes that man caused global warming is really a social/political movement that has nothing to do with science or the environment. It’s a hoax.
hun its because this youtuber screens his comments for climate deniers and conservatives like a scared little bitch. watch, hell erase my post too. just like a liberal to try and shut down language that offends him. i cant stand people like that. the real world is just too scary for people like this guy
"Global warming alarmists"! Look, I am a chemical engineer, and I understand that all actions must have a consequence. Crude oil typically contains 83-87% carbon by weight, the majority of which is combusted to carbon dioxide. And we know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. I don't see how any sensible person could argue that is going to have an impact. We can all dispute to what extent, but then the underlying trend showing an increase in average global temperatures is clearly something of concern. Also, you have to question who is backing the political doubters and nay Sayers. Especially when the consequences of accepting this is really happening is going to cost economies trillions of dollars to move our infrastructure and industries away from fossil fuel dependency.
The migration away from fossil fuels will cost SOMEBODY a ton, but the NET will roughly balance out when we factor in the huge advances in renewable generation, and the “green jobs” created to make that happen. BP, Shell and ExxonMobil drag their heels to delay the inevitable.
@@johnwalczak9202 Why so many posts then on a subject you admit to not understanding? As you appear to be only regurgitating FF talking points then I don't trust you.
@@chasbodaniels1744 The oil companies make a little noise about supporting renewables, but they make their money from fossil fuels and don't want competition from wind and solar which are growing quickly, but make up a small proportion of power generation. Right now, wind and solar are both cheaper than coal, oil, and nuclear. Natural gas and wind are beginning to be about the same cost. If the costs of wind and solar continue to go down, why would you want to continue using fossil fuels?
cupera1 Where did I mention going back to how we lived centuries ago? Allow me to introduce you to the name of your fail logic: yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
+Fireholder1 The ultimate Republican delima: "What if I help someone/thing else for nothing?"It explains their aversion to the ACA, civil rights, immigration, etc
A better world? China produces 60% of the world's pollution... so even if we did fall for the "man-made climate change" scam and stopped polluting.. it still wouldn't matter.
What if we line the pockets of a bunch of politicians and special interest groups for nothing! Gee golly, those climate deniers are nuts to not want to throw billions of tax dollars into a scam! Fuck it. I don't pay taxes anyways, so have at it, eh?
@@caseyjones3684 God said he would destroy them but not the innocent presumably. Suggest building the bunker will vent a lot of Greenhouse Gas into the air ... best to take a dollar each way, in case the great omnipotent one turns up too late ...
@@allagatoral3839 It gives the impression that some people who do good will survive. I'm perfectly okay with religious people, I just don't understand people who believe in angels and think that Eve was made from the rib of Adam, but say that climate change is not real.
@@siggietyrone3965 There are a lot of positives about the right and Texas just like there are the left and California. It really is tragic to see someone come out and bold face manipulate data like that though. I feel like he and his entire team would have had to have never taken a statistics course in their lives to make that specific mistake. All the evidence indicated that the Earth was slowly warming, and he went out of his way to pick that one section of the graph that would skew it even.... Mind boggling
@@mufasachainbreaker7757 I messed up, I didn't actually mean that I dislike Texas. Its just that politicians like Ted Cruz who is known to be full of shit somehow keeps winning his position as senator.
@@mufasachainbreaker7757 The fact that they went out of their way to pick the frame that looks like a "pause" to concentrate on shows that they *do* understand statistics, and how to use them to lie. This is no mistake. This is deliberate deception.
Presumably you misread the legend on the graph and looked at the scale on the RHS which represents CO2 ppmv, the temperature scale is on the LHS and shows an increase of 1.2 degrees celsius since 1880. Here is a link to the graph proper: earthsky.org/earth/2015-hottest-year-on-record-by-far
I don't see The Admiral destroying anything. I see too differences of opinion over the sample size of the data. This tells me that it is NOT settled science and that a healthy debate should be welcome. What we have instead is one side claiming their right and trying to silence the opposition.
The argument is not over the sample size of the data. The argument is the fact that Cruz, and the majority of climate change deniers, cherry pick their samples to show what they want. There should be debate on how and why things are happening, but only if you are honest in your approach. In fact there is plenty of debate on why climate is changing and different causes and cures, but the question of whether or not climate is actually changing is no longer up for debate other than by people who dishonestly pick and choose their data to show that it isn't because they don't want it to be.
@@fatmikecj That's some fancy word salad. Basically, you said that Cruz's data sample doesn't agree with the cherry picked data sample of the climate alarmists. The only things that are happening is Western Civilization governments are taking over more control of the lives of citizens. The climate alarmists can get all the Government grant money they want, so they have virtually unlimited resources. Not exactly a fair debate. The only consistent message about a "cure" comes directly from the CCP. Shutdown the economies from all western industrialized countries while China builds a record number of coal plants. Who is being dishonest again?
No it tells you that the data Cruz had, was not accurate and precise and needed revision....I am surprised you did not understand that that is so basic in the explanation.....instead Cruz should have asked...how do we make sure moving forward we get the real data and if indeed we are in trouble at least we know things ahead?..besides an 18 year window is not realistic......it has been proven the planet has warmed up 1C in the last 100 years or so and proven the effects on it with our technology......we will know more eventually
This is what happens when you have more people with lawyer background instead of people from science field in congress and senate. Lawyers are always looking for preferable truths not scientific evidence and facts.
Lawyers are not "always" looking for "preferable truths." Lawyers act in different capacities. Some are seeking facts and the truth, like prosecutors are supposed to. Some lawyers are hired to defend criminals and in defending their clients will use twisted logic to persuade juries and tv viewers. But, that's their job as defendants are entitled to a vigorous defense. If big oil is your client, you will present whatever you can to preserve their interests. Everything legal situation is different; some have made a deal with the devil, but get paid well.
I am a "retired" geologist with 50+ years of experience living in North Mexico teaching people, for free, how to find, harvest, and conserve water to cope with AGW-induced drought. In the earlyb1980s I developed a coal information institute in the Sabinas Coal Basin (mea culpa) before I knew about AGW and climate change. I belong to no political party and stay out of Mexican politics, as I should, as a guest in this country. North Mexico has suffered from drought (7 out of 10 years are drier than the historical average) since 1982. Peak drought occurred from 2011 through 2013. In 2011 more than 1.7 million "ganado" (cattle to include sheep and goats) Dr. Gary Paul Nabhan, U. of Arizona, based upon tree ring analyses has written that "this is the worst drought in 1,400 years. In response, in 2012, Mexico´s contentious, multiparty, (Communist, Socialist, right wing) Senate passed, without a single dissenting vote, a comprehensive atmospheric carbon emissions bill to reduce Mexico´s AGW contribution. Fortunately, the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil have little influence here. p.s. It COSTS me money to do my work here. (old geologist)
Brooks Anderson - The problem is that nobody can provide scientific evidence to support the "man caused" aspect of AGW. Mentioning the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil rather than trying to provide some sort of evidence destroyed any scientific credibility you might have had.
@@signoresantinoburnett1169 Why not? Trump and the entire Trump administration, advisors, Fox "News" and Congressional republicans are all riding the crazy train for Satan. I am an ashamed, embarrassed and frankly frightened American. I wish I could move to a peaceful place away from the U.S. (BTW, I did NOT vote for any of them nor do I condone any of their actions!)
The Miles Davis autobiography is full of that logic... "I was cleaner than a broke-dick dog" translates as "I was only drinking heavily and smoking cigarettes and marijuana, no hard stuff".
It's more like "I drank a bottle of Vodka every day for 20 years but for the first five years I drank 3 a day so the trend is downwards and I'm drinking less every year". No fella you are still drinking the same disastrous amount.
@@chiip90 Even worse. It's like I drank +1 vodka bottle/day every year for the last 18 years, but for the last 3 years I drank 18 bottles/day so the trend is stable.
@@mrwaltermathews yeah, scientists and engineers aren't great at explaining things but I know what he means. If you pick a high point on the graph to be the left-hand side, then it dictates how right you go. So then your average looks flat. See how Cruz was narrowing the window of the timeframe. To understand the data, you don't contract your observation window but you expand it, which is the graph of the admiral.
@@youtubespectator669 Oh I understand also but it was just kind of poorly communicated. I think climate skeptics would be confused or think he looked bad is all, when it was really just a layup.
@hamace No he is factually wrong. That is not a disagreement its him trying to twist the data to support his oil company backers. He was outed by a Admiral who has no lobby money backing him and who has the facts on his side.
@hamace climate change happens naturally that is true but the current impact is man made the evidence is clear. Climate science is in 97% agreement. All scientist agree at over 80%. In the first world only America has so many deniers in the general public.
Gustavo Brum well back in 2016 when he made nearly 1.5 million from oil and gas companies I’m sure he would discuss whatever his bosses want him to Lmao. This political system is so corrupt.
Gustavo Brum Any Christian that TRULY understands the Bible will find that science will always BACK UP Christian theory. The earth is millions of years old.
Why not? When did the IPCC start measuring climate change err I mean global warming... No no... The clinate crisis!? Dont tell me, at one of the lowest points in temperature that we've seen in our recent history as we came out of the little ice age, then shock horror.... Look its warmed!
Cruz is only one of the hundreds of shills for Big Fossil Fuel who will say *anything* to delay the inevitable move to zero-carbon emissions. It’s the INCREASING RATE OF Climate CHANGE which is the easiest metric to understand. Let’s use that for the science-challenged.
@@chasbodaniels1744 of course! The whole thing wouldn't be about making shit loads of money through scaremongering shite would it.... Oh wait, hang on! Hope you find this as amusing as I do! 😁 Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us | Environment | The Guardian swky.co/NDk3g0
You mean Robert Francis O'Rourke? The guy who is pretending to be hispanic by hiding his last name and using a nickname? The guy who has been arrested for DUI, burglary and been involved in securities fraud?
Ethan Noel O’ Rourke is changing his name? What about Rafael Edward Cruz? That’s TED Cruz’s real name, the man who touts his last name to sound Hispanic.
Jay Woods at least he goes by his last name and doesn't try to hide who he is. Only a child would vote for someone who runs under his high school nickname.
Ted Cruz is the idiot because he comes with fake proof. Somebody with his position shouldn't tell lies... There is already a president who is doing that.
@@Regnisab 1/2 right, but he doesn't need much of an IQ to Cancun Con his supporters.😉 As can be seen from his obvious lies and (wilful) misunderstanding of science.
His a complete moron, his lack of logic and awareness in today's society and life for his voters(Texans) say that he doesn't give a shit. He got his school degrees at the flee market lol because his illiterate of what he talks. I'm a Texan and he just doesn't know what's is life in Texas really is.
Sen. Cruz: let's talk about satellite measurements. Climate expert: Ok. Let's talk about satellite measurements, let's talk about Orbital decay, let's talk about Overlapping Satellite Record, let's talk about stratospheric contamination. Sen. Cruz: Wa.. wa.. wait. What ?
The Dr. / Navyman Stuttered through his list of excuses, but showed a disreputed chart based on model predictions that have been wrong for decades. Physical measurements around the globe validate Sen. Cruz's data sources, official government sources. Same on the red harring CO2 projections when trying to tie trends to human activities. Proven completely wrong when using major events that drastically changed human contributions: Beijing Olympics & air quality, 9/11, Covid-19 politicization n many more.
@@johnschmitt571 lol bro I am in Canada and we just had a full winter where I am with 0 snow that has never happened in the recorded history of the area. Climate change is real only thing even remotely up for debate is the actual % humans are having. As we can tell from fossil records and the study of soils from 200 million years ago that there where stretches of 10's of million's of years where our planet had 0 ice anywhere.
The way he uses the phrase "global warming alarmists" makes it sound like they're a bunch of crackpots. Even though most of the scientific community agrees with them.
1. a skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something. "these claims were treated with skepticism" well do you believe as I do in the Moores law effect of doubling emissions piling up over time going past the incel breaking point where its too hot to breed as humans as the earth becomes like venus with dips and spikes but on a steady rise then it begins to rise faster and higher than before??
The real science deniers are the alarmists who refuse to debate. They do nothing put play to the gullibility of the public. The public is way, way, too stupid to any of this.
@@jamesmcginn6291 The only scientists that have an agenda are the ones being payed by fossil fuel companies so they can continue making lucrative amounts of money. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the more CO2 in the atmosphere the warmer the atmosphere becomes, leading to sea level rise, decrease in arctic ice (look at NASA satellite photos), increased droughts (Honduras, leading to an increased number of climate refugees), bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, etc. There is overwhelming proof of climate change and there is no reason why scientists would lie. It’s because of science that human life spans have increased, given humanity technology, allowed us to land people on the moon, discover antibiotics, develop vaccines, etc.
Hypothetical. A family goes on a vacation to Glacier National park. They get out of their car and the kids ask. Daddy why do they call it Glacier National park when there's no glacier?
@@johnsluggett1822 Damn John you are slow and dim witted. I posted that almost a year ago. Glad you could join the conversation. You need to stop eat paint chips. Your killing what few brain cells you have left.
@@johnsluggett1822 I think you missed the meaning of my original comment. Climate change is real. That's why the Glaciers are melting at a rapid pace and why the Glaciers are no longer there at the park.
@@InqWiper Well, compare the gradual cooling trend through the little ice age (a trend that may well have otherwise continued) to the rapid warming that began and accelerated with industrialization, it's clear that we hit a significant turning point - something that can't be said about 1998. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg
@@davidm1926 Completely false. Even in the graph you link it is obvious that the cooling stopped around 1700 and the warming started around 1850. Way before any large scale CO2 output.
@@InqWiper "Even in the graph you link it is obvious that the cooling stopped around 1700" - I wouldn't put it that way. That's a low point, but then there are points nearly as low around (eyeballing it) 1850. The temperature goes up and down all along the graph, and I would suggest that a remarkable rise in temperature starts a bit after 1900 (inasmuch as it dips slightly for a while in the mid-to-late 1900s - kind of a lightning bolt shape). "and the warming started around 1850." - Warming. Doesn't look to me like THE warming. Warming and cooling happened for centuries, but the rise after 1900 (THE warming) is remarkable compared to everything earlier on the graph, going back to year 1. Leaving aside the question of the veracity of the graph, but the challenge would be to produce credible counter-evidence.
The little ice age was not a globally contiguous event. The current warming cannot be explained by "coming out of the little ice age". That's a wishful thinking fairy tale for children. It's CO2.
You can tell Cruz is being objective by his use of "global warming alarmists" in referring to scientific conclusions made by scientists following scientific data.
Be nice if the human-caused global warming alarmists would look at ALL of the data, instead of insisting it's all about CO2 when HISTORICAL records show that CO2 LAGS temperature change, sometimes by up to 700 years and IGNORING any science that shows a CLOSE match to global temperature changes.
Why 18 years? Good point. Cruz knows there is a climate chance but chose to use a period which makes this unclear. Spoken like a true republican. Know the truth but choose to tell only half of it. It is like a kid telling his parents what the other kid did to him without mentioning his own part in the story... Disgusting, to say the least...
Yep. There is no "dispute" about climate change. It's all a fabrication of the oil industry, who actually were the first to know about it, the media - a fake controversy gets more people in front of their commercials and doesn't cost squat to fabricate, and of course, the mass suicidal maniacs of the Amerikan right, who are traitors not just to the country, but to humanity itself.
Vincent Krommenhoek it would be same thing as looking at the stock market over the past 18’yrs. you would see ups and downs but couldn’t really see it’s continuing to grow in spite of short term events
I drove 18 miles the other day... I started out going downhill and ended going uphill. This data clearly shows Earth is concave, unlike what the Round Planet Alarmists would have you believe.
A picture today of the Statue of Liberty has the same sea level as a picture when it was first constructed. Just like every other picture of any structure at sea level from any year whatsoever.
If you google remote sensing climate change data, and pull up chart, you see the same chart Cruz is presenting. Also, you see one that is expanded. What Cruz did was he started his chart at an El Nino event, that spiked high, then he quit his chart just before another peak. A wider view that shows a 35 year window, shows the same data, only it CLEARLY represents a steady rise in temperatures. This shows how you can deliberately distort data by selectively editing the slice of it you want to see. lh3.googleusercontent.com/-mJ0fi3TjmgY/VjpQRyxyeCI/AAAAAAACa8g/6S1GhkYdLg0/s720-Ic42/monckton1980.png
Yes, it is quite possible to copy a small part of a graph to prove your point: earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentFeature/GlobalWarming/images/epica_temperature.png
You never call a admiral, sit ! Thats for Commanders and below. I was stationed in Naval air Facility Mildenhall Suffolk England 1973-76 and we supported a 4 star admirals aircraft. I got an education on flag officers
@@nemialudolph7933 First never call Admiral "sit". Second, as a civilian now I can call him by sir or Chuck if that's his name. Third, go tell Ted Cruz. Fourth you missed the point
A simple sailor could not deny that removing whales, dolphins and fish from the oceans would affect the surface tempreture creating climate change...ignorance greed selfishness and stupidity effect everything natural
@@charliedekadens3348 Wait are you saying that removing sea-life is warming the oceans? If anything removing heat producing organisms would lower the temperature, but even that would be so minuscule it would be almost immeasurable
My chart has a big arrow that goes from the left side to the right side so clearly there is no global warming ever. It doesn't matter at all if you remove the highest (erroneous) data point from the arbitrary 18 year scale. I can readz charts good!
Good thing this senator is just a random politician from some inconsequential 3rd world nation - I believe American diplomatic decorum prefers the term "shithole country". Imagine this person actually had a say in global matters.
@@HawkaRider250 why? Do you believe everyone who dislikes Ted Cruz supports Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez? That's a ridiculous conclusion to draw and it makes you appear unintelligent and possibly delusional. Basically what I'm saying is "you're stupid and it shows".
aoc is an extreme left nut job, frankly I don't even think the dem party even associates with her (they only needed her for her fans votes and that's it), she and her ilk are really scary folk.
Let's not look at 80+ years of data showing an upward trend. Let's focus in on this tiny little 18 year span that looks flat when enlarged so I can argue about no significant change. Let's just ignore the fact it starts lower than it ends reflecting the trend observed in the larger data set.
Where did you get your degree in climate science? Why would you link a random website ran by David Evans and Joanne Nova? David Evans is a climate change denier who's claims have been debunked over and over but at least he has original thoughts even if they are wrong. Joanne Nova however is a anti-science loon that only regurgitates previously debunked claims without any evidence of her own. The 300 year warming trend only bolsters the man made climate change evidence. If you know about history you know the industrial revolution started in the mid-1700's which is 300 years ago. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years#/media/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png thebigsmoke.com.au/2015/10/13/sam-blacker-climate-change-debunked/ www.skepticalscience.com/David_Evans_arg.htm rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova
Temperature's rising lol, you're all stupid. They didn't even have thermometers 300 years ago, and 80 years ago they were [maybe] within 10 degrees accuracy. Are you people really that gullible?
Acsfive Pall ..The mercury thermometer was invented literally 300 years ago, and they had other types of thermometers before that. But hey, have fun pretending others are idiots, while you display too much intellectual laziness to even google, “thermometer.”
Sciencespeak.com is a crock of crap. Here are two speakers affiliated with them www.desmogblog.com/david-evans www.desmogblog.com/joanne-nova-climate-skeptics-handbook
@tubewatch59 Thanks for fessing up that you're a Russian. More audits? After the Arizona super-shady Cyber Ninja audit that corrupted the machines and cost the State millions to replace. They even took the machines to undisclosed, unauthorized locations. All just to prove Biden's victory margin was even a few, inconsequential votes more? And the Wisconsin audit with the proven phony emails. Please, no more invitations for corruption. I have to side with Raffensperger (Kathy Bernier and Katie Hobbs, too). His book is a must read for any anyone who thinks they understand how elections are conducted. I would recommend turning off the TV and reading his book.
During the 60's and the 70's, 97% of all scientists were convinced that the earth was going to enter a cold period similar to the Medieval Warm Period.
Cruz is just using the oldest conman trick around: Cherry picking a tiny section of little temperature increase from a much larger timeline that shows incontrovertible temperature increase. It's like basing a hemisphere's average yearly temperature off one weekend in January.
Cruz even threw his own children under the bus when he fled his own Texas to justify his "vacation" trip to Mexico when his own people in Texas faced power outage and literally freeze to death.
kudos to the scientist who tried to explain that arbitrary data can be manipulated both intentionally and unintentionally and that the scientists he represents use consistent methods to produce unbiased analysis... Unlike Sen Ted Cruz who in this panel obviously is using data from a chosen scientist instead of data from an authoritative body. Videos like this preserve the actions of our leaders, years into the future we can look at these videos and view for ourselves the behaviors of these people and judge for ourselves instead of relying on someone else' interpretation of history.
Who was the fool in this example, neither of them as I see it? As a person who actually likes statistics and has spent a good part of my life creating and interpreting them, I can make any actual statistic look the way you want it to look and tell the story you would like told. Time and degree are extended to dramatize the point one wishes to make.
@@markfrank0924 You're correct. I fail to see the fool that the comment is referring to. In the context of the graphs they've presented, they both are smart in how they present their graphs. Mr. Cruz is smart enough to manipulate the stats in a way which is most favorable to his side. Although I disagree with his opinion about climate change/global warming, he is no fool in the comment's context.
At 1:19 on the admiral's chart, you can see where Ted Cruz's chart starts and ends - it begins at the record high temperature recorded in 1997/8 because of the strong El Nino Southern Oscillation that year and ends just before the record breaking average global temperatures that have been recorded since 2014 as our carbon stores - the oceans and forests are becoming saturated and unable to absorb more CO2. The reason it seems to show a pause is because he started the graph on an anomaly. The dishonesty in the presentation of the data is astounding. What is Ted Cruz playing at?
150 people killed in Europe, volcanoes erupting in Italy, Greece and Tenerife. Wild fires in Siberia, Australia, California, England. The earthquake in Haiti, the smog and reservoirs ruptured in China. The migration causing this mass migration from Syria to the rest of the world. Need I go on?
To the contrary. You don't need hysteria or anger to destroy an argument. Logic, math and science can be quiet, and deadly. You can't cherry pick time frames from a long term study.
robert hicks Robert, it was proven that Exxon, knew what was going on and hid the truth from us. Remember the cigarette companies did the same thing and I remember Bob Dole saying cigarettes have no negative health consequences back in 90's and we know what happened. Do we wait until is absolutely to late to do anything my friend?
How did they prove it? Oh, yea the same spin doctors that came up with the bs 97%. The problem is, all the evidence says it is natural and the alarmist have no way to separate the natural from the man made. So they claim its all many made.
Don't forget besides his campaign donation origins (oil and gas companies) his parents worked in that same industry. What better place for a corrupted climate change denier than in the department of Energy
Did you even watch the video till the end? When Cruz is about to say that it is NOT Dr Christies data but rather THE RSSs data, and conveniently the video cuts away because the "scientist" was about to be dumpstered.
Why would man kind die out of the climate became 5 degrees warmer? Northern Europe, most of Russia and most of North America would still be cooler than the middle east is today.
I mean yes, we may be destroying the planet, but I think we're all forgetting the great value we created for shareholders during a short period of time.
According to Don Easterbrook, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, the “PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977.”
In Nepal there is a saying which loosely translates to this, "You can wake up a sleeping man. You can't wake up a man pretending sleep."
You hit the nail on the head. Cruz and other idiots pretend to be sleeping. Actually, they pretend to be in a coma
Nepali ma exact ke ho bro? Aile samma suneko thyena yo ukhan.
@@Diwash1 Sutekolai uthauna sakincha bro, sutya jasto garekolai garo cha ;)
We have that same saying in Somalia.
@hamace The scientific method cannot be bought. The science is clear on Climate Change: Human activity is accelerating Climate Change. It's not even a debate anymore. Even Epson Mobil's own scientist produced the same findings. I'm sorry you're so far behind the times.
well we haven't had a temp change in the last 18 minutes so I guess there is no global warming.
Chuck Stewart I haven't shat in the last 8 hours. That means humans don't shit. Guys don't buy toilet equipment, because my "data" shows humans don't crap.
LOL. The logic is the crap Ted. We need toilets for your crap logic, if not for human waste.
Always be suspicious of abnormal time periods. Over 18 years it may seem like there is no warming, but that is because the standard deviation is more than the average decade increase, so you need more than almost two decades to see a trend. If you pull up the past half century you see how that 18 years fits into the full context of the data.
Hahahahaha
2 degree global climate change would be catastrophic. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Cruz is making good points. The NASA adjustments should be challenged.
Here's a summary:
Educated person: 'Your graph is misleading and unscientific.'
Cruz: 'But the graph shows no climate change!'
Educated person: 'Your graph is misleading and unscientific.'
+unifieddynasty While Ted Cruz's own graphs have been conjured up by blogger Steven Goddard. Look up the Wikipedia article about this interesting character.
+unifieddynasty Educated person? Nah, educated people don't accuse with no proof.
+unifieddynasty Looks like you need an education. We live in an Ice Age and global warming is good. You know, thaw the ice so that life has a better chance of survival.
Rod Martin, Jr. Do you enjoy throwing around red herrings every time you reply to a comment?
***** The recent acceleration in the rate of sea level rise, and the increasing heat content of the oceans, very strongly suggest that the warming over the last few decades has been mostly man made. That's because a warming caused mainly by internal variability (more heat rising to the ocean surface) would tend to cause oceans to radiate more heat to space, and sea levels to drop. And we also know independently that the Sun didn't warm up at all since 1960. Indeed, it cooled little (the total solar irradiance -- TSI -- dropped). The enhanced greenhouse effect, though, is well understood and accounts for all the observations.
"It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary is dependent on him not understanding it" -Upton Sinclair
I don't get it. Cruz wiped the floor with that Admiral.
You're precisely right it's the admiral that's the global warming scientist and getting paid to produce the data.
@@jamesr8584 You don't get it because FF employee Cruz got crushed. Perhaps you not understanding science goes somewhere to explaining that.
@@bigjake2061 Nope the data is produced independently and every organisation in every country find the same thing. That data the Cruz cherry picked was also found to be flawed due to them not accounting for satellite drift. But Cruz is paid by his FF donors to lie. But reality doesn't fit the official narrative so you'll stick to feelings I guess.
@@jamesr8584 You got me at "I don't get it."
Cruz was at least right when he said, "I don't understand..."
😂🤣👍👍👍👍
He understands he just gets bribed to not "understand". He's called Lyin' Ted for a reason.
thinkprogress.org/more-than-half-of-ted-cruzs-super-pac-money-comes-from-fossil-fuel-sources-1bd72250797d/
Its weird to hear honesty from him one time.
It always amuses me when people say, "I fail to see..." 😊 I just think, yup, damn right you do!
Too bad it's willful ignorance. He gets paid to call people names like "climate alarmists", works great with his constituency because that's what a couple of decades of bad education will do to you.
Upton Sinclair:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Yeah the saying.comes a strong mind yet you chose not to use yours .. left is wrong
@@LK-gw6to please elaborate...
The entire economy is fossil fueled. Transportation, industry, heating, lighting, agriculture, etc. Fossil fuel is the source of trillions of dollars in paychecks. It is the status quo. It is using its incumbent position to fend off threats to its supremacy.
I wonder what Upton would say if a group may be promoting a crisis to enrich themselves and take political power. How many scientists have received massive grants from taxpayer dollars? Is that not also a salary?
@@proudkafir926 Not really. The scientists see very little of the grants and most are not in it for the money. A Nobel Prize, an epic scientific break through yes, money and the destruction of their career for falsifying evidence? No.
@@proudkafir926 The beauty of the scientific method is that it removes the bias of people, even the bias of those who conduct the study. So may I ask: Have you read any study in your life?
I believe it was John Boehner who said there was a joke going around Washington about Ted Cruz that went: Q: Why is it a good idea to dislike Ted Cruz as soon as you meet him?
A: It saves you time.
Teddy asked a question from an educated person, then tried to keep him from answering. Is that the behavior of a desperate man?
Just out of curiosity Senator, how much money do you get annually from the petroleum industry?
That's horseshit and you know it.
lol, I thought nothing and he is independent, because he get's NRA money only. 😈
none
Less than Al Gore gets from "Green Energy".....
alpha beta - spot on mate... it’s disturbing tho how folks try to project the corruption of their party (republicans) on to everyone else... _”how much money does scientist X get from green energy?”..._ it’s a ludicrous position and shows how truly divorced from reality the right-wing has become. To those right-wingers, *Ted Cruz* was looking at only *_two_* datasets and only on certain portions of them... that’s *_two_* datasets our of _literally _*_millions_* of them... cherry-picking at its finest. If you still think global warming is a hoax in 2018, I don’t know what to say... except to ask *_why_* would millions of scientists create said hoax? What advantage do they gain? While the renewable energy industry is growing larger every day (disclaimer, I own a business distributing a particular renewable energy product), it’s nowhere *_near_* big enough to pay off all those scientists, so that’s not the case, so what is? *_Why_* create what would be the most elaborate hoax in the history of the world?
The undeserving arrogance of these politicians to act like that and have that condescending tone towards academically-accomplished scientists is irritating.
The people have their head up their ass, these people know way more about this topic compared to us, and they are almost universally dreadful about the future prospects if we don't act. And we are saying that we are going to take a wild guess on the matter siding with the most degenerate conspiracy theorists among us, instead of the people that studied this topic deeply and want to save civilization. It's easy to perceive their words as arrogant , but at one point we either have to accept what they say, or do our own research and open it to scrutiny.
Since scientists can be corrupted by grant money, it is good to have checks and balances.
How does someone who knows nothing about science check someone who does? If there is a need for checks and balances it surely can not come unqualified politicians.
They do, other scientists.
+falcon tinker
do you think scientists are stupid enough to take thousands of usd in grant money to tell a lie instead of taking millions in oil money to tell the truth?
seriously?!
Today we know that Teddy left Texas for Cancun Mexico. Why?
"Boy it sure has cooled down since sunset, so much for global warming" - Ted Cruz, essentially
Google 'inhofe snowball'. They really are that bad at lying.
@@jursamaj oh yeah I forgot about that lol, it saddens me that these people get voted for
Cruz realizes that man caused global warming is really a social/political movement that has nothing to do with science or the environment. It’s a hoax.
@@maliciousmike8440 Do you just have that nonsense on a clipboard, for quick pasting?
@@jursamaj it’s from the heart my friend.
i dont get how this video has so many dislikes, does ted cruz own 483 youtube accounts?
Masaru kun a thousand now. a thousand deuchebags with their heads buried in the sand
hun its because this youtuber screens his comments for climate deniers and conservatives like a scared little bitch. watch, hell erase my post too. just like a liberal to try and shut down language that offends him. i cant stand people like that. the real world is just too scary for people like this guy
Watch the last 10 seconds and find out.
"Global warming alarmists"! Look, I am a chemical engineer, and I understand that all actions must have a consequence. Crude oil typically contains 83-87% carbon by weight, the majority of which is combusted to carbon dioxide. And we know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. I don't see how any sensible person could argue that is going to have an impact. We can all dispute to what extent, but then the underlying trend showing an increase in average global temperatures is clearly something of concern.
Also, you have to question who is backing the political doubters and nay Sayers. Especially when the consequences of accepting this is really happening is going to cost economies trillions of dollars to move our infrastructure and industries away from fossil fuel dependency.
The migration away from fossil fuels will cost SOMEBODY a ton, but the NET will roughly balance out when we factor in the huge advances in renewable generation, and the “green jobs” created to make that happen. BP, Shell and ExxonMobil drag their heels to delay the inevitable.
and a good statistician will produce any chart you want. both sides have vested interests. I don't trust both of them.
@@johnwalczak9202 Why so many posts then on a subject you admit to not understanding? As you appear to be only regurgitating FF talking points then I don't trust you.
@@chasbodaniels1744 The oil companies make a little noise about supporting renewables, but they make their money from fossil fuels and don't want competition from wind and solar which are growing quickly, but make up a small proportion of power generation. Right now, wind and solar are both cheaper than coal, oil, and nuclear. Natural gas and wind are beginning to be about the same cost. If the costs of wind and solar continue to go down, why would you want to continue using fossil fuels?
@@johnwalczak9202
no offense, but you don't trust yourself
that is your parents fault
x
I can't stand Cruz. Please leave the party Cancun Ted.
WHAT IF IT'S JUST A HOAX AND WE MAKE A BETTER, HEALTHIER WORLD FOR NOTHING?!?!?!?!
+cupera1 Was that a joke because it sure was funny. Do you not think technology as advanced over the past 200 years. Lol.
cupera1
Where did I mention going back to how we lived centuries ago?
Allow me to introduce you to the name of your fail logic:
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
+Fireholder1 The ultimate Republican delima: "What if I help someone/thing else for nothing?"It explains their aversion to the ACA, civil rights, immigration, etc
A better world? China produces 60% of the world's pollution... so even if we did fall for the "man-made climate change" scam and stopped polluting.. it still wouldn't matter.
What if we line the pockets of a bunch of politicians and special interest groups for nothing! Gee golly, those climate deniers are nuts to not want to throw billions of tax dollars into a scam! Fuck it. I don't pay taxes anyways, so have at it, eh?
*"Greed and stupidity will end humanity sooner than we expect."*
~ Stephen Hawking
You are SPOT ON Bro...They can Build the Wall, Im going to build a Bunker....
@@caseyjones3684 God said he would destroy them but not the innocent presumably. Suggest building the bunker will vent a lot of Greenhouse Gas into the air ... best to take a dollar each way, in case the great omnipotent one turns up too late ...
@@allagatoral3839 We are talking here about science. Religion is a belief without scientific proof. So I'll stick with Stephen Hawking.
@@allagatoral3839 It gives the impression that some people who do good will survive. I'm perfectly okay with religious people, I just don't understand people who believe in angels and think that Eve was made from the rib of Adam, but say that climate change is not real.
@@allagatoral3839 www.rawstory.com/2019/04/professor-astrophysics-explains-humans-path-self-destruction-not-first-time-theres-civilization-universe/?fbclid=IwAR0EHZyjZKQppPc4T8Jr7CubqbGN_ZyTWvUefDBmFzeaeObQubDSjzfDKmk
That was such a clear abuse of selective statistics... He was straight up lying there...
I sadly live in texas.
@@siggietyrone3965 There are a lot of positives about the right and Texas just like there are the left and California. It really is tragic to see someone come out and bold face manipulate data like that though. I feel like he and his entire team would have had to have never taken a statistics course in their lives to make that specific mistake. All the evidence indicated that the Earth was slowly warming, and he went out of his way to pick that one section of the graph that would skew it even.... Mind boggling
@@mufasachainbreaker7757 I messed up, I didn't actually mean that I dislike Texas. Its just that politicians like Ted Cruz who is known to be full of shit somehow keeps winning his position as senator.
@@mufasachainbreaker7757 The fact that they went out of their way to pick the frame that looks like a "pause" to concentrate on shows that they *do* understand statistics, and how to use them to lie. This is no mistake. This is deliberate deception.
Cruz knows that Man Made Global Climate change is a social/political movement that has nothing to do with science or the environment.
Ted Cruz: Bam! 18 years of data.
Scientist: Ha! Here's some missing information you "accidently" left out, Lyin' Ted.
No, it was a smaller consolidated period to fit his agenda.
Um. The other guy was lying. Do you HONESTLY believe that the world has warmed by 120 DEGREES over the time frame that that chart indicates?
WTF! Where'd you get that nonsense from? your ass?
No, I actually took a close look at the chart that was in the video and you obviously DIDN'T.
Presumably you misread the legend on the graph and looked at the scale on the RHS which represents CO2 ppmv, the temperature scale is on the LHS and shows an increase of 1.2 degrees celsius since 1880.
Here is a link to the graph proper:
earthsky.org/earth/2015-hottest-year-on-record-by-far
I don't see The Admiral destroying anything. I see too differences of opinion over the sample size of the data. This tells me that it is NOT settled science and that a healthy debate should be welcome. What we have instead is one side claiming their right and trying to silence the opposition.
The argument is not over the sample size of the data. The argument is the fact that Cruz, and the majority of climate change deniers, cherry pick their samples to show what they want. There should be debate on how and why things are happening, but only if you are honest in your approach. In fact there is plenty of debate on why climate is changing and different causes and cures, but the question of whether or not climate is actually changing is no longer up for debate other than by people who dishonestly pick and choose their data to show that it isn't because they don't want it to be.
@@fatmikecj That's some fancy word salad. Basically, you said that Cruz's data sample doesn't agree with the cherry picked data sample of the climate alarmists. The only things that are happening is Western Civilization governments are taking over more control of the lives of citizens. The climate alarmists can get all the Government grant money they want, so they have virtually unlimited resources. Not exactly a fair debate. The only consistent message about a "cure" comes directly from the CCP. Shutdown the economies from all western industrialized countries while China builds a record number of coal plants. Who is being dishonest again?
No it tells you that the data Cruz had, was not accurate and precise and needed revision....I am surprised you did not understand that that is so basic in the explanation.....instead Cruz should have asked...how do we make sure moving forward we get the real data and if indeed we are in trouble at least we know things ahead?..besides an 18 year window is not realistic......it has been proven the planet has warmed up 1C in the last 100 years or so and proven the effects on it with our technology......we will know more eventually
….one side claiming THEY’RE right…. BY THE WAY, it is settled science. We are in deep trouble!
The money of big industries that fill the pockets of our representatives shows the sad and grim state of our so-called "democracy".
Democratic Republic.
and people like you benefit from it everyday to
@@danielessex2162 The solemn pledge to abstain from telling the truth was called socialist realism. - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
@@darmok-hm6jx do you know why though?
@@danielessex2162 Evil people always support each other; that is their chief strength. - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
This is what happens when you have more people with lawyer background instead of people from science field in congress and senate. Lawyers are always looking for preferable truths not scientific evidence and facts.
Lawyers are not "always" looking for "preferable truths." Lawyers act in different capacities. Some are seeking facts and the truth, like prosecutors are supposed to. Some lawyers are hired to defend criminals and in defending their clients will use twisted logic to persuade juries and tv viewers. But, that's their job as defendants are entitled to a vigorous defense. If big oil is your client, you will present whatever you can to preserve their interests. Everything legal situation is different; some have made a deal with the devil, but get paid well.
Ted cruz gets his charts from google images
Do you get yours from partisan/bought scientists who work for global warming alarmists and who push the hoax for more statism?
Imagine my shock, an anime avatar turns out to be a complete nut.
Do you want to corroborate your bs?
I am a "retired" geologist with 50+ years of experience living in North Mexico teaching people, for free, how to find, harvest, and conserve water to cope with AGW-induced drought. In the earlyb1980s I developed a coal information institute in the Sabinas Coal Basin (mea culpa) before I knew about AGW and climate change. I belong to no political party and stay out of Mexican politics, as I should, as a guest in this country.
North Mexico has suffered from drought (7 out of 10 years are drier than the historical average) since 1982. Peak drought occurred from 2011 through 2013. In 2011 more than 1.7 million "ganado" (cattle to include sheep and goats) Dr. Gary Paul Nabhan, U. of Arizona, based upon tree ring analyses has written that "this is the worst drought in 1,400 years. In response, in 2012, Mexico´s contentious, multiparty, (Communist, Socialist, right wing) Senate passed, without a single dissenting vote, a comprehensive atmospheric carbon emissions bill to reduce Mexico´s AGW contribution.
Fortunately, the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil have little influence here.
p.s. It COSTS me money to do my work here. (old geologist)
Akbar more like a kindergarten
Brooks Anderson - The problem is that nobody can provide scientific evidence to support the "man caused" aspect of AGW. Mentioning the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil rather than trying to provide some sort of evidence destroyed any scientific credibility you might have had.
Ted has proven himself incompetent and wrong across many subjects.
Calling Cruz "Sir" is an insult to gentlemen.
I'm ashamed he's Canadian but glad you ended up with him!
@@FixNewsPlease Well said. Let those Americans live with him.
@@signoresantinoburnett1169 Why not? Trump and the entire Trump administration, advisors, Fox "News" and Congressional republicans are all riding the crazy train for Satan. I am an ashamed, embarrassed and frankly frightened American. I wish I could move to a peaceful place away from the U.S. (BTW, I did NOT vote for any of them nor do I condone any of their actions!)
Ted cruz is fully aware of climate change it is just that he has to account for $1.6 m he received from oil and gas industry
Lol Right!!!
Sure, I drank a bottle of vodka every day for 20 years, but I haven't had a drink in a week, therefore, I'm sober and don't have a drinking problem...
The Miles Davis autobiography is full of that logic... "I was cleaner than a broke-dick dog" translates as "I was only drinking heavily and smoking cigarettes and marijuana, no hard stuff".
It's more like "I drank a bottle of Vodka every day for 20 years but for the first five years I drank 3 a day so the trend is downwards and I'm drinking less every year".
No fella you are still drinking the same disastrous amount.
happy you are sober now :D
Hang in there buddy! Let that liver cool down some more.
@@chiip90 Even worse. It's like I drank +1 vodka bottle/day every year for the last 18 years, but for the last 3 years I drank 18 bottles/day so the trend is stable.
I love to hear people with ZERO EXPERIENCE in a given field attempt to lecture those who’ve devoted their professional careers to it.
He was oddly poor at explaining how Cruz's number were cherry picked.
@@mrwaltermathews yeah, scientists and engineers aren't great at explaining things but I know what he means. If you pick a high point on the graph to be the left-hand side, then it dictates how right you go. So then your average looks flat. See how Cruz was narrowing the window of the timeframe. To understand the data, you don't contract your observation window but you expand it, which is the graph of the admiral.
@@youtubespectator669 Oh I understand also but it was just kind of poorly communicated. I think climate skeptics would be confused or think he looked bad is all, when it was really just a layup.
@@mrwaltermathews oh, right got it. Yeah, those people can easily twist words around to fit their narrative
"Your degree is useless against my feelings" 28th Amendment to US constitution 2016-17.
Speaking s a data analyst, senator's chart is a great example of what we use to call biased data.
Hbomberguy agrees...
Compared what?
@@DanMason2025 Google "biased data". You'll find everything you need.
Trump was not wrong when he called him lying Ted Cruz, however the irony was sky high.
hello kettle, I'm pot...
Thats because Trump is right about everything.
It takes one to know one.
@hamace No he is factually wrong. That is not a disagreement its him trying to twist the data to support his oil company backers. He was outed by a Admiral who has no lobby money backing him and who has the facts on his side.
@hamace climate change happens naturally that is true but the current impact is man made the evidence is clear. Climate science is in 97% agreement. All scientist agree at over 80%. In the first world only America has so many deniers in the general public.
Ted Cruz a creationist discussing science? What is next? Kim Kardashian discussing particle acceleration?
Gustavo Brum well back in 2016 when he made nearly 1.5 million from oil and gas companies I’m sure he would discuss whatever his bosses want him to Lmao. This political system is so corrupt.
Gustavo Brum Any Christian that TRULY understands the Bible will find that science will always BACK UP Christian theory. The earth is millions of years old.
You can not prove creationists are wrong.
Living in Texas, I've started to hear even Republicans mock Cruz. What a bafoon.
I mock people that don't even know how to correctly spell the word, "buffoon."
@@asanmartinjr07 Spelling is so easy. I learned "buffoon" really early on. It and "buloon" have a lot in common.
He sure knows were to go when the climate get cooler!
then stop voting for him please...peace.
he's forever on a t.v. reality, sensationalized wavelength...
Dude destroyed NOTHING, the ignorance of these comments is telling lmao!!
I wouldn't brag that I didn't understand the video. Not a good public look.
Your inability to understand the scientific evidence is not an argument against it.
Ted Cruz is not a scientist, and he has no business discussing this. This is way above his skills.
Why not?
When did the IPCC start measuring climate change err I mean global warming... No no... The clinate crisis!?
Dont tell me, at one of the lowest points in temperature that we've seen in our recent history as we came out of the little ice age, then shock horror.... Look its warmed!
His skills, reprehensible in how he deploys them, is to obfuscate and distract from the truth.
Hahahaha
Cruz is only one of the hundreds of shills for Big Fossil Fuel who will say *anything* to delay the inevitable move to zero-carbon emissions. It’s the INCREASING RATE OF Climate CHANGE which is the easiest metric to understand. Let’s use that for the science-challenged.
@@chasbodaniels1744 of course!
The whole thing wouldn't be about making shit loads of money through scaremongering shite would it....
Oh wait, hang on!
Hope you find this as amusing as I do! 😁
Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us | Environment | The Guardian swky.co/NDk3g0
Oh please, don't ever bring back this Lying Ted!! This SOB will lose to Beto in November!!
You mean Robert Francis O'Rourke? The guy who is pretending to be hispanic by hiding his last name and using a nickname? The guy who has been arrested for DUI, burglary and been involved in securities fraud?
Are you lying Ted? You sound like a BITCH!!
Ethan Noel O’ Rourke is changing his name? What about Rafael Edward Cruz? That’s TED Cruz’s real name, the man who touts his last name to sound Hispanic.
Jay Woods at least he goes by his last name and doesn't try to hide who he is. Only a child would vote for someone who runs under his high school nickname.
Ethan Noel
Hey Ethan, shut up. You're stupid!
Why does Cruz sound like a 5-year-old caught with his hand in the cookie jar?
PhillipZX3 idiot
Ted Cruz is the idiot because he comes with fake proof. Somebody with his position shouldn't tell lies... There is already a president who is doing that.
@Damian La quay You are a low life tyrant!
Projection is in your DNA and we see through your devilish plans.
@@gilianrampart8514 How much ya normally send to Kenneth Copeland?
he is on the same playing field as trump when it comes to grammar school
If you look at Dr Titleys chart it looks dramatic but it's still less than 1°. It's axis 0 to 0.8.
Ted is so proud he won the debating awards in school that he has to turn everything into a debate. He has a chart. Dr.Titley has a degree.
Yes. Especially with the guys and gals who have a "doctor" as part of their title. They've put in lots of time and work to earn that title.
Is Ted Cruz capable of getting anything right?
Uncle Sam he got beat by Trump...
NO!
Uncle Sam no, he’s a republican 😂
the URL for a porn site.
He is , got my doubts about you.
Cruz: Let me try and understand something...
Congress: Even we can’t wait around that long
Funny. I'll steal that and use it in the UK.
Legend has it they still waiting
this is how stupid, those who run the world, think we are
th-cam.com/video/MhHOMU-IhHA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/oHrElX5iMPU/w-d-xo.html
Cruz's IQ would dwarf your's, and mine.
@@Regnisab 1/2 right, but he doesn't need much of an IQ to Cancun Con his supporters.😉 As can be seen from his obvious lies and (wilful) misunderstanding of science.
"I'm just a simple sailor" this guy being humble af lol
And proving he was not a scientist. He was just a political mouth piece for the liberal propaganda machine.
Yah but sailors are very weather sensitive creatures
Its beyond me why anyone voted for this guy
His a complete moron, his lack of logic and awareness in today's society and life for his voters(Texans) say that he doesn't give a shit. He got his school degrees at the flee market lol because his illiterate of what he talks. I'm a Texan and he just doesn't know what's is life in Texas really is.
I know why, it's the cancer of the society of the USA called "Christianity" and Anti-intellectualism.
His just an imbecile not to talk about religion and intellectualism... His a moron.. because he just an idiot.. he got his degree at a flee market..
evangelicals think republicans who believe in God are their savor/bringer of judgement day for some reason.
Its beyond me how you liberals believe this tripe.
Sen. Cruz: let's talk about satellite measurements.
Climate expert: Ok. Let's talk about satellite measurements, let's talk about Orbital decay, let's talk about Overlapping Satellite Record, let's talk about stratospheric contamination.
Sen. Cruz: Wa.. wa.. wait. What ?
And smells better than lying Ted.
The Dr. / Navyman Stuttered through his list of excuses, but showed a disreputed chart based on model predictions that have been wrong for decades. Physical measurements around the globe validate Sen. Cruz's data sources, official government sources. Same on the red harring CO2 projections when trying to tie trends to human activities. Proven completely wrong when using major events that drastically changed human contributions: Beijing Olympics & air quality, 9/11, Covid-19 politicization n many more.
@@johnschmitt571 You're talking to the Brain Wash liberals... Don't waste your time buddy.
@@johnschmitt571 lol bro I am in Canada and we just had a full winter where I am with 0 snow that has never happened in the recorded history of the area. Climate change is real only thing even remotely up for debate is the actual % humans are having. As we can tell from fossil records and the study of soils from 200 million years ago that there where stretches of 10's of million's of years where our planet had 0 ice anywhere.
@@tribalwolf3854 weather and climate are two different things. Maybe they don't teach you that in Canada
The way he uses the phrase "global warming alarmists" makes it sound like they're a bunch of crackpots. Even though most of the scientific community agrees with them.
YOU FUCKING ARE
I need a scientific study to disprove me. Come on. Show your work.
He's doing it on purpose. This tactic is known as poisoning the well.
wrong.......most of the scientific community agree that CGW is a myth.......MOST......Google the 97% of scientists believe in global warming.....
wrong......the vast majority of scientists DISAGREE with the IPCC hypothesis.....
This retired admiral is just another hypocrite and viper!
Gotta love the straw man of calling your opposition “alarmists”.
I keep laughing at that euphemism allthe time
1.
a skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something.
"these claims were treated with skepticism" well do you believe as I do in the Moores law effect of doubling emissions piling up over time going past the incel breaking point where its too hot to breed as humans as the earth becomes like venus with dips and spikes but on a steady rise then it begins to rise faster and higher than before??
The real science deniers are the alarmists who refuse to debate. They do nothing put play to the gullibility of the public. The public is way, way, too stupid to any of this.
Yep, way, way, way, way too stupid is right.
@@jamesmcginn6291 The only scientists that have an agenda are the ones being payed by fossil fuel companies so they can continue making lucrative amounts of money. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the more CO2 in the atmosphere the warmer the atmosphere becomes, leading to sea level rise, decrease in arctic ice (look at NASA satellite photos), increased droughts (Honduras, leading to an increased number of climate refugees), bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, etc. There is overwhelming proof of climate change and there is no reason why scientists would lie. It’s because of science that human life spans have increased, given humanity technology, allowed us to land people on the moon, discover antibiotics, develop vaccines, etc.
When a politician makes a ridiculous claim, you have to look at who his supporters are and what corporations contribute to his campaign.
Hypothetical. A family goes on a vacation to Glacier National park. They get out of their car and the kids ask. Daddy why do they call it Glacier National park when there's no glacier?
Wayne Doodles his Dooley Truly
@@johnsluggett1822 Damn John you are slow and dim witted. I posted that almost a year ago. Glad you could join the conversation. You need to stop eat paint chips. Your killing what few brain cells you have left.
@@kevinwhitescarver8369 Your point seemed even stupider than it did last year and I finally had to say something.
@@johnsluggett1822 I think you missed the meaning of my original comment. Climate change is real. That's why the Glaciers are melting at a rapid pace and why the Glaciers are no longer there at the park.
If anyone starts in 1998 to measure the rate of temperature change, you know they're trying to put one over on you.
Yeah, let's start at the end of the little ice age, because that is serious.
@@InqWiper Well, compare the gradual cooling trend through the little ice age (a trend that may well have otherwise continued) to the rapid warming that began and accelerated with industrialization, it's clear that we hit a significant turning point - something that can't be said about 1998.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg
@@davidm1926
Completely false. Even in the graph you link it is obvious that the cooling stopped around 1700 and the warming started around 1850. Way before any large scale CO2 output.
@@InqWiper "Even in the graph you link it is obvious that the cooling stopped around 1700" - I wouldn't put it that way. That's a low point, but then there are points nearly as low around (eyeballing it) 1850. The temperature goes up and down all along the graph, and I would suggest that a remarkable rise in temperature starts a bit after 1900 (inasmuch as it dips slightly for a while in the mid-to-late 1900s - kind of a lightning bolt shape).
"and the warming started around 1850." - Warming. Doesn't look to me like THE warming. Warming and cooling happened for centuries, but the rise after 1900 (THE warming) is remarkable compared to everything earlier on the graph, going back to year 1.
Leaving aside the question of the veracity of the graph, but the challenge would be to produce credible counter-evidence.
The little ice age was not a globally contiguous event. The current warming cannot be explained by "coming out of the little ice age". That's a wishful thinking fairy tale for children. It's CO2.
You can tell Cruz is being objective by his use of "global warming alarmists" in referring to scientific conclusions made by scientists following scientific data.
3.5 trillion should fix earth 😂😂😂 What a bunch of bullshit
Be nice if the human-caused global warming alarmists would look at ALL of the data, instead of insisting it's all about CO2 when HISTORICAL records show that CO2 LAGS temperature change, sometimes by up to 700 years and IGNORING any science that shows a CLOSE match to global temperature changes.
Why 18 years? Good point. Cruz knows there is a climate chance but chose to use a period which makes this unclear. Spoken like a true republican. Know the truth but choose to tell only half of it.
It is like a kid telling his parents what the other kid did to him without mentioning his own part in the story...
Disgusting, to say the least...
Yep. There is no "dispute" about climate change. It's all a fabrication of the oil industry, who actually were the first to know about it, the media - a fake controversy gets more people in front of their commercials and doesn't cost squat to fabricate, and of course, the mass suicidal maniacs of the Amerikan right, who are traitors not just to the country, but to humanity itself.
No human cars or planes last ice age to unthaw the planet dumb fuck that wants everybody to walk everywhere😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥
best visual proof of man made climate change. th-cam.com/video/uWXkZg5lUAU/w-d-xo.html
"Spoken like a true republican." Ya, Democrats NEVER act in their own self interests....have you been under a rock for the last 3 years?
Vincent Krommenhoek it would be same thing as looking at the stock market over the past 18’yrs. you would see ups and downs but couldn’t really see it’s continuing to grow in spite of short term events
I drove 18 miles the other day... I started out going downhill and ended going uphill.
This data clearly shows Earth is concave, unlike what the Round Planet Alarmists would have you believe.
Hollow earth gang unite
truthmiles You'd like to have 18 gays boys drive 18 miles up your stinker drilling for soiled oil....
It is incredibly irritating to listen to ignorant people pretend they know what they're talking about... ugh I hate politicians
GDI YOU Mean like YOURself?
A picture today of the Statue of Liberty has the same sea level as a picture when it was first constructed.
Just like every other picture of any structure at sea level from any year whatsoever.
If you google remote sensing climate change data, and pull up chart, you see the same chart Cruz is presenting. Also, you see one that is expanded. What Cruz did was he started his chart at an El Nino event, that spiked high, then he quit his chart just before another peak. A wider view that shows a 35 year window, shows the same data, only it CLEARLY represents a steady rise in temperatures. This shows how you can deliberately distort data by selectively editing the slice of it you want to see.
lh3.googleusercontent.com/-mJ0fi3TjmgY/VjpQRyxyeCI/AAAAAAACa8g/6S1GhkYdLg0/s720-Ic42/monckton1980.png
Yes, it is quite possible to copy a small part of a graph to prove your point:
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentFeature/GlobalWarming/images/epica_temperature.png
Im "just a simple sailor" says ADMIRAL. Well done sir.
It's called a humble brag, and apart from that yes, he did well indeed
You never call a admiral, sit ! Thats for Commanders and below. I was stationed in Naval air Facility Mildenhall Suffolk England 1973-76 and we supported a 4 star admirals aircraft. I got an education on flag officers
@@nemialudolph7933 First never call Admiral "sit". Second, as a civilian now I can call him by sir or Chuck if that's his name. Third, go tell Ted Cruz. Fourth you missed the point
A simple sailor could not deny that removing whales, dolphins and fish from the oceans would affect the surface tempreture creating climate change...ignorance greed selfishness and stupidity effect everything natural
@@charliedekadens3348 Wait are you saying that removing sea-life is warming the oceans? If anything removing heat producing organisms would lower the temperature, but even that would be so minuscule it would be almost immeasurable
He made that "debate" seem like a man talking to a child.
Absolutely!
we all gone a die. no. yes. save the planet save the planet
Who???
Carlton YES the gay sailor was il-prepared
A man talking to a lawyer, that is.
It is really quite obvious that Mr. Cruz is one of the most ignorant Senators.
His professional education is obviously no shield against ignorance.
A little sea rise is not a problem, only for real estate developers. Humans have adapted for thousands of years to higher ground or wetter locations.
Its sad to think that "one of the most ignorant Senators" could mop the floor with a supposedly educated graduate of the naval academy.
didnt know cruz was a meteorologist
.....and yet, many know YOU belong in a "jerk-store"....!
AND Al Bore the global snore enviro-whore failed multiple science courses in college....!
My chart has a big arrow that goes from the left side to the right side so clearly there is no global warming ever. It doesn't matter at all if you remove the highest (erroneous) data point from the arbitrary 18 year scale. I can readz charts good!
+ChicagoJon2016 Note where Cruz's cult claims the data start from: 1750. LOL! I am making a reply video.
+Desertphile did you ever make that reply video. I'm interested in seeing it. Thanks in advance.
+ZeroSecDox I uploaded a reply video yesterday. It explained Cruz's behavior, and his funny chart.
+Desertphile Keep fighting the good fight buddy!
You can't remove evidence because you don't like it, even though liberals do it all the time 😂
Once again, Teddy comes out with 2 guns blazing!! But, alas, shooting blanks as usual...doorknob
More like shooting himself in the head. Aiming for his foot but hits the other end.
Winters in Warsaw, Poland, used to be cold. There was snow. Now it's gone.
Good thing this senator is just a random politician from some inconsequential 3rd world nation - I believe American diplomatic decorum prefers the term "shithole country". Imagine this person actually had a say in global matters.
Why you guys voting him back in office baffles my mind.
You must be an aoc supporter and it shows
@@HawkaRider250 ay found a brainlet npc
@@HawkaRider250 why? Do you believe everyone who dislikes Ted Cruz supports Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez? That's a ridiculous conclusion to draw and it makes you appear unintelligent and possibly delusional. Basically what I'm saying is "you're stupid and it shows".
They think he's the Chosen one to. The bible calls them the Anti Christ.
aoc is an extreme left nut job, frankly I don't even think the dem party even associates with her (they only needed her for her fans votes and that's it), she and her ilk are really scary folk.
Let's not look at 80+ years of data showing an upward trend. Let's focus in on this tiny little 18 year span that looks flat when enlarged so I can argue about no significant change. Let's just ignore the fact it starts lower than it ends reflecting the trend observed in the larger data set.
Where did you get your degree in climate science? Why would you link a random website ran by David Evans and Joanne Nova? David Evans is a climate change denier who's claims have been debunked over and over but at least he has original thoughts even if they are wrong. Joanne Nova however is a anti-science loon that only regurgitates previously debunked claims without any evidence of her own. The 300 year warming trend only bolsters the man made climate change evidence. If you know about history you know the industrial revolution started in the mid-1700's which is 300 years ago.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years#/media/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
thebigsmoke.com.au/2015/10/13/sam-blacker-climate-change-debunked/
www.skepticalscience.com/David_Evans_arg.htm
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova
Temperature's rising lol, you're all stupid. They didn't even have thermometers 300 years ago, and 80 years ago they were [maybe] within 10 degrees accuracy. Are you people really that gullible?
Acsfive Pall ..The mercury thermometer was invented literally 300 years ago, and they had other types of thermometers before that.
But hey, have fun pretending others are idiots, while you display too much intellectual laziness to even google, “thermometer.”
Sciencespeak.com is a crock of crap.
Here are two speakers affiliated with them
www.desmogblog.com/david-evans
www.desmogblog.com/joanne-nova-climate-skeptics-handbook
@tubewatch59 Thanks for fessing up that you're a Russian. More audits? After the Arizona super-shady Cyber Ninja audit that corrupted the machines and cost the State millions to replace. They even took the machines to undisclosed, unauthorized locations. All just to prove Biden's victory margin was even a few, inconsequential votes more? And the Wisconsin audit with the proven phony emails. Please, no more invitations for corruption. I have to side with Raffensperger (Kathy Bernier and Katie Hobbs, too). His book is a must read for any anyone who thinks they understand how elections are conducted. I would recommend turning off the TV and reading his book.
I have no words to describe Ted Cruz lack or morals and non-existent integrity. He is the lowest of the low.
I have one word for those that are pushing the alarmist agenda, socialist.
During the 60's and the 70's, 97% of all scientists were convinced that the earth was going to enter a cold period similar to the Medieval Warm Period.
Cruz is just using the oldest conman trick around: Cherry picking a tiny section of little temperature increase from a much larger timeline that shows incontrovertible temperature increase. It's like basing a hemisphere's average yearly temperature off one weekend in January.
+Von Neely His cross section isn't even comparable to a weekend, it is more like a few seconds.
Gerff
Exactly.
I think a greater conman could convince you that he could control the weather. he just needs all your money first.
Tobey Mcafee
Oh no, the best con men are the ones who've convinced people that the weather is controlled by how much gay sex exists in the world.
Von Neely
OF course it does, god is pissed, He promised not to flood the earth again, so he is gonna let it burn.
Bought by the Texas crude industry; he's paid to deny. He's doing his job.
Or trying to.
@@hijodelaisla275 Iffy.
Crude, indeed and rude.
@@johncloois3301 Precisely.
Cruz even threw his own children under the bus when he fled his own Texas to justify his "vacation" trip to Mexico when his own people in Texas faced power outage and literally freeze to death.
I hate that people can be bought like this. It's a disgrace
kudos to the scientist who tried to explain that arbitrary data can be manipulated both intentionally and unintentionally and that the scientists he represents use consistent methods to produce unbiased analysis...
Unlike Sen Ted Cruz who in this panel obviously is using data from a chosen scientist instead of data from an authoritative body.
Videos like this preserve the actions of our leaders, years into the future we can look at these videos and view for ourselves the behaviors of these people and judge for ourselves instead of relying on someone else' interpretation of history.
Wish I could like this more than once.
Never argue with a fool - They will drag you down to their level, Then beat you there with experience!!
Who was the fool in this example, neither of them as I see it? As a person who actually likes statistics and has spent a good part of my life creating and interpreting them, I can make any actual statistic look the way you want it to look and tell the story you would like told. Time and degree are extended to dramatize the point one wishes to make.
@@markfrank0924 Cruz...
@@markfrank0924 You're correct. I fail to see the fool that the comment is referring to. In the context of the graphs they've presented, they both are smart in how they present their graphs. Mr. Cruz is smart enough to manipulate the stats in a way which is most favorable to his side. Although I disagree with his opinion about climate change/global warming, he is no fool in the comment's context.
I wish there was some quote to convince you to stop saying these stupid ass quotes.
Thanks for this- I will never forget this quote
Only two issues here: 1) Exactly which part of his ass did Cruz pull that chart from, and 2) which of his owners put it there?
Prolly cooked it up at Fox with the usual angry mob.
If you put a mathematical equation in front of a cow you'll get better results than Cruz describing warming charts.
At 1:19 on the admiral's chart, you can see where Ted Cruz's chart starts and ends - it begins at the record high temperature recorded in 1997/8 because of the strong El Nino Southern Oscillation that year and ends just before the record breaking average global temperatures that have been recorded since 2014 as our carbon stores - the oceans and forests are becoming saturated and unable to absorb more CO2. The reason it seems to show a pause is because he started the graph on an anomaly. The dishonesty in the presentation of the data is astounding. What is Ted Cruz playing at?
Ted cruz is just the worst
In the Philippines, there's a saying that goes ... "You can't win an argument with an idiot."
True brother. Idiots will drag you to their level and beat you with decades of experience.
150 people killed in Europe, volcanoes erupting in Italy, Greece and Tenerife. Wild fires in Siberia, Australia, California, England.
The earthquake in Haiti, the smog and reservoirs ruptured in China.
The migration causing this mass migration from Syria to the rest of the world.
Need I go on?
Oooh Teddy Cruz... I wish he would take a permanent vacation in Mexico.
Mexico isn’t far enough. Send him Vanuvutu where he can see with his own eyes the effects of sea level rising.
Not a huge crus fan but I didn't see anybody get schooled here
+ryan muro If anything it seemed that the admiral was stumbling badly.
and now you resort to the superficial argument, straight out of the liberal handbook
ohh also "You're spelling, once again, is atrocious''
+Rick Lane you are incorrigible old sport.
+Rick Lane Get used to President Trump old sport.
Ted's idea of climate change is going to Cancun
Whether you agree with the Admiral or Cruz here, I think it's fair to say there was no "destroying" here...
To the contrary. You don't need hysteria or anger to destroy an argument. Logic, math and science can be quiet, and deadly. You can't cherry pick time frames from a long term study.
John do you mean the way you "cherry picked" points to make a point that suits you...?
@@douglasknoll3500 I did not cherry pick. You clearly don't know that even means. What a moron.
This is the same clown that ditch to Mexico when his state was freezing to death
Yep. Ted Cruise.
Like everyone, he made a mistake. However, he flew back immediately too-buckwheat.
@@carlevans5760 Ha! That's even worse!
@@bobhillenbrand1112 That's funny!
Renal Vacation rich Mexican Leftists do that ALL the time jackass
“Whenever you don’t like something; make it an ‘ism”
-D’Angelo Wallace
priapisim
Sorzen swallows jism-ism ala aka priaprism wisdom of mangina prism?
Now show us the clip of Hank “the islands will tip over” Johnson being humiliated by an admiral.
Sepi good one! I forgot about that Leftist genius giant island tipper fool ! haha!
I’m just glad it appears a lot of politicians never watched “Thank You For Smoking.” Aaron Eckart’s character is brilliant.
Eh, they probably did, but didn't realize it was satire and thought everything his character did was great.
Great film, awesome examples of cognitive dissonance in there.
Lolo Checkered Past ! you should quite smokin' diseased "cigars" that are freshly pulled from manginas
Ted is one of the great debaters of our time! It's easy when you, lie, conflate and observe only your agenda based on what superpac paid the most.
Thats the same thing you could say about the admiral. He wants power and money and is getting it from the scammers.
robert hicks Robert, it was proven that Exxon, knew what was going on and hid the truth from us. Remember the cigarette companies did the same thing and I remember Bob Dole saying cigarettes have no negative health consequences back in 90's and we know what happened. Do we wait until is absolutely to late to do anything my friend?
How did they prove it? Oh, yea the same spin doctors that came up with the bs 97%.
The problem is, all the evidence says it is natural and the alarmist have no way to separate the natural from the man made. So they claim its all many made.
People like Ted are destroying this country.
@@viadharmawheel not to mention this planet
Don't forget besides his campaign donation origins (oil and gas companies) his parents worked in that same industry. What better place for a corrupted climate change denier than in the department of Energy
Ted never fails to disappoint
Hmm, how did he destroy Ted Cruzes myths? The chart Ted shows is correct.
"I'm not sure where you have the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th correction to Dr Christies data?"
Crushing.
Did you even watch the video till the end? When Cruz is about to say that it is NOT Dr Christies data but rather THE RSSs data, and conveniently the video cuts away because the "scientist" was about to be dumpstered.
So... "Watch to the end because the part that's not in the video proves me right I promise"?
Are you a flat earther?
i think flat earth people and other liars cut videos short which can change context.
Magnum Farce they were not using Christies' data. He says that at the end.
@@garyegray
Read the thread.
Admiral Red and Blue Beard's mystical magical charts of uncertainty. Get one today!
Doesnt he have a vacation hes late for?
Earth will survive Global warming,
Mankind won't. 🤔
Oh crap now man won't be around to witness 👀 the Apocalypse! 🤔😫😭 Lol 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Why would man kind die out of the climate became 5 degrees warmer? Northern Europe, most of Russia and most of North America would still be cooler than the middle east is today.
I dont see any destruction. I see an academic trying to defend his publications.
"climate change alarmist" ; playbook ; check
Definition of a global warming denier: someone who consults an ophthalmologist for gingivitis.
I mean yes, we may be destroying the planet, but I think we're all forgetting the great value we created for shareholders during a short period of time.
Human-produced CO2 is re-absorbed by oceans, forests, and other “carbon sinks,” negating any climate changes
@@DanMason2025 And the admirals graph showed that, right? I want to see referenced data about "negating any climate change."
When YOUR Shameless
You have NO Problem
Living a LIE
DO YOU TED ?
According to Don Easterbrook, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, the “PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977.”
"The weather is perfect down here in cancun so obviously climate change isn't real" - Ted Cruz
Cruz should stick to what he knows. Which is clearly nothing
“Destroyed” ….🤔 guess I missed the knockout punch
You sure did.