From a bully pulpit Ted Cruz offers his take on climate change

first_img Email Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Cruz laid out his views during a 3-hour piece of political theater staged by the science panel of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which he chairs. He provided a forum for three scientists known for their contrarian views on climate change—John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, and William Happer of Princeton University. Cruz also welcomed a journalist/jazz musician, Mark Steyn, and had staff set a place for a nonwitness, Sierra Club President Aaron Mair, who hadn’t even officially been invited to testify.Cruz got what he wanted, including a shouting match between Steyn and a flustered Senator Edward Markey (D–MA) after Steyn demanded that Markey tell him what percentage of rising global temperatures was due to human activity. It was the first time this reporter had ever seen a witness grill a member of Congress at a hearing; Cruz sat back and let the drama unfold.None of it would matter much except that Cruz is running for president, and this week a poll showed him leading in Iowa, the first chance for U.S. voters to winnow the crowded Republican field.The hearing gave Cruz a chance to flesh out his views on a topic that his Republican rivals have generally ignored, and is generally considered a second- or third-tier issue for voters. But the 44-year-old lawyer and first-term legislator avoided the “I’m not a scientist” position of mainstream candidates, noting that “I’m the son of two mathematicians/computer programmers.” He opened the hearing by saying his goal was to explore “the science behind claims of global warming.” The title of the hearing, however, may have been a more accurate description of Cruz’s intentions: “Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Climate Change.”Cruz apparently got the answer he wanted from his witnesses: The international scientific community won’t entertain the possibility that its analyses are flawed, they told him, and scientists worried about climate change have joined with policymakers to ensure that their views prevail. “One of the most disturbing things we heard at the hearing,” Cruz told reporters afterward, was the “culture of suppression of dissent, driven politically by global warming alarmists and those in control of the funding stream.” As per congressional ground rules, the minority Democrats were allowed to invite one witness. The Democrats chose David Titley, a retired rear admiral and former oceanographer for the Navy who is now a professor at Pennsylvania State University, University Park. It’s a cliché to say that one person was the voice of reason in an otherwise chaotic setting. But Titley performed that role, to the point of bailing out Markey by explaining that global temperatures are affected by natural and internal variability, over which people have no control, as well as by human activity. “And I think that the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and many other bodies agree that the human-caused forcing is very, very significant,” he said.Cruz has not translated his views into any proposed legislation. That’s not surprising: His icy relations with his Republican colleagues in the Senate, much less with Democrats, have essentially blocked him from the dealmaking needed to implement any of his ideas.But legislating is not his goal; rather, Cruz prefers a debate in which he can win political points. Yesterday’s hearing fit that mold: He ended it by listing seven “facts” to which Democrats have offered “no effective response.”Those facts include his belief in the benefits of CO2 and the additional greenery covering the planet, and his disdain for the staggering amount of evidence on how rising carbon emissions have affected air and ocean temperatures, ocean acidity, the polar regions, inland glaciers, and sea levels. Cruz also brushes aside how those emissions have disrupted what Titley called “the climate stability” that has allowed modern civilization to flourish.The hearing didn’t change anyone’s mind. But it gave Cruz a chance to explain where he stands on the issue. The next move is up to voters—and the scientific community. Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwecenter_img At the end of the first hearing he’s chaired on climate change, Senator Ted Cruz (R–TX) laid out a set of facts intended to disprove the claims of those he calls “global warming alarmists.” But the bits of information that Cruz presented yesterday are either irrelevant to, or at odds with, what is actually happening to Earth’s climate.Cruz believes that carbon dioxide (CO2) “is good for plant life,” that the planet “is greener right now” than in the past, and that “for significant periods in history, prior to the industrial revolution, there has been markedly more CO2 in our atmosphere that could not have come from the burning of fossil fuels.” He also believes that “for the past 18 years … there has been no significant warming whatsoever” and that the current computer models used to understand global climate trends “are profoundly wrong … and inconsistent with the evidence and the data.”At the same time, Cruz did not acknowledge that carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning have more than quadrupled since the 1950s and that the amount of C02 in the atmosphere has climbed by one-third, to nearly 400 parts per million, over that period. Asked by ScienceInsider whether he agrees that such data are correct, Cruz declined to comment. Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*)last_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *