Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz's Climate Change Festival of Fraud

Response to global warming evidence mischaracterizes the truth.

|

Credit: Gage Skidmore / photo on flickr

You have to feel sorry for Ted Cruz. Donald Trump has hogged so much airtime with his cynical demagoguery that the senator from Texas has had a hard time capturing the attention of Republican voters. That is surprising, because when it comes to cynical demagoguery, this is the first time Cruz has ever lost out to anyone. 

His patented formula is a mix of repellent ingredients: misrepresentation of facts, baseless smears, exaggerated sincerity and pretended solidarity with the average person. If Cruz tells you it's raining, you can leave your umbrella at home. 

Most candidates need a full-length speech or a 45-minute town hall meeting to show off all the qualities that should disqualify them. But an interview he did with NPR the other day captured the essence of Cruz in six minutes of nonstop mendacity. 

The topic was global warming. Every major scientific body has confirmed its existence, but as "the son of two mathematicians and computer programmers and scientists," he feels particularly qualified to debunk it. 

"The scientific evidence doesn't support global warming," he informed NPR. "For the last 18 years, the satellite data—we have satellites that monitor the atmosphere. The satellites that actually measure the temperature showed no significant warming whatsoever." 

There are two flaws in his argument. The first is that satellite data are not the only scorecard. Records of surface temperatures, for example, show that "warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century," according to a study by scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

The second is that the satellite data don't refute global warming. NASA says that based on surface temperatures, 2014 was the warmest year on record. Based on satellite data, it was the third-warmest. 

The same data indicate that of the 14 hottest years ever, 13 occurred in this century. When Cruz says there has been "no significant warming" since 1997, he's engaging in brazen deception. 

That's his usual way. Confronted with an overwhelming scientific consensus that human activities are heating up the Earth, he charged that "a number of scientists receiving large government grants" are happy to "disregard the science and data and instead push political ideology." Without naming names or furnishing evidence, Cruz accused climate experts of being thoroughly corrupted by money. 

It's a nervy charge coming from him. His super PAC got a whopping $15 million last summer from two oil and gas billionaires. Since his 2012 Senate race, his biggest corporate supporters have been from the petroleum industry. 

"I would not be in the United States Senate if it were not for the Club for Growth," he has admitted. Among its other causes, the Club for Growth has opposed action against fossil fuel emissions. Which scenario is more plausible, thousands of scientists pretending to believe in global warming to get government grants or Cruz denying it to get campaign donations? 

He says climate change is a ruse by "liberal politicians who want government power over the economy, the energy sector and every aspect of our lives." In his view, any acknowledgment of the alleged problem would lead to a massive expansion of federal control. 

What he omits is that the best way to curtail greenhouse gas emissions is a carbon tax. This option has one great advantage, as Gregory Mankiw, who was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush, has noted. 

"You don't need all the regulations; you don't need what economists refer to as control solutions," he says. "You let the market work it out." A carbon tax, in fact, would make it easier to dismantle environmental regulations Cruz detests by making them redundant. 

He insists that if action is taken to limit greenhouse gas emissions, ordinary people will suffer. "I'm trying to keep power with the single mom waiting tables not to drive up her energy bills," he asserted. 

Note his patronizing premise: Waitresses don't care about a healthy planet. Even if that were true, a carbon tax could be offset with tax cuts elsewhere—say, in payroll taxes, boosting the take-home pay of that single mom. 

The NPR interview was typical of a presidential campaign that amounts to a traveling circus of fraud. Cruz accuses his opponents of deceiving the public to get money, grab power and advance a dangerous ideological agenda. Look who's talking. 

© Copyright 2015 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: A University Tried to Ban Christmas Parties Because They Aren't Inclusive

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Steve Chapman, put down the kool-aid

    1. I see this comment section is full of the usual hysteria about carbon taxes and redistribution of wealth as the principle motivation for the climate accord. That is simply wrong. The motivation is to prevent the damage that will be caused by a significant change in climate. If you can “reason” pause to consider what happens to our infrastructure as extreme rainfall events increase, sea level rises, and weather patterns shift around. It is only sane to do something, and the only sane thing to do is require emitters of carbon to pay for the damage done.

      It’s really not different from saying you must have your garbage picked up and disposed of, and you have to have a sewer line or septic system. Those things cost you money, but do you complain about them?

      1. Bullshit. If they wanted to solve climate problems money would be spent on science and research. The Paris accords are just about transferring wealth from rich countries to poor countries, not about spending money to develop new technologies.

      2. Which is why poor countries demanded $3.5 trillion at the Paris summit.

      3. Hopsgegangen|12.14.15 @ 5:27AM|#
        “…The motivation is to prevent the damage that will be caused by a significant change in climate…”

        1) Sock on a troll.
        3) Truly inspired sarcasm.
        4) Lefty ignoramus who got lost in the innerwebz and ended up here.

        1. 2) Cat walking across keyboard, and by pure chance, randomly hitting a sequence of keys, and along with auto-correct, posted something that looks like actual text.

      4. IF the climate problem were real, ie attributable to human actions, AND the problem was able to be calculated to be significant, THEN you would have a point.

        HOWEVER, global warming may not be happening in any significant way, it is NOT a problem attributable to humans, AND even if it were there is NOTHING we could do to change the future at the level needed to make a difference in the planet’s temperature.

        Go away, ignorant troll. Or listen and be educated.

    2. I see this comment section is full of the usual hysteria about carbon taxes and redistribution of wealth as the principle motivation for the climate accord. That is simply wrong. The motivation is to prevent the damage that will be caused by a significant change in climate. If you can “reason” pause to consider what happens to our infrastructure as extreme rainfall events increase, sea level rises, and weather patterns shift around. It is only sane to do something, and the only sane thing to do is require emitters of carbon to pay for the damage done.

      It’s really not different from saying you must have your garbage picked up and disposed of, and you have to have a sewer line or septic system. Those things cost you money, but do you complain about them?

      1. You saw that after one comment? Wow, you are REALLY good at prognosticating….
        You fucking troll.

  2. So, is this a reposting from Slate?…

    1. ^^^ This. Slate. I have an advanced round filing system for just this type of “content”.

  3. Interesting that this stunning “rebuke” is being posted so shortly after the global elites fully showed their hand with the Paris agreement. This is about income redistribution on a global scale.

    If Reason can’t see the watermelons true actions for what they are, then they should just give all that fundraising money back and shut it down.

    I mean if the global warming gives us a libertarian moment that looks just like fucking communism, it’s time to pack it in…

    1. Yea, if this is the awesome moment that’s been talked about so much, surrendering more private wealth to the state, then I’m not sure what we’re doing here, cause this moment sucks.

  4. I am on Reason.com, yes?

    Note, when this joker mentions cutting taxes elsewhere after arguing for a carbon tax of sorts (even though he’s too shy to just come out and say it), he’s not serious about that either. Because not a month ago he told us how pathetic the Reagan tax cuts were and that tax cuts in general don’t do much of anything.

    So make no mistake, this goof wants a carbon tax and no off-setting tax cuts accompanying them.

    Again, I am on Reason.com, correct?

    1. I am on Reason.com, correct?

      I think it has been rebranded as Retarded.

    2. Might be the worst article to ever appear on Reason. I’m finished with these dickheads. No more donations or other sorts of monetary support from me.

      It’s one thing to talk about the science but this was just driveby journalism. I mean when denier and 97% are mentioned then my bullshit meter pegs.

      1. Saw “Steve Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune.” and knew it was written by an idiot.

  5. It’s a nervy charge coming from him. His super PAC got a whopping $15 million last summer from two oil and gas billionaires. Since his 2012 Senate race, his biggest corporate supporters have been from the petroleum industry.

    Et tu quoque, Steve?

    1. His next post will likely be about how overturning Citizens United is our only hope to restore “free speech”.

  6. “NASA says that based on surface temperatures, 2014 was the warmest year on record. ”

    … 38% chance, but OK, whatever.

    1. and with a margin of error so laughably precise for a metric as encompassing as “global temperature”.

      1. Lies, damn lies and statistics…. Actually, the NOAA said that there was a 95% confidence level that the 2014 average temperature was .69 degrees centigrade above the 20th century average, plus or minus .09 degrees. But this requires all sorts of assumptions about the data from the last 115 years which may or may not be accurate. It’s not like coming up with probabilities for dice throwing.

    2. There are two flaws in his argument. The first is that satellite data are not the only scorecard

      Ah, but the satellite data are the ONLY reliable data. Satellite data are taken very frequently over the entire planet at numerous, very regular spacings, ie the sampling is truly global. Moreover, the satellite data record the temperatures at the precise zone above the surface where global warming is expected to be maximized. Surface data, by contrast, are taken at stations unequally dispersed across the land mass, and very rarely on the ocean surface. Moreover, the data are biased by the placement of the stations and the local environment, eg heat islands. So the surface data are very unreliable, with error bars at least 5X those of the satellite data.

      Go away, ignorant troll. Or stay and be educated.

      1. And the historical record is also skewed by things such as changing over from mercury to digital thermometers.

        I downloaded from Weather Underground daily high, lows and means from over 500 US airports, most going back to at last 1945. Using a daily 5 year rolling mean, Pittsburgh, BWI and Newark are almost perfectly correlated. They are at different levels, but they all go up and down in lock-step. The same cannot be said of Dulles and National, which are only about 15 miles apart. There have been multiple periods where the temps either converged or diverged, by several degrees. Why? It certainly doesn’t seem to be the climate.

    3. And “on record” means that past 100 years, out of 4.6 billion. Not a big sample.

  7. Reason,

    Someone is posting dumb crap from the huffing glue post on your site again. Just thought you should know.

    Regards.

    1. Chapman’s article was originally on huffpo?

  8. Steve,

    I have two straightforward questions for you (one in 3 parts):

    1) Is it possible we know the “mean temp” of the Pacific Ocean in the year 1800? How about Antarctica? Africa?
    2) If yes, to what degree of precision?

    thanks ahead of time for answering.

    1. The same data indicate that of the 14 hottest years ever, 13 occurred in this century. When Cruz says there has been “no significant warming” since 1997, he’s engaging in brazen deception.

      I don’t think “significant” means what Mr. Chapman thinks it means.

  9. So why does Reason publish this guy again?

    What he omits is that the best way to curtail greenhouse gas emissions is a carbon tax. This option has one great advantage, as Gregory Mankiw, who was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush, has noted.

    “You don’t need all the regulations; you don’t need what economists refer to as control solutions,” he says. “You let the market work it out.”

    Uh huh, a new tax is a “market solution”.

    liberal politicians who want government power over the economy, the energy sector and every aspect of our lives.”

    He insists that if action is taken to limit greenhouse gas emissions, ordinary people will suffer.

    Except he’s right on these two points.

  10. “What [Cruz] omits is that the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a carbon tax.”

    How is this an omission? Cruz doesn’t think we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, so why would he comment on the best way to do it? That’s like criticizing Chapman for omitting in his piece the best way to silence global warming adherents.

    Also, Chapman criticizes Cruz for playing fast and loose with facts and then he states as fact what is the “best” way to reduce gas emissions. He’s talking about an economic policy prescription. We don’t know the answer definitively. There are only opinions.

    1. Yes, but his opinions follow the prevailing liberal orthodoxy and are thus always correct. Anyone who argues otherwise is just a desperate ‘clinger’ destined for the Gulag and ‘re-education’.

      1. Chapman is working overtime to get invited to the cocktail parties with the cool kids.

    2. It is an omission because Cruz invented his story of the woman that was going to be hurt by trying to solve the problem, but this is an easy way to prevent her from being hurt. The truth is there is a simple way to increase the cost of fossil fuels by adding an increasing fee on each ton taken from the ground, then doing something fair with that money like giving people a check or tax refund with it.

      https://citizensclimatelobby (dot) org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/

      Really the only people it doesn’t work for is the fossil fuel industry, but then again that’s kind of the point.

  11. I think this is the first op-ed in Reason with which I’ve ever found serious disagreement.

    1. So you don’t read anything written by Richman, or that chick with the Indian name?

      1. Or most of Chapman’s other op-eds?

    2. Reason is a little funny these days. Most of the articles are derp, while the commenters are the libertarians.

      1. It’s signaling all the way down.

  12. This just cements the fact that Reason has moved from being a Libertarian magazine to being a Liberal one. And I don’t mean classically Liberal. The constant pants-wetting over every comment by a Republican candidate and virtual silence over Hillary’s obvious mendacity is pathetic. Nick and his cronies are so desperate to be seen as cool by the MSM that they are reflexively critical of conservatives at every turn. I expect Reason to advocate for a pragmatic libertarianism. Do they really think that we’ll be closer to that under Hillary than under Cruz?

    1. Yeah. I found myself half hoping during the fundraiser that they’d come up short.

      I wonder how long it will be before they post a lengthy article about how electing Hillary will mark the libertarian moment.

      1. It’s almost like he’s trying to convince us that Ted Cruz is smart. Way to make the guy’s case for him.

        1. Oops, damn my perfect penis.

          Decided not to post that above because I didn’t need to help Se?or Cruz’s Campaign Fiesta, but hit the bottom before I could delete the auto-fill to write this:

          I didn’t give them a dime during their funding drive. Was it coincidence this occurred during the same time as Wikipedia’s semi-regular “Change? Got any change?” period?

      2. “I wonder how long it will be before they post a lengthy article about how electing Hillary will mark the libertarian moment”

        I’ve really enjoyed my time here so far. I hope you all make it clear where on the internet we – or most of us – are going when it comes to that.

    2. Yeah I’ve started skippng ahead to the coment section first. You know, where the actual libertarians reside.

      1. Me too. These progressive articles are getting to be too much. I thought this was a libertarian publication but, not so much it would seem.

      2. Yes, count me as well. This also confirms my suspicion that many of us were secretly hoping Reason would fail in its drive for funds. Reason has fallen. Time for Chapman to go back to Mordor from whence he slithered.

        And thanks CPADave71 for the remark about the “constant pants-wetting” vs “virtual silence”. Right on the mark.

    3. Nick and his cronies are so desperate to be seen as cool by the MSM that they are reflexively critical of conservatives at every turn. – CPADave71

      I found myself half hoping during the fundraiser that they’d come up short. – JWW

      Maybe unReason is trying to reposition itself as a typical LSM rag so it can be bought by some other leftwing troll rag like the NYT.

    4. Don’t you think everyone should be held to the same high standards? Ted Cruz claims to not want the status quo, then buries his head in the sand about what is probably the most significant long-term issue there is because he represents fossil fuel interests. (Not to mention his wife’s $500k/yr job at Goldman Sachs). It seems fair to talk about those things, just as it is fair to talk about the money and influence the banking industry has on Hillary Clinton.

  13. Global warming modeling says the troposphere, the temperature measured by satellite, should warm the fastest, yet it does not show significant warming. Surface measurements are subject to all sorts of problems like station siting and the urban heat island effect. The reason activists scientists use the surface measurements in preference to satellite is because they are producing the numbers they want, particularly after massive alterations to cool the past and warm the present.

    Surely you’re including these articles on reason.com as clickbait.

    1. Global Warming?! But … but I thought the “experts” had decided there is no warming and that’s why we now are supposed to refer to it as climate change.

      1. You “thought”? Hardly.

      2. The rebranding was necessary to quiet down the folks who complained that since it was still snowing in places that proved ‘global warming’ was not happening.

        It’s still also known as global warming, but to communicate the problem in a way that less-scientific types may better understand it seems better to focus on the fact that different regions will see different effects. Some warmer, some cooler, some going under water.

        You can call it either. Both describe digging/pumping carbon out of the ground, burning it and releasing the CO2 into the air, which increases the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which traps more heat due to the greenhouse effect, which increases the average global temperature, causing the rate of sea level rise to increase and changes local environments and weather patterns.

    2. including these articles on reason.com as clickbait.

      Obviously. Can’t blame them, though. A riled up commentariat adds more comments and comes back to argue mmore. Sort of like the way Trump gets attention (or really, almost any other politician. the squeaky wheel gets the oil)

  14. So Chapman is just a straight-up progressive shill now? What a surprise.

    Hillary is incapable of telling the truth about anything at all and Chapman is going to nit-pick every word the R’s have to say? Chapman’s bullshit is just as apparent as Hillary’s.

    Let me pour another cup of coffee and I will nit-pick his bullshit.

  15. Cruz and Paul, especially Paul, are the only two candidates in the race who have a history of standing up and risking their careers to make full throated defenses of civil liberties. They did this on more than one occasion on the Senate floor and on the record. They took a ton of heat from their colleagues and from the press. Whatever their faults they deserve enormous credit for that.

    The president has argued again and again in front of the SC against civil liberties using arguments appealing to the FYTW clause. He has skirted the constitution over and over. He exclaimed in an Oval office speech that he could not even imagine an argument against depriving people of their rights without due process.

    1. Hillary Clinton, when asked about ending the WOD put her feet up, tossed back her brandy and laughed it off. “Oh no, that will never happen! There is too much money in it!” is how she hand waived that off. A clear admission that the WOD is not about drugs, that the fourth amendment is being destroyed by looters for financial gain. I don’t even know where to start on listing all of her blatant lies, but most telling about her is her blatant bribe taking while SOS and disastrous handling of the illegal Libyan war; smart power at its best.

      The D party has been an unmitigated disaster by any metric, but worst of all with regards to liberty at least an order of magnitude worse than the Bush administration. You know what Stevo? We have fascism in this country because people like you support and enable it. Turn in your libertarian credentials then fuck off and die in a fire.

      1. Here, here. He can also not fuck and just die.

        1. I really don’t care about the dying or the fire part. But if he doesn’t do some heavy thinking about his libertarian cred and change course most riki-tik he will need to fcuk off very soon.

  16. “Every major scientific body has confirmed its existence…” (AGW)

    Let’s start here. Right out of the gate there is an assumption that this means something. Obama has publicly announced that FedGov agencies related to this issue (NASA, NOAA, EPA etc) were to focus on pushing the AGW issue politicizing an area of scientific inquiry thus effectively destroying the science. The IPCC at the UN and fellow travelers in academia have been caught adjusting (i.e. faking) data more times than I can count. Had I done even a fraction of what these guys have done while I was in school I would have been drummed right out of the science department. They get away with it because the average person does not understand the scientific method or the sanitized objectivity and honesty required for science to work. Simply having a president who announces that his agencies are going to push a position alone is enough to destroy the credibility of the science.

    They have no credibility. Every bit of work they have done should be thrown out and nothing they say from this point forward can be taken seriously. The farce that has taken place up to this point is how we end up with theories that cannot make any accurate predictions whatsoever. In short, it isnt science.

    1. I should add here that I said

      “The farce that has taken place up to this point is how we end up with theories that cannot make any accurate predictions whatsoever. In short, it isnt science.”

      and that isnt really the case. It isnt even a theory which is why it isnt science. The history of this shit-show is that they started out making assertions about global cooling. When that didn’t pan out they began making assertions about global warming. When that didn’t pan out they changed it to climate change because they figured out that they can’t assert something that can be disproved within a given time frame and get away with it. They are now making an assertion that is unfalsifiable and that is the most damning of all. An unfalsifiable assertion of any kind lies far outside the realm of science and rational discourse.

      There are currently no climate events that lie outside of the statistically normal.

      Remember all of the hair tearing and teeth gnashing over tropical storm Sandy? They exclaimed that no ‘hurricanes’ strike the eastern seaboard that far north, that it was an anomaly but would become the new normal, proof positive of climate change.

      Have a look at the history of hurricane/tropical storm paths that we have records of:

      http://2010-2014.commerce.gov/…..ane-tracks

      The unscientific methods of their arguments aside, this kind of mendacity wrecks their credibility.

      1. You’re right on, as usual.

        ” Every major scientific body has confirmed its existence”

        100% argument from authority. That’s what AGW supporters keep coming back to, the same authority that gets billions of dollars per year to hold a certain position. What if we did this;

        ” Every major economic body has confirmed Keynesianism”

        The exact same thing. Suddenly by Champan’s reasoning everything libertarians espouse about free markets is a lie.

    2. Or, NASA, NOAA, the IPCC etc are doing good science, and you don’t agree with the results. As an impartial observer I think I’ll trust the findings of the scientists not the people who don’t see how capitalism only works when the interests of individuals are protected against pure profit-driven actions. I like clean air to breath, pure water to drink, and an Earth I and mine can survive long-term on. Let market forces do their thing, but not by trashing my air, water and climate.

  17. ” Without naming names or furnishing evidence, Cruz accused climate experts of being thoroughly corrupted by money.

    It’s a nervy charge coming from him. His super PAC got a whopping $15 million last summer from two oil and gas billionaires. Since his 2012 Senate race, his biggest corporate supporters have been from the petroleum industry. ”

    I read this as “Koch brothers! The Kochtopus strikes again!” OWS bullshit. I wonder if Steve has any actual knowledge of who the evil Koch brother are? Perhaps they support Cruz because they see him as the best candidate for Liberty. One of them actually ran on the Libertarian ticket for VP, but that is down the memory hole, isnt it?

    http://www.hannity.com/article…..e-14189414

    Instead of screeching about the evil Kochtopus and taking a shit on the sidewalk, listen to the awful Sean Hannity interview the guy. He is essentially the polar opposite of how the left portrays them. The Kochs have been champions of liberty for decades, but as someone here once said, when liberty arises its enemies rise to meet it. *looks at Chapman*

    1. To the extent that he gets money for writing for Reason, the Koch brothers are paying part of Steve’s salary.

      1. Yes, along the lines of the rants against energy companies…whose stock is largely owned by PubSec employee pension funds.

        1. Whenever I read that “word” it makes me think “she-male”.

  18. As I understand the issue,the only way to hit the ‘target’s based on little ice age temps is go back to the horse,canals and the sail.

    1. Obviously you don’t understand the issue at all. It means not digging carbon out of the ground and oxidizing it. It does not mean going back to the age of man and horsepower. It means using science and technology to develop an energy infrastructure that will be cleaner, cheaper and that will not change the chemistry of the entire atmosphere in a way that will cause major headaches for us and future generations.

      8 billion pounds of fossil fuels are dug/pumped out of the ground each year.
      That results in 30 billion pounds of CO2 gas being released when it is burned.
      That annual addition of CO2 has raised the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere 40% since the late 1800s, to a level now (400ppm) that the Earth has not seen for 800,000 years…. when the Earth was a sauna and the oceans hundreds of feet deeper than they are now.

      The changes scientists are recording now – sea level rise 3mm/yr, species migration, polar ice mass loss, global average temperature rise, ocean acidification – will continue to get worse and change faster if we continue to add CO2 to the short carbon cycle.

      Ya, the Koch brothers are pumping money into the campaign of a science-illiterate because he doesn’t believe fossil fuels are a problem. Their massive money funding a politician who just happens to benefit their business is just the kind of manipulation of the poltical system you would think libertarians would hate to see. Yet somehow all we get from them is denial.

      1. Correction: the units above is not pounds, it is metric tons. In other words, 30 billion metric tons of CO2 are added to the air each year due to the use of fossil fuels.

  19. I was not sure if this article was serious.

    I’m no fan of Cruz, or really any Republican for that matter, but how is his campaign more of festival of fraud than Hillary’s, or Bernie’s?

    As for AGW, I would be far less suspicious if the very people who purport to fear that it spells doom for humanity would actually ante-up and push for high-tech power generation methods such as next-gen nuclear energy, instead of the same tired old combination of a few solar panels, massive transfer payments, and tons more government control/central planning.

    As long as you push for political solutions to what is, in theory, a scientific/technology problem, I can’t accept you as serious. And that goes for Chapman, as well. Reading this article, I struggled to see any hint of Chapman’s libertarianism. Last time I checked, we were not for big government/central planning/forced income equality-style crap.

    1. Personally I don’t like the nuclear waste. It’s better than CO2 but it tends to pile up. Look at Moore’s Law in the price of computing. It is reasonable to assume that solar panels will follow a similar price pattern, which means that in not much time solar power will be cheaper than water if we put real market forces to bear on it. A revenue neutral tax on fossil fuels is the best way to let the market decide. Just make sure to put a real cost on the downside of every option and let consumers chose what makes sense individually.

  20. Well said.

    1. Thanks asshole. Your endorsement is proof positive that this article is complete bullshit.

      1. If I wrote an article and the only commenters supporting it were Jackass and Hihn, I would dive head first into a wood chipper.

        1. Is it his fault that so-called libertarians are so out of touch with reality? Where is the data to back up all the huffing and blather?

  21. “I’m trying to keep power with the single mom waiting tables not to drive up her energy bills,” he (Cruz) asserted.”

    Uh huh. As opposed to the guy who said “Under my plan energy prices would necessarily skyrocket.” A guy whose VP declared war on the coal industry and vowed to shut it down?

    Few, Chapman included, understand just how much our modern life depends on cheap energy or the evil that would seep back into our lives without it. I would recommend Chapman read Ron Bailey’s ‘The End of Doom’ but I am not hopeful that Chapman would understand what it means.

    I am going to throw in a Kudos for Bailey here. He is wrong about global warming, but he is dead on the money when it comes to increasing wealth equaling environmental improvement. Poverty and socialism equal environmental degradation.

    1. “Note his patronizing premise: Waitresses don’t care about a healthy planet. Even if that were true, a carbon tax could be offset with tax cuts elsewhere?say, in payroll taxes, boosting the take-home pay of that single mom.”

      What person over the age of 12 and with a functioning brain thinks that new taxes will be offset by tax cuts elsewhere? The truth is that that waitress only cares about paying her bills, the health of her children and an environment that furthers that end (planets don’t have health). Global socialism, which is what this paris agreement is, will only increase global poverty and thus degrade the environment.

      I am going to call this Chapman article the worst article in the history of Reason. This is the reason I didn’t donate to Reason this year. There has been too much of this kind of liberty destroying shit lately. Instead I am going to take that money and probably donate it to the Cruz campaign.

      Fuck off and die in a fire Stevo. I will never read one of your articles again.

      1. Mercatus and IJ would like to thank the Reason foundation for their article selection–it’s what convinced me to fund them instead.

      2. The dumbfucks are pissed.! Are they also the Paulista Cult?

        What person over the age of 12 and with a functioning brain thinks that new taxes will be offset by tax cuts elsewhere?

        What person over the age of 5 and with a functioning brain is so easily manipulate by bullshit like that?3

        1. Oh joy, the dementia suffering have decided to chime in…

          1. Are you saying Michael is unHihnged?

      3. I didn’t read the article, but I enjoyed reading your rant. Thanks Suthenboy.

      4. I am going to call this Chapman article the worst article in the history of Reason.

        It’s unbelievably bad, like some sort of weird social experiment or an accident where the entire article needs to have “/derp” written at the end and Chapman posts and update that it’s a “What if…” that got posted by accident.

        Agreed, this is worse than Richman’s Chris Kyle/Adam Lanza fuckup.

      5. Thank you Suthenboy. Right on, right on, right on.

      6. Right on, well said. In eight years of reading reason this is by far the worst article I have read here. I see no semblance of “free markets” in this piece. It belongs in Slate. Chapman needs to turn in his libertarian card.

  22. Who writes this crap?

    Who pays for someone to write this crap?

    Nick, this article is Exhibit A for why I’ll never give a dime to Reason.

  23. Fuck you and your junk science slaver.

  24. So Chappy quotes Karl et al. as refutation of the gold standard that is the satellite record? This would be the study that selected the hotest of the 8 ocean temp data sets to make the absurd claim that the satellites with their far more complete and UNHOMOGENIZED data sets are wrong? Oh and balloon radiosondes confirm the sats, Chappy.

    To paraphrase Chappy’s hero, slick Willy, to lie about another telling lies sure takes a lot of brass.

  25. Ron Bailey is a much more enjoyable read about the issue of climate change. He accepts that the planet has become warmer recently but talks about the topic much more sensibly.

  26. You do realize that other websites have shown how NPR completely edited the interview to fit their world view of republicans. Lately Reason seems to have become another shill for the left

  27. This is the type of reflexive, simple-minded, childish crap that you read at DemocraticUnderground. I wish that Chapman would just stick to writing about his dream boat, Barack Obama.

  28. Go blow on Hillary’s clit dong Steve. You dbags make me want to vote for that smarmy Cruz now.

    1. It’s just like the constant anti-Trump hit pieces make me like Trump out of spite.

    2. I’ll bet money Chapman does not know the definitions of energy, work or power, much less the dimensions of their units of measure.

      1. Whaddyamean? Power is clearly measured in $$ spent funding political campaigns.

        /Chapman

  29. Reason posted this why??

    The Steve Chapman trolls of the MSM are weak on historical fact :

    Documented vineyards in the north of England during Medieval Times, all without industrialization or today’s population…

    The left’s control of the MSM & teacher unions is a brilliant strategy for perpetuating the biggest fraud in history. The Great Global Warming Swindle–money/power grab.

    Note: author designed/built his own active/passive solar home, drove two Priuses & currently owns an all-electric Nissan Leaf. Why? Because I don’t believe in polluting or waste, or especially, the crony control of energy resources.

    1. I’ll also bet Chapman hasn’t read the Kyoto fraud or any of its successors. They give communist dictatorships a pass to churn out water vapor and other GHGs and penalize the countries that are not staving looter kleptocracies. Find the word China on one of those “agreements” where communist politicians get US looter politicians to increase our death rate by cutting back access to energy.

    2. owns an all-electric Nissan Leaf.

      Electric cars still cause pollution, usually more than gasoline cars, but it is generated where the e is generated. Dumbass.

  30. “Note his patronizing premise: Waitresses don’t care about a healthy planet. Even if that were true, a carbon tax could be offset with tax cuts elsewhere?say, in payroll taxes, boosting the take-home pay of that single mom.”

    Then how would a carbon tax be any deterrent to emissions if is offset by tax cuts elsewhere? Or is it just greater power to pick winners and losers?

    1. It’s just greater power to pick winners and losers. The winners are George Soros and company. The losers are the rest of us.

  31. “The same data indicate that of the 14 hottest years ever, 13 occurred in this century. When Cruz says there has been “no significant warming” since 1997, he’s engaging in brazen deception.”

    It is not logically inconsistent that 13 of the 14 hottest years on record occurred in this century AND that there has been “no significant warming” since 1997. If temps warmed dramatically up until 1997 and then plateaued, you’d expect most or all of the warmest years to come after 1997.

    Not saying that is what happened, but to reject Cruz’s statement the way Chapman does seems like shoddy reasoning.

    Moreover, it was not that long ago that even The Economist (which I presume Chapman wouldn’t dismiss as some fringe conservative outlet) was asking about the “pause” in warming since 1998, with speculation about what it meant for the climate forecasting models: http://www.economist.com/news/…..oes-being.

  32. So if you actually read the paper that showed “warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century”, you will see that it uses an absurdly high significance level (0.1, when 0.05 is typically considered the line of “statistical significance” and many statisticians consider that too high).
    That doesn’t mean warming has stopped, it means it’s too small of a sample of a too volatile data set to draw any conclusions.
    So Cruz may be wrong (or at least he didn’t have any evidence to back him up), but so are people who claim the reverse of what he is saying.

    1. That claim is based on the recent and controversial NOAA / Karl smoothing of the temperature data for the past 30 plus years. Chapman doesn’t seem to realize that this smoothing reduces the long-term warming rate to a bit over one degree per century. This is one reason why many or most warmists don’t accept the smoothing.

  33. So if water vapor is melting the icecaps and all, why did 32000 scientists sign the Petition Project successfully urging the senate not to ratify the pseudoscience of socialist subsidies? Google “Petition Project”

    1. 32000 scientists sign the Petition Project

      That’s the 3% (of whom I am one), the other 97% believe in AGW. So that means there are 1,024,000 other scientists who believe in AGW. Where are these hordes (whores) of scientists?

  34. Somebody show Steve how to find the Real Science blog on global warming frauds. Can this guy even differentiate a constant? It is embarrassing that Reason cannot find anyone to criticize a prohibitionist mystical bigot on other than for the one thing he is right about. Why is water vapor not listed on the Kyoto Protocol? It is one of the most important and effective of all the so-called greenhouse gases.

  35. Too bad I already donated to Reason. I will pretend I helped finance a pro-2nd amendment article instead of this emotional “scientistic” drivel.

  36. With articles like this, no wonder Reason is in the fiscal shitter and pleading for donations.

  37. It seems like Steve Chapman has serious issues understanding technical things. I think global warming is happening, but there are still some serious problems with the models and data collection. But the manic alarmism is unwarranted and is obviously a ploy to grow government power. Some of these have been pointed about by others, but here goes.

    1) He cites NOAA’s surface record adjustment that shows warming during the pause. This has serious problems and has come in for criticism. They used measurements from intakes on ships that have a well-known warm bias.

    2) He can’t seem to grasp that if you are on a plateau with small variations, as you walk along it, you’ll constantly be measuring near record high altitudes above the valley. So, temperatures warmed until about 1998, and then there has been no statistically significant warming. So, we are staying near record highs year after year. It is important to note that no models predicted this pause in the warming.

    If Steve Chapman can’t understand point two, then he has no business talking about science.

  38. Cruz never misrepresents the facts. He uses partial truths to lead to wrong conclusions. His facts are right, his interpretations are taken from partial databases. You can make statistics say anything you want that way. Progressive do it all the time. Cruz is just playing catch up.

  39. No one has predicted weather accurately so how would anyone predict an even more complex system like climate by only looking at .0001% of earth’s temperature history? All the top men in the world have yet to make accurate predictions within a degree yet we expect them to predict to .5 degree accuracy over 50 years along with what that entails. There is no universal theory on climate fact. The scientists have no clue what they are doing and they will do anything to keep up the charade.

    We do change our climate because we are part of that thermodynamic system, this much is clear. How much is a question nobody’s asking because politicians and the media love fear as it gets them what they want. Scientists are getting jerked off and made to seem important and politicians are scoring political capital. Everyone’s happy except the taxpayer who has no say because the science is so complicated that only scientists can understand it. Trust in your all knowing scientistic overlords.

    I’ll take them more seriously when they open source their climate models along with all the raw data and the algorithm(s) used to adjust the data, clearly this would help make them more accurate and robust but this isn’t the goal. Either the fate of the world really isn’t in jeopardy or the scientists and politicians don’t really care.

    1. I agree with you except your opening statement about predicting weather vs climate. It is often easier to make correct predictions of a large system than to predict the future state of a much smaller system. That’s because in a small system, noise and uncertainty are of the same order of magnitude as the thing you’re trying to predict, while in large systems, those errors are much smaller than the signal being predicted.

      1. That’s because in a small system, noise and uncertainty are of the same order of magnitude as the thing you’re trying to predict, while in large systems, those errors are much smaller than the signal being predicted.

        /climate

        $%#@ seriously?

        *Find nearest ‘small system’ and induces noise orders of magnitude in excess of any signal.*

        1. My comment is a general one. The future state of a system on a large scale is usually easier to predict than that of a smaller system.

          The upward trend in temperature of the whole climate is so small over short timescales that errors and noise are often of the same magnitude as the signal. Precisely predicting the temperature of the climate down to hundredths of a degree, or predicting the temperature at a certain location in the future (weather) is very difficult. Those are small systems. However the general state of the climate can be modeled into the future and into the past somewhat well. I think this overall modeling shows the potential for the globe to warm, but I also think that the current alarmism is way over board and an excuse for state power.

          Another example from my background in astrodynamics. From a large scale, orbits can be predicted very accurately using only mathematical models and computer programs. This goes for orbits around bodies like the Earth or interplanetary trajectories. This is a large system.

          A small system would be when two bodies in orbit are performing a rendezvous, or when a probe is making a precise closest approach at another planet. During rendezvous, the uncertainties and errors in the models are of the same order of magnitude as the distances between the vehicles. No model is accurate enough to guide the vehicles on its own. So, we start taking all kinds of physical measurements to get things right.

          1. My comment is a general one.

            Your argument is actually specific, highly reductionist, and tautological; ‘if we consider all cows as spheres’ the problem is easy to predict/model.

            No offense, I’ve sat through more ‘tastes great/less filling’ signal-to-noise debates than I care to count, I’d prefer not to induce one if I can.

            Suffice to say the concept of large and small can/does apply to the number of factors/agents at play.

            1. True, this kind of stuff can turn into meaningless debate after a while. The only reason I brought it up is that I’ve seen global warming alarmists get all smug and condescending when someone says “You can’t predict the weather, how can you predict the climate?”. It lets them say that their opponents don’t know how things work.

              Of course, they are overconfident, but I also think they have a bit of a point about that, so I think we should be careful.

          2. “From a large scale, orbits can be predicted very accurately using only mathematical models and computer programs. This goes for orbits around bodies like the Earth or interplanetary trajectories. This is a large system.”

            “A small system would be when two bodies in orbit are performing a rendezvous, or when a probe is making a precise closest approach at another planet.”

            How would adding variables and complexity make it the smaller system? Both systems would become more complex and less accurate with time, however there is a higher margin for error in your first example. The complexity of the system is determined by the number of variables, processes, and interactions and not its physical size.

            1. Yeah, small and large are not great words, and this is somewhat subjective. Sorry for going far afield on this. I think we can all agree that global warming as presented is a scam to increase government power. I went ahead and wrote this up if you want to read it:

              To me, “Large” modeled systems are those where the thing being predicted is large compared to the uncertainties and errors in the prediction.

              “Small” is when what is being modeled is about the same size as the uncertainties and errors in the prediction.

              So, in orbital dynamics, sun angles and ground station passings can be well-enough predicted using models. Or, propulsion budgets can be known based only on models.

              During a rendezvous, when the vehicles are within dozens of kilometers of each other, you can’t just use the computer solution to make the burns to get closer, you have to take ranges with radars and do other physical measurements to make corrections so it’s precise enough.

      2. I disagree. It’s a good example of chaos theory. The longer the scale the less accurate the predictions become because they are based on previous assumptions that are also likely to be wrong.

  40. The only thing that you need to know about what used to be called “global warming” is that not one prediction in Al Gore’s Inconvenient Screed has come to pass. Not one inch in ocean rise. 18 years with no temperature rise. Go look at what the climate models predicted and then look at what has actually happened. And notice that all the pretty graphs are less than one degree – within the margin of error.

    And now they call it climate change because there was no warming. So now they blame weather events. But Weather in not climate. And all the hurricanes they predicted failed to come along either.

    Carbon tax is just another wealth transfer. Join the climate change hoax and pay more taxes. And remember that all the money you’re spending is suppose to keep us from getting less than two degrees hotter by the end of the century. And all the while China will keep on building more coal fired power plants and we’ll keep sending them all our coal. Welcome to Wonderland.

    1. … and we’ll keep sending them all our coal.

      providing their manufacturing base with a relatively cheap supply of energy and making it even more difficult for our own manufacturers to compete. We can thank all our red diaper babies for that, the principal one of which presently occupies the White House.

    2. Plus, even if temperatures did go up by a degree or two, it’s not exactly a global catastrophe when the weather becomes slightly more pleasant.

  41. What a nonsensical article. CAGW is a fraud. There are plenty of reputable climate scientists who reject it outright. NAOA has falsified data (that was confirmed just a few weeks ago), and the really old data has been selectively suppressed because it doesn’t fit the narrative (hockey stick fraud, anyone?). The ground sensors in the last few decades have been moved to areas where there is more ambient heat (cities, mostly) so the data isn’t comparable to older data. Temperatures have been going down in the last 20 years, not up. To the extent any independent party has been able to study the computer models used (there hasn’t been any serious peer-review of them), they are risibly simplistic linear extrapolations which ignore variables (such as clouds) which are difficult to model. (This is probably because the people who built them are incompetent to build anything more sophisticated.)

    And of course, even if there were any truth to CAGW there has been no serious cost-benefit analysis done on the mitigation measures proposed. It is entirely possible, even likely, that a slightly warmer climate would be good for the planet, and for humans. (Higher CO2 levels are certainly good for plants.) Global temperatures have been much higher within recorded human history, even the last 500 years, and it seems to have been good for us.

    It’s all a gigantic fraud to expand the power of government and extract even more tax money. Reason should know better.

  42. As I posted at http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..nt-2087298 , anyone who groks classical physics should understand upon reflection that of the 2 fundamental macroscopic forces , electromagnetism and gravity , only gravity can and must to balance the equations “trap” heat . Gravity quantitatively explains why the bottoms of atmospheres are warmer than their tops to indisputable accuracy .

    You have never seen and never will a quantitative experimentally demonstrated equation for the GHG trapping of heat because it is false at the undergraduate physics level .

    1. Peddle that shit somewhere else. Radiative transfer has been demonstrated countless times under controlled laboratory settings. And yes, heat flows from colder objects to warmer objects but not net heat.

      1. Yeah, he’s the kind of “skeptic” that makes the rest of us look bad.

  43. Arguments against the arguments for:

    http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Sena…..Report.pdf

    To me, one of the biggest red flags against this sky is falling fear of man made global warming (though I can believe man may attribute some to the warming but not at the levels they say and the earth has the ability to counter these increases) is the attempt to silence opposing view points even to the point of making opposition a criminal offense. If the proof is over whelming, then an open discourse using this proof should quell all doubts.

    1. Totally. They keep pounding the table that “the science is settled” and that there is “consensus”, as if that were an argument out of science. Rather than try to convince people, we keep getting appeals to authority, “97% of climate scientists agree!”.

      1. Those 97 percent surveys were all done by warmists–Doran, Anderegg, Powell, and Cook. The only impartial survey, by George Mason U. 7 years ago, found only 40 percent or so were “very concerned”–i.e., agreed with the CAGW / alarmist position. What’s needed now is another up-to-date survey by an impartial group. Cruz, or some politician, should submit a bill directing the NSF to commission such a survey. Who could object?

      2. “97% of climate scientists agree!”.

        Yes but only 4/5 dentists.

  44. Finally someone gets it! Steve, you go girl! We need top-down, command and control to solve our climate problems. What have free minds and free markets done for us anyway? Given us electricity? The green revolution? Plastics?

    Government power is the answer! Look at all the great things government has given us, like: world wars, ethnic cleansing, and censorship!

    Besides, what possible downside could there be to the government punishing the people who produce the energy that we need to live?

  45. How did this “Central Planning” piece of shit propaganda make its way to a libertarian website?

  46. ‘[Cruz] charged that “a number of scientists receiving large government grants” are happy to “disregard the science and data and instead push political ideology.”‘

    I’m sure Cruz believes what he says. To Ted Cruz the idea of actually putting objectivity before political ideology, or that anyone would base their positions on science and data, rather than fundraising, makes about as much sense as trying to explain algebra to a dog.

    1. Huh. That isnt what he said at all. Not at all.

      Since you are barking I won’t bother trying to explain it to you.

  47. ” Confronted with an overwhelming scientific consensus that human activities are heating up the Earth, he charged that ‘a number of scientists receiving large government grants’ are happy to ‘disregard the science and data and instead push political ideology.’ Without naming names or furnishing evidence, Cruz accused climate experts of being thoroughly corrupted by money.”

    Hey Steve, some pointers: When you accuse someone of not furnishing evidence or sources, it’s good to have already furnished your own. “Overwhelming scientific consensus” doesn’t cut it. Neither does the cherry-picked NASA data in the previous paragraph.

    Here’s another one: Don’t peddle this crap to people who read books or are likely to have read books. These are the people most likely to know that “science” doesn’t reach a consensus, only scientists do, and scientists need their bread buttered just like everyone else. These are also the people most likely to know that, among scientists, there is considerable dispute over the causes of global warming, including the just-now-revised-data by NOAA about that embarrassing warming hiatus.

    Reason: Why do you need money to publish writers when they could support themselves by writing javascript and keeping a blog on blogspot? Chapman writes these things in what, six minutes? Ten? Let him get a real job. And if you can only publish a decent, well-researched article once a week then hell, call yourself Cato-lite and start earning back some respect.

  48. Reading this reminds me of what I like about Steve Chapman:
    Absolutely Nothing!

  49. “The same data indicate that of the 14 hottest years ever, 13 occurred in this century.”

    Steve Chapman is either a terrible writer, grossly ignorant, or a liar. Probably all three.

    Does the putz even realize that the Earth existed for a long time before the last 150 years? How bad at your job do you have to be to write something like that? It’s almost like he’s human and blinded by his biases…surely that could never ever happen to high-priest climate scientists.

    1. “The same data indicate that of the 14 hottest years ever, 13 occurred in this century.”

      Well ?. he could be right about recent history. However, warmth at a plateau would still mean there was no warming in recent years. In other words, it got warm and stayed warmer, but hasn’t been heating up beyond that. That would be exactly what Ted Cruz said.

  50. Sorry Steve, but your article says far more about you and your insecurity than it does about Ted Cruz. While I personally prefer Carly, Rand, and Marco, I did see Cruz’s comments about global warming and he was right on the mark. Is there global warming? Sure ? has been ever since the end of the last glacial period twelve thousand years ago and it’s likely man plays some part in it now, though to what degree is not known. If this is the best you can do criticizing Cruz, then you need to get a new career.

    1. Sorry Steve, but your article says far more about you and your insecurity than it does about Ted Cruz.

      ^^^This^^^

      Not just insecurities but character in general. Clinton is actively treasonous, Sanders wants to double-down on every derp of the Obama Administration and invent a few more, and Trump wants to go in a completely and radically different direction of fail. Cruz isn’t the best of any possible presidential candidate, but Reason continues to half quote him and cut him down for things that he didn’t really say or for ideas that aren’t exactly wrong; politically or morally.

      It is, repeatedly, a case of Cruz saying something without saying anything and Reason letting the mask slip when they knee-jerk react. I won’t vote for Cruz in observance of libertarian sensibilities. However, acknowledging that libertarian sensibilities don’t generally win elections (especially Presidential ones), Reason is doing a fantastic job of convincing me that I should want or hope for Cruz to win.

  51. That’s it! I’m done with reason.

    Did Obama write this article for you, Steve?

    Because, to start, EVERY THING YOU JUST ACCUSED CRUZ OF, is what you, actually, just did…

    By towing the Liberal line.

    EVERYONE that looks at the actual data knows that anthropogenic GW/CC is a lie.

    You can appeal to authority all you want to.

    I will use your ‘authorities’ own data to prove you, and them, wrong.

    Just as Cruz did.

    Geez…

    You are an idiot. It amazes me that you get paid for this shit.

  52. Well I almost hit the donate button the other day. This article makes me glad I didn’t. I’ll chalk it up to accidental wisdom.

  53. Liars.
    The climate has been changing for billions of years, nobody denies it.
    What we deny is the cause; change is the nature things, adapt or die.
    Personally, I believe Progressives are incapable of change as the Dodo bird.
    I truly hope for the same result.

  54. “Every major scientific body has confirmed [global warming’s] existence,…” Yes, the Medieval Warm period (warmer than today). The Roman Warm period (warmer than today). But those two events were not factored into the Hockey Stick graph and the computer models. Computer models, by the way, that have completely failed to predict the climate. The claim that 97 or 98% of scientists believe in global warming, supposedly caused by humans, is a completely false statement. There are plenty of “qualified” scientists who either question human-caused global warming/climate change or who called it a bunch of hogwash. Polar bears populations have grown. Summer ice pack in the Arctic has grown. Overall ice in Antarctica has grown. Satellite temperature data, the most reliable kind, shows no increase in temperature for nearly 20 years. Ice core samples going back hundreds of thousands of years show the CO2 levels go up after the Earth’s temperature goes up, not before. The Sun is the major driver of our climate. Sun spot activity is a big factor, the more sun spots the more energy reaching Earth. We are in an extremely low sun spot activity phase when there should be a lot more of them, similar to the Maunder Minimum which ushered in the mini-ice-age. We shall miss all those coal- and gas-fired energy plants with their relatively inexpensive power to heat our homes in the coming decades.

  55. This is brazen deception: When Cruz says there has been “no significant warming” since 1997, he’s engaging in brazen deception.

    Was this article lifted from the DailyKos?

  56. …and I just gave money to these clowns. Last time.

  57. One of the problems with “global warming” (now called “climate change” after persistent failures of predictions to occur), is that there are those in the “scientific” community who have falsified data. This is fact. Is all the data falsified? Who knows? Is the data conclusive? Who knows? According to the Algore school of thought, the Arctic should be ice-free by now. Ooops. Still plenty of ice.

    Then there’s the research that indicates we may be entering a new ice age. Wait! How is that possible? I thought we were going to burn alive in a CO2-fueled hell of global melting?

    MEANWHILE, there are vested interests poised to use the excuse of “climate change” to reap huge profits (at your expense) and limit your freedoms (think in terms of “The War on Climate Change” in addition to the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Terrorism”.)

    In the final analysis, none of the evidence convincingly demonstrates that climate change is a MAN-MADE phenomenon. Perhaps humans are responsible for 1% of the change. Perhaps much less. Surely, our presence contributes – but to what degree? And if that mini-ice-age is coming, well, wouldn’t that make “greenhouse gases” a good thing?

  58. Surprised that Reason buys into the snake oil that is catastrophic AGW.

    Scientific truth is not a matter of consensus. The speed of light was not determined to be 186,000 miles per second by means of a vote. On this Sen Cruz is spot on, and the author is simply wrong.

  59. If Chapman hadn’t decided to become one of Obama’s trained parrots (at least on most issues). he might have noticed that Cruz’s witnesses at his hearing were mostly skeptical climate scientists, and he might have paid attention to them. Or he might have noticed that the NOAA has refused to make its data available for examination by other scientists, which is equivalent to making that data irrelevant since its validity cannot be independently tested. Or he might notice that his Fascist Messiah’s proposals for dealing with the climate “crisis” all involve massively increased government control and more income redistribution to Third World countries (but tough luck for lower-income Americans who can’t afford his soaring energy costs).

    But he doesn’t. Except (so far) on gun control, he simply regurgitates Slick Barry’s talking points.

  60. “The scientific evidence doesn’t support global warming,” he informed NPR.

    This is a stupid argument to make because it’s unnecessary. The scientific evidence that anthropogenic global warming is occurring is not as good as activists claim, but it’s pretty good.

    The real issue is whether it is catastrophic, and if so, whether government intervention can fix it.

    There is little reason to believe that the worst case climate change scenario at this point is anything more than a slight drag on the economy in half a century; the IPCC experts themselves pretty much have said so. That’s not worth worrying about.

    And even if climate change were more serious than that, government intervention is unlikely to help. Even at today’s prices, fuel is already so expensive that people don’t need any additional government mandates to move away from it. Government mandates just hurt the economy, support bad solutions, and will generally delay a move to renewables.

    1. When you can tell me what the doubling sensitivity is then you can say its “pretty good”.

      1. If you think that is relevant for the simple statement that some anthropogenic warming has likely occurred, you really don’t understand anything.

        Again, it’s people like you barking up the wrong tree that make it so difficult to argue against the progressive juggernaut.

  61. As for Chapman, he just demonstrates his ignorance and bigotry, as usual. No point on even commenting on that.

  62. Odd article from Reason writer. Cruz is on the perfectly right track. Global warming to the extent that is might be happening, now at an unmeasurably slow rate, can’t be attributed to anything tangible or correctable, and won’t be harming anyone. And this writer is from Chicago, a place that could use a little warming, some day, some how

  63. Shorter Chapman: “Burn the heretic!!!”.

  64. To date, the anthropogenic global warming prognostications based on GIGO computer models have failed to materialize.

  65. It’s been reported that ISIS is offering President Obomber a nuclear winter to help him reverse the effects of UNSTOPPABLE WARMING of the poor little planet Earth.

    You remaining eager climate blame “believers” look like the last guy to ever show up to the party still wearing disco pants with a tape deck, Palm Pilot and a bag phone. What planet are you doomers on? Get up to date like real progressives.

    *Occupy no longer even mentions CO2 in their list of demands.

    Are your science gods also only 99% certain the planet isn’t flat? Your criminal exaggeration and abuse of vague climate science makes Bush look more like a progressive in the coming history books. Shame on all of you.

  66. “Confronted with an overwhelming scientific consensus,” this line only touches upon the shear ignorance and lack of understanding that flows throughout this article. Is this Reason??? Who is this Chapman character, and how in the world does such a poorly written article based solely on closed-minded, kool-aid drinking bias get posted on this site?

  67. Article after article you see that the writers at Reason are at odds with the readers. From immigration to AGW, it seems the libertarians who come to the site largely disagree with Reason, especially on the two topics mentioned above.

    Is Reason turning into a leftist rag or are the libertarian rank and file turning away from Libertarian-ism? Is this much like senior Democrats that say, I didn’t leave the party, the party left me?

    The one thing that gives me hope is the the readers at Reason haven’t sold out and still stand solidly to the right of center where any person who loves individual liberty and limited government must reside.

    Any fool who doesn’t see this AGW crusade as a giant excuse to expand government and limit freedom is no libertarian. Even if you think AGW is real, you cannot argue that the prescriptions of the AGW crowd don’t limit personal liberty and expand government. Then, throw in all the evidence that AGW is full of junk science and has repeatedly been terrible at predicting anything and there is no way true libertarians are going to support this nonsense or think the prescription to fix it have any chance to work because it is all funded and all the prescriptions involve big government.

  68. Chapman is pursuing his own festival of climate fraud. Cruz is mistaken if one looks to the past, say, 100 years.
    The climate has warmed, but that’s nothing new – we’ve been warming overall (with some periods of cooling)
    since the last ice age. But Cruz is correct in stating that we have not been warming for quite some time (1998). Chapman’s claims based on land based data are pure baloney – that data series has been shown as ridiculously biased upwards by Wattts et al monumental study. Nor is the claim that 13 of the past 14 years have been amongst the warmest a valid statement – the data series for satellites only extends back to around 1980 and the “warmest years” are warmer by an amount that is not statistically significant, meaning that one cannot even claim that they are the 13 warmest. The error of measurement is much larger than the claimed increase in warming. That was pointed out in Senate testimony by a climate expert. An we can correct Chapman’s invalid implication that those 13 years were the warmest in the period for which we have accurate data. Both the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods were warmer than today. Chapman better learn a whole lot more about global warming before he makes a fool of himself trying to “correct” someone.

  69. The topic was global warming. Every major scientific body has confirmed its existence,

    And yet the weather is the same as it was 40 years ago.

  70. There are two periods in history where we can definitively show earth’s temperature tracking an increase in manmade CO2– from about 1915 til the mid-40s, and from the mid-70s til the mid-90s. So these climate models have been extrapolated from very short trends. The hiatus has now gone on nearly as long as the last warming period, and the IPCC acknowledges it in its 2013 report, despite the apparent lack of reliability of the satellite data discussed in this poorly supported article. The IPCC has reduced the trajectory of its models by 10% to help align models with actual temperatures, but admit more is needed. This discussion is on pp. 770-71 of the 2013 report.The rational mind, when confronted with an obvious lack of clear long-term trends for warming vs.CO2 begins to rethink the hypothesis. The politicized mind finds new, different, and irrelevant ways to argue his point.

    I’ve been ridiculed for my views, and it’s been enlightening to experience rudeness, condescension, and ridicule from those on the left who purport to be open, affirming, accepting, and nurturing. Apparently these virtues are only available to the downtrodden and those who share the liberal viewpoint, which to me is the most offensive kind of hypocrisy.This being the case, it takes tremendous courage to defend an unpopular viewpoint on climate change , especially when you are running for president. I applaud Cruz’s integrity and would be happy to have a president whose reasoning skills are intact.

  71. Since his 2012 Senate race, his biggest corporate supporters have been from the petroleum industry.
    “I would not be in the United States Senate if it were not for the Club for Growth,” he has admitted. Among its other causes, the Club for Growth has opposed action against fossil fuel emissions. Which scenario is more plausible, thousands of scientists pretending to believe in global warming to get government grants or Cruz denying it to get campaign donations?

    Many comments in response of this article prove there are many subconscious ways to deceive oneself, and people often put reason on hold when faced with facts that directly conflict with their personal beliefs. Seen from a distance, it is hard to argue that a politician that receives much of his campaign money from fossil fuel interests does not have a huge conflict of interest when considering drawbacks of fossil fuels.

    Cruz is either completely ignorant of science and has not bothered spending a few hours reading about climate science from a reputable scientific organization (e.g. NASA.gov), or he just puts religion ahead of science for one reason or another. Perhaps it is the latter, since there is no money coming to him for denying evolution, which he seems to be hinting at in the interview by ignoring the evolution question twice. If so, then the real question is, does he really believe these things, or are his positions taken just to get money from fossil fuel interests and votes from the religious right.

  72. Wow, I came here expecting to find reasoned debate, but this comment thread is as trashy as any other sadly.

    I would like to point out that just because a problem requires solutions that are empirically-proven to be difficult and no fun doesn’t mean that the problem is false. This is a situation where we have to swallow a bitter pill. The fact that the pill is bitter doesn’t disprove the disease. There is no reason that commitment to free markets and opposition to climate change science should be linked. The fact that they are linked here on this comment thread should give us pause to consider weather our desires are clouding our judgement, which is the very project of reason.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.