Cruz: Galileo was branded a denier for saying Earth was round

[skookerasbil]

Well, will you look at that, yet another Cruz lie exposed. Cruz claimed they changed the terminology from global warming to climate change after the Ice Age didn't happen, and there they are using "climate change" in the 1970s.

Is there anything Cruz won't lie about?

Looks like it went over your head. Which isn't hard to do with it stuffed up your ass. I don't know or care what all he said, I'm not Cruz and you didn't cite a source. My post was about the lie lefties are doing in mass today by claiming there was no global cooling mantra back in the 70s.

Is there anything the left won't lie about?

40 years ago it was Global Cooling, today's it Global Climate Warming Change...yet they insist the "Science" is Settled"

LOLz

And I already showed "climate change" was being used 40 years ago, and the 40 year old Time article YOU posted came right out and said that other scientists disagree with global cooling.

Admit it you global warming deniers were wrong 40 years ago and are still wrong today.

But nobody is caring s0n..................


Gallup Concern About Environment Down Americans Worry Least About Global Warming CNS News



Who cares about who is right or wrong..........only matters who's winning!!!!



For the skeptics, they can roll this gem out every day if the topic is green energy is losing and the science isn't mattering >>>


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/winninglayout.gif.html][/URL]

 

[BullKurtz]

Factcheck.org points out that Cruz is wrong, as the roundness of the Earth was already accepted even before Galileo was born.

Additionally, Cruz is reminded that one Newsweekly article on global cooling in the 70's does not mean there was consensus on global cooling in the 70's. The Factcheck.org.org piece solidifies the perception that Cruz is not smart.
Cruz on the Global Cooling Myth and Galileo

Hilarious! Cruz graduated cum laude from Princeton and magna cum laude from Harvard Law....liberal Alan Dershowitz calls him "off the charts brilliant". And I concur with Ted about country music after 9/11....what rock band produced a tune like this after the attack that murdered 3,000 innocent Americans?

 

[edthecynic]

Factcheck.org points out that Cruz is wrong, as the roundness of the Earth was already accepted even before Galileo was born.

Additionally, Cruz is reminded that one Newsweekly article on global cooling in the 70's does not mean there was consensus on global cooling in the 70's. The Factcheck.org.org piece solidifies the perception that Cruz is not smart.
Cruz on the Global Cooling Myth and Galileo

Hilarious! Cruz graduated cum laude from Princeton and magna cum laude from Harvard Law....liberal Alan Dershowitz calls him "off the charts brilliant". And I concur with Ted about country music after 9/11....what rock band produced a tune like this after the attack that murdered 3,000 innocent Americans?

Wow a pro war and destruction song is all country music could do, no wonder hate mongers like Cruz prefer country over Rock, when Rock was doing something POSITIVE to help.

Seven powerful musical responses to the 9 11 tragedy

Ten years ago, in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. was thrust into a period of great sorrow, fear, anger and confusion. But in the days and weeks that followed, music played a huge role in the healing process.

Musicians like Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson helped to give a shocked nation points to rally around by serving as key organizers of mega-concert events that raised hundreds of millions of dollars for victims. Incubus and Sonny Rollins were among those who were back on stage within days of 9/11, providing much-needed -- and cathartic -- escapes, and maybe a little bit of normalcy.

Here's a look at seven post-9/11 musical events that helped the nation to begin to regroup in the wake of a historic tragedy.

 

[Iceweasel]

Well, will you look at that, yet another Cruz lie exposed. Cruz claimed they changed the terminology from global warming to climate change after the Ice Age didn't happen, and there they are using "climate change" in the 1970s.

Is there anything Cruz won't lie about?

Looks like it went over your head. Which isn't hard to do with it stuffed up your ass. I don't know or care what all he said, I'm not Cruz and you didn't cite a source. My post was about the lie lefties are doing in mass today by claiming there was no global cooling mantra back in the 70s.

Is there anything the left won't lie about?

40 years ago it was Global Cooling, today's it Global Climate Warming Change...yet they insist the "Science" is Settled"

LOLz

And I already showed "climate change" was being used 40 years ago, and the 40 year old Time article YOU posted came right out and said that other scientists disagree with global cooling.

Admit it you global warming deniers were wrong 40 years ago and are still wrong today.

YOU can't accept that scientists disagree today! The nay sayers mattered then but not now?

 

[edthecynic]

Well, will you look at that, yet another Cruz lie exposed. Cruz claimed they changed the terminology from global warming to climate change after the Ice Age didn't happen, and there they are using "climate change" in the 1970s.

Is there anything Cruz won't lie about?

Looks like it went over your head. Which isn't hard to do with it stuffed up your ass. I don't know or care what all he said, I'm not Cruz and you didn't cite a source. My post was about the lie lefties are doing in mass today by claiming there was no global cooling mantra back in the 70s.

Is there anything the left won't lie about?

40 years ago it was Global Cooling, today's it Global Climate Warming Change...yet they insist the "Science" is Settled"

LOLz

And I already showed "climate change" was being used 40 years ago, and the 40 year old Time article YOU posted came right out and said that other scientists disagree with global cooling.

Admit it you global warming deniers were wrong 40 years ago and are still wrong today.

YOU can't accept that scientists disagree today! The nay sayers mattered then but not now?

Global warming deniers were a minority who didn't matter in the 1970s and they are still a minority who matter even less now after being wrong for 40 years.

 

[jasonnfree]

Factcheck.org points out that Cruz is wrong, as the roundness of the Earth was already accepted even before Galileo was born.

Additionally, Cruz is reminded that one Newsweekly article on global cooling in the 70's does not mean there was consensus on global cooling in the 70's. The Factcheck.org.org piece solidifies the perception that Cruz is not smart.
Cruz on the Global Cooling Myth and Galileo

Hilarious! Cruz graduated cum laude from Princeton and magna cum laude from Harvard Law....liberal Alan Dershowitz calls him "off the charts brilliant". And I concur with Ted about country music after 9/11....what rock band produced a tune like this after the attack that murdered 3,000 innocent Americans?

So now you believe what Dershowitz said? I thought all liberals were liars.

 

[jasonnfree]

Libs say stupid stuff just about every time they open their yaps. I was taught about global cooling back in the 70s, it was the consensus of the day. I don't see a quote about Galileo so don't know about that one.

What percentage of scientists believed in global cooling? Learn what consensus means before talking about it.

Science isn't a majority vote, a consensus, or any other such nonsense. That's the error you warmers make talking about how many scientists agree with you. (because they're paid to)

I can understand the oil industry paying scientists to say global warming is not caused by man, but what group on the left has the money to pay scientists to lie? What would be their purpose anyway?

 

[jasonnfree]

After Obama and all of his gaffes that liberals praised and defended. You really are going to criticize someone else? How shallow.

I like the Obama gaffes (57 states) vs the bush lies, (sadaam has wmd's.). With Obama, hundreds of thousands aren't killed, and it doesn't cost us taxpayers trillions. Anyway, whoever gets the republican nomination will be from the clown brigade. The republican hee haw base wouldn't tolerate anyone normal.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Libs say stupid stuff just about every time they open their yaps. I was taught about global cooling back in the 70s, it was the consensus of the day. I don't see a quote about Galileo so don't know about that one.

What percentage of scientists believed in global cooling? Learn what consensus means before talking about it.

Science isn't a majority vote, a consensus, or any other such nonsense. That's the error you warmers make talking about how many scientists agree with you. (because they're paid to)

I can understand the oil industry paying scientists to say global warming is not caused by man, but what group on the left has the money to pay scientists to lie? What would be their purpose anyway?

Global Warming: Follow the Money SHARE ARTICLE ON FACEBOOKSHARE TWEET ARTICLETWEET PLUS ONE ARTICLE ON GOOGLE PLUS+1 PRINT ARTICLE EMAIL ARTICLE ADJUST FONT SIZEAA by HENRY PAYNE February 25, 2015 4:00 AM It isn’t the fossil-fuel companies that are polluting climate science. Citing documents uncovered by the radical environmental group Greenpeace, a group of media outlets — including the New York Times and the Boston Globe — have attacked global-warming skeptic Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon for allegedly hiding $1.2 million in contributions from “fossil fuel companies.” The articles were the latest in an ongoing campaign by greens and their media allies to discredit opponents of the warming agenda. But in allying themselves closely with activist groups with which they share ideological goals, reporters have fundamentally misled readers on the facts of global-warming funding. In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.

Read more at: National Review

Officials with the Smithsonian Institution — which employs Dr. Soon — told the Times it appeared the scientist had violated disclosure standards, and they said they would look into the matter. Soon, a Malaysian immigrant, is a widely respected astrophysicist, and his allies came quickly to his defense. “It is a despicable, reprehensible attack on a man of great personal integrity,” says Myron Ebell, the director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who questioned why media organizations were singling out Soon over research funding. Indeed, experts in the research community say that it is much more difficult for some of the top climate scientists — Soon, Roger Pielke Jr., the CATO Institute’s Patrick Michaels, MIT’s now-retired Richard Lindzen — to get funding for their work because they do not embrace the global-warming fearmongering favored by the government-funded climate establishment. “Soon’s integrity in the scientific community shines out,” says Ebell. “He has foregone his own career advancement to advance scientific truth. If he had only mouthed establishment platitudes, he could’ve been named to head a big university [research center] like Michael Mann.” Mann is the controversial director of Pennsylvania State’s Earth System Science Center. He was at the center of the 2009 Climategate scandal, in which e-mails were uncovered from climatologists discussing how to skew scientific evidence and blackball experts who don’t agree with them. Mann is typical of pro-warming scientists who have taken millions from government agencies. The federal government — which will gain unprecedented regulatory power if climate legislation is passed — has funded scientific research to the tune of $32.5 billion since 1989, according the Science and Public Policy Institute. That is an amount that dwarfs research contributions from oil companies and utilities, which have historically funded both sides of the debate. Mann, for example, has received some $6 million, mostly in government grants — according to a study by The American Spectator — including $500,000 in federal stimulus money while he was under investigation for his Climategate e-mails. Despite claims that they are watchdogs of the establishment, media outlets such as the Times have ignored the government’s oversized role in directing research. And they have ignored millions in contributions from left-wing foundations — contributions that, like government grants, seek to tip the scales to one side of the debate. Last summer, a minority staff report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works gave details on a “Billionaire’s Club” — a shadowy network of charitable foundations that distribute billions to advance climate alarmism. Shadowy nonprofits such as the Energy Foundation and Tides Foundation distributed billions to far-left green groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, which in turn send staff to the EPA who then direct federal grants back to the same green groups. It is incestuous. It is opaque. Major media ignored the report. Media outlets have also discriminated in their reporting on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The Times trumpeted Greenpeace FOIA requests revealing Soon’s benefactors, yet it has ignored the government’s refusal of FOIA filings requesting transparency in pro-warming scientists’ funding. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, for example, has submitted FOIA requests asking for the sources of outside income of NASA scientist James Hansen (a key ally of Al Gore). The government has stonewalled, according to Ebell. Media reporting further misleads readers in suggesting that “fossil fuel” utilities such as the Southern Company (a $409,000 contributor to Soon’s research, according to the Times) seek only to undermine climate science. In truth, energy companies today invest in solar, biomass, and landfill facilities in addition to carbon fuels. Companies such as Duke Energy, Exelon Corporation, NRG Energy, and Shell have even gone so far as to join with green groups in forming the U.S. Climate Action Partnership — an industry/green coalition that wants to “enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.” This alliance worries a scientific community that is hardly unanimous that warming is a threat. Continued funding of contrarians such as Soon and Lindzen is essential to getting the best scientific research at a time when the EPA wants to shut down America’s most affordable power source, coal — at enormous cost to consumers. The lack of warming for over a decade (witness this winter’s dangerous, record-breaking low temperatures) and Climategate are proof that the establishment has oversold a warming crisis. Attempts by the media to shut up their critics ignore the real threat to science. ― Henry Payne is auto columnist for the Detroit News, an editorial cartoonist with United Feature Syndicate, and a regular contributor to National Review, the Wall Street Journal, and other publications.

Read more at: National Review

 

[jasonnfree]

Libs say stupid stuff just about every time they open their yaps. I was taught about global cooling back in the 70s, it was the consensus of the day. I don't see a quote about Galileo so don't know about that one.

What percentage of scientists believed in global cooling? Learn what consensus means before talking about it.

Science isn't a majority vote, a consensus, or any other such nonsense. That's the error you warmers make talking about how many scientists agree with you. (because they're paid to)

I can understand the oil industry paying scientists to say global warming is not caused by man, but what group on the left has the money to pay scientists to lie? What would be their purpose anyway?

Global Warming: Follow the Money SHARE ARTICLE ON FACEBOOKSHARE TWEET ARTICLETWEET PLUS ONE ARTICLE ON GOOGLE PLUS+1 PRINT ARTICLE EMAIL ARTICLE ADJUST FONT SIZEAA by HENRY PAYNE February 25, 2015 4:00 AM It isn’t the fossil-fuel companies that are polluting climate science. Citing documents uncovered by the radical environmental group Greenpeace, a group of media outlets — including the New York Times and the Boston Globe — have attacked global-warming skeptic Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon for allegedly hiding $1.2 million in contributions from “fossil fuel companies.” The articles were the latest in an ongoing campaign by greens and their media allies to discredit opponents of the warming agenda. But in allying themselves closely with activist groups with which they share ideological goals, reporters have fundamentally misled readers on the facts of global-warming funding. In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.

Read more at: National Review

Officials with the Smithsonian Institution — which employs Dr. Soon — told the Times it appeared the scientist had violated disclosure standards, and they said they would look into the matter. Soon, a Malaysian immigrant, is a widely respected astrophysicist, and his allies came quickly to his defense. “It is a despicable, reprehensible attack on a man of great personal integrity,” says Myron Ebell, the director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who questioned why media organizations were singling out Soon over research funding. Indeed, experts in the research community say that it is much more difficult for some of the top climate scientists — Soon, Roger Pielke Jr., the CATO Institute’s Patrick Michaels, MIT’s now-retired Richard Lindzen — to get funding for their work because they do not embrace the global-warming fearmongering favored by the government-funded climate establishment. “Soon’s integrity in the scientific community shines out,” says Ebell. “He has foregone his own career advancement to advance scientific truth. If he had only mouthed establishment platitudes, he could’ve been named to head a big university [research center] like Michael Mann.” Mann is the controversial director of Pennsylvania State’s Earth System Science Center. He was at the center of the 2009 Climategate scandal, in which e-mails were uncovered from climatologists discussing how to skew scientific evidence and blackball experts who don’t agree with them. Mann is typical of pro-warming scientists who have taken millions from government agencies. The federal government — which will gain unprecedented regulatory power if climate legislation is passed — has funded scientific research to the tune of $32.5 billion since 1989, according the Science and Public Policy Institute. That is an amount that dwarfs research contributions from oil companies and utilities, which have historically funded both sides of the debate. Mann, for example, has received some $6 million, mostly in government grants — according to a study by The American Spectator — including $500,000 in federal stimulus money while he was under investigation for his Climategate e-mails. Despite claims that they are watchdogs of the establishment, media outlets such as the Times have ignored the government’s oversized role in directing research. And they have ignored millions in contributions from left-wing foundations — contributions that, like government grants, seek to tip the scales to one side of the debate. Last summer, a minority staff report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works gave details on a “Billionaire’s Club” — a shadowy network of charitable foundations that distribute billions to advance climate alarmism. Shadowy nonprofits such as the Energy Foundation and Tides Foundation distributed billions to far-left green groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, which in turn send staff to the EPA who then direct federal grants back to the same green groups. It is incestuous. It is opaque. Major media ignored the report. Media outlets have also discriminated in their reporting on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The Times trumpeted Greenpeace FOIA requests revealing Soon’s benefactors, yet it has ignored the government’s refusal of FOIA filings requesting transparency in pro-warming scientists’ funding. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, for example, has submitted FOIA requests asking for the sources of outside income of NASA scientist James Hansen (a key ally of Al Gore). The government has stonewalled, according to Ebell. Media reporting further misleads readers in suggesting that “fossil fuel” utilities such as the Southern Company (a $409,000 contributor to Soon’s research, according to the Times) seek only to undermine climate science. In truth, energy companies today invest in solar, biomass, and landfill facilities in addition to carbon fuels. Companies such as Duke Energy, Exelon Corporation, NRG Energy, and Shell have even gone so far as to join with green groups in forming the U.S. Climate Action Partnership — an industry/green coalition that wants to “enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.” This alliance worries a scientific community that is hardly unanimous that warming is a threat. Continued funding of contrarians such as Soon and Lindzen is essential to getting the best scientific research at a time when the EPA wants to shut down America’s most affordable power source, coal — at enormous cost to consumers. The lack of warming for over a decade (witness this winter’s dangerous, record-breaking low temperatures) and Climategate are proof that the establishment has oversold a warming crisis. Attempts by the media to shut up their critics ignore the real threat to science. ― Henry Payne is auto columnist for the Detroit News, an editorial cartoonist with United Feature Syndicate, and a regular contributor to National Review, the Wall Street Journal, and other publications.

Read more at: National Review

I'll get right over there and read the national review. Wow, can't wait. I guess this makes liars out of most climate scientists. Oh, I see CATO listed above. Now I know you're on the right track because the oil soaked coke brothers would have no reason to fund studies contradicting what most scientists say. Thanks for the link.

 

[jknowgood]

After Obama and all of his gaffes that liberals praised and defended. You really are going to criticize someone else? How shallow.

I like the Obama gaffes (57 states) vs the bush lies, (sadaam has wmd's.). With Obama, hundreds of thousands aren't killed, and it doesn't cost us taxpayers trillions. Anyway, whoever gets the republican nomination will be from the clown brigade. The republican hee haw base wouldn't tolerate anyone normal.

Lol, you are a clown brigade.

 

[jasonnfree]

After Obama and all of his gaffes that liberals praised and defended. You really are going to criticize someone else? How shallow.

I like the Obama gaffes (57 states) vs the bush lies, (sadaam has wmd's.). With Obama, hundreds of thousands aren't killed, and it doesn't cost us taxpayers trillions. Anyway, whoever gets the republican nomination will be from the clown brigade. The republican hee haw base wouldn't tolerate anyone normal.

Lol, you are a clown brigade.

Simple response from a simple mind. Trying to up your posting rate?

 

[jknowgood]

After Obama and all of his gaffes that liberals praised and defended. You really are going to criticize someone else? How shallow.

I like the Obama gaffes (57 states) vs the bush lies, (sadaam has wmd's.). With Obama, hundreds of thousands aren't killed, and it doesn't cost us taxpayers trillions. Anyway, whoever gets the republican nomination will be from the clown brigade. The republican hee haw base wouldn't tolerate anyone normal.

Lol, you are a clown brigade.

Simple response from a simple mind. Trying to up your posting rate?

No, letting you know how insignificant Obama supporters are. You really don't have any credibility left.