Image 01 Image 03

Ted Cruz: Climate Change isn’t Science, it’s Religion

Ted Cruz: Climate Change isn’t Science, it’s Religion

Denial is a form of heresy.

Ted Cruz recently spoke to Glenn Beck about climate change as a political issue and suggested it’s not science but religion. He makes an interesting case. Cruz points to the language around the issue, specifically the use of the term “denier.”

CNS News has the transcript:

Ted Cruz: ‘Climate Change Is Not Science — It’s Religion’

“Just a couple weeks ago in the Senate I chaired a hearing where the president of the Sierra Club testified,” said Senator Cruz in an Oct. 28 interview on The Blaze TV. “We had an exchange, where I simply asked him about the data.”

“He [Mair] simply couldn’t answer the most basic question, starting with the fact — he couldn’t answer the most basic fact that for the last 18 years the satellite data show no significant warming whatsoever,” said Cruz.

“He had no idea about that,” said Cruz. “He turned to his aides every minute or two.”

“You know, part of the reason he didn’t know the facts?” said Cruz. “Because climate change is not science — it’s religion.”

“Look at the language where they call you a denier,” said the senator. “Denier is not the language of science.”

Look, I’m the child of two scientists,” he said. “My parents are both mathematicians, computer programmers. My dad was a self-taught geophysicist. The essence of the scientific method is to start with a hypothesis and then look to evidence to disprove the hypothesis. You’re not trying to prove it. You’re trying to disprove it.”

“Any good scientist is a skeptic,” said the senator. “If he’s not, he or she should not be a scientist. But yet the language of the global warming alarmists, ‘denier’ is the language of religion. It’s heretic. You are a blasphemer.”

Here’s the video:

A report published by the Christian Science Monitor yesterday seems to confirm Cruz’s point.

Why climate change unites Buddhists around the world

The interactions between environmental issues and faith are evolving, as religious leaders weigh in to guide actions of the faithful on climate change.

Buddhist leaders expressed support and lofty expectations for the Paris climate talks at the end of November in a document they call “Global Buddhist Climate Change Collective,” released Thursday.

“We are at a crucial crossroads where our survival and that of other species is at stake as a result of our actions,” leaders wrote in the statement. “There is still time to slow the pace of climate change and limit its impacts, but to do so, the Paris summit will need to put us on a path to phase out fossil fuels.”

Featured image via MRCTV video.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


They should be calling us infidels.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | October 31, 2015 at 6:41 pm

>> “If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday…”<< – Michael Crichton

    Crichton was a major influence in shaping my thought on AGW. He was one of the true intellects of recent times and a heck of an entertaining author.

    Oddly enough, Marxism has exactly the same structure.

    Not Judæo-Christian, just Christian. Judaism knows nothing of this idea that man is fallen, and born a sinner. Jews say every morning, “My Lord, the soul that you put in me is pure”. Adam and Eve’s sin affected only the physical world, not the soul. Because of their sin we are born into a world of sickness, death, and scarcity, but the only sins for which we will be brought to account are those we personally have chosen to commit.

      Juba Doobai! in reply to Milhouse. | November 1, 2015 at 7:33 am

      Nonsense. Fallen man is not a Christian invention. It belongs to the TNK. Adam and Eve are cast out of Eden because their sin was a fall from God’s grace. Fallen man is sinful man, which is why we are promised a Redeemer. The whole point of the sacrificial system was blood covering or redemption.

      You know Judaism the same way you know Islam. Not at all.

        Milhouse in reply to Juba Doobai!. | November 1, 2015 at 11:22 pm

        Stop talking about a subject you know nothing at all about. You’re right that fallen man is not a Xian invention; you copied it from the pagans who are your true forebears. That fraud Paul was never a student of Rabban Gamliel, or from the tribe of Binyamin; he was the child of ignorant half-converts from paganism, and reinvented Xianity based on the pagan ideas he grew up with.

        Adam and Eve “fell” from a world of physical comfort to one of struggle, scarcity, and mortality. That is all.

        There is nothing at all in the Tanach about a “Redeemer” in the Xian sense, to bring fallen man back into God’s grace. The only function of the Annointed King of whom the prophets spoke is to rebuild the temple, return the exiles, and establish a kingdom that follows God’s law. He is expected to be an ordinary human, who will live, marry and have children, die, and be succeeded by his son, just like anyone else. The “Redeemer” of Xian mythology is nowhere to be found in any of the prophets.

        And the purpose of the sacrificial system is to bring the physical world to holiness. That is why the Annointed King will restore it, on the exact site where it was before, that God chose. Most sacrifices are not atonement for sin; those that are, atone for those sins that the individual who brings them committed, not for some general “fallenness” of man.

          gibbie in reply to Milhouse. | November 2, 2015 at 10:54 am

          Milhouse has the same level of contempt for Christianity that he has for some of his fellow commenters.

          Pray for him.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | November 2, 2015 at 6:59 pm

          Judaism holds Xianity in contempt. I usually keep quiet about it, but when a foolish Xian purports to declare what Judaism teaches, there’s no help for it. Judaism considers Xianity to be idolatry, while Islam is merely foolish but not idolatrous.

    In this warped paradise, Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin are Adam and Eve.

    My favorite Michael Crichton perception:

    “You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There’s been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multi-cellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away — all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. . .”

Cruz is 100% spot on with this! Anyone who understands science knows you don’t prove or disprove a hypothesis based on opinion polls. (Especially bogus ones.)

“But Senator, 97% of the Royal Society says that Piltdown Man is real! What more proof do you need?”

Henry Hawkins | October 31, 2015 at 7:14 pm

Michael Crichton on scientific ‘consensus’:

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

    I once took a psychology class that started with a unit on scientific method. The textbook actually listed consensus as one of the steps in the method.

    It was very discouraging.

      Valerie in reply to irv. | October 31, 2015 at 11:06 pm

      Funny. My texts were for Chemistry, Physics and Biology. Not one of them mentioned “consensus” as having anything at all to do with the scientific method, except as something that gets overturned with discouraging regularity.

    Re “consensus” scientism and truth and the modern “Progressive” philosopher:

    “Truth is what your contemporaries let you get away with.” -Richard M. Rorty

Think about “Climate Change.” Nothing could be more vague. What are the bright lines around “climate?” What does “change” mean? What changes? From what to what?

But, whatever it is that changes from something to something, we need to implement totalitarianism yesterday.

Global cooling –> Global warming –> Climate change

I remember them all. They still draw flies.

That air Cruz feller is a deep-to-the-bone Conservative.

He’s whip smart and displays a LOT of integrity, too!

He’ll make a GREAT POTUS!

Anthropogenic global warming is a hoax. The numbers have never scanned, and anybody with the slightest acquaintance with experimental statistics knows this.

First, they tried to find deep meaning in experimental noise, then the dog ate their data. None of their experimental models worked, we are now in a twenty-year pause, and the latest thing is that Nasa is busy ADDING DATA POINTS to suit themselves (and get higher numbers).

Call it what you will, it is not science.

NASA needs a fraudectomy.

    Valerie in reply to Valerie. | October 31, 2015 at 11:00 pm

    Oh, yeah. The World’s Most Devastatingly Powerful Hurricane, a product of global warming™
    made landfall in Mexico a few days ago, its major effect being introduction of a new idiom to American readers.

      rabidfox in reply to Valerie. | October 31, 2015 at 11:09 pm

      Valeria, it did manage to kill a few people, but mostly it was a study in the importance of LOCATION of landfall rather than strength of hurricane. It was a major hurricane when it made landfall vs. Sandy that was just a stiff gale. But because Sandy did a lot more damage because it hit a highly developed area it is called a Super Storm and is trotted out as an example of global warming, rather than poor civic planning that it is.

CAGW is not a religion. It’s not a moral philosophy.

CAGW is a cult. It is a quasi-religion with a notably material orientation.

It’s a sect of the pro-choice cult.

Liberal media are the messengers of Socialist Propaganda.

Global Warming is a socialist money scamming hoax.

Do not be afraid to stand up and say: do not believe the Liberal Media.
They are lying.

A disturbing number of the “believers” also want an inquisition. They jumped to torture, imprisonment, confiscation, and banishment or conversion at a disturbing pace. Next will be burning. I find them disgusting and monstrous.
“Citing confidentiality concerns and the integrity of the scientific process, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said it won’t give Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) the research documents he subpoenaed.”
Releasing what he requested would SHOW integrity. There is NO confidentiality with emails, memos and such involving anything that the TAXPAYER funded.

The Antarctic Ice sheet continues to GAIN mass.

The Earth is a big place. You absolutely cannot make an observation in one place and generalize to the whole planet, or event to a whole continent.

If “Global Warming” wasn’t a scam, they never would have changed the name to “Climate Change”.

Henry Hawkins | November 1, 2015 at 8:04 pm

What dooms AGW scientifically is that its models are not matched by real world observations, it makes no testable hypotheses, and replication is found only where cheating is also found.

When a purportedly scientific theory depends more on fallacious arguments than empirical evidence, you know it’s bullshit: slippery slope arguments, appeals to emotion, appeals to authority, ad hominem against opponents… read through the linked list of logical fallacies and you’ll recognize an AGW argument for each:

In fact, know these fallacies and how to recognize them in real world usage and your life will become easier – they are commonly used by politicians, business marketers, politicians, community organizers, politicians, and many more.

    I’m still waiting for a single warmista to tell me what the optimum temperature is for the Earth, and how that figure was calculated……

    Crickets. Who knew how loud they are?

The models they use are phony, phony, phony! And then look at the wide spread fraud from the so called scientific community.

This is not being done through the science it’s done through the Saul Alinski method. Destroy and demonize any one who dares to disagree!