Comments 1 to 13:

1. uncletimrob at 10:59 AM on 23 April, 2016

   That is a deeply disturbing video!

   3 0
2. Digby Scorgie at 11:31 AM on 23 April, 2016

   One recoils in horror at the monstrous evil of these powerful deniers speaking calumnies in soft emotionless tones.

   1 0
3. RickG at 21:50 PM on 23 April, 2016

   The 7:23 mark in the video is just amazing; a congressman telling the NOAA Administrator that he doesn't need their weather satellites, he has the Weather Channel.

   1 0
4. donl70 at 00:01 AM on 24 April, 2016

   Deniers! you've got to love them!..but then I deny gods exist..their problem is that they don't and follow that line of thinking against scientists..I know Global warming is here and I'm just an old retired college Fine Arts teacher..,thing is I used to think you needed at least a 100point IQ to be a Senator..guess I was wrong...in about 20 years more or less Texas will be a smaller state,wonder what they'll say caused that?!..the saying"you just can't fix stupid' applies here very much....btw PS;I have chronic asthma,take all kinds of meds even was on oxy.for awhile there..It's getting worse!,,and what's even worse..there are more people mostly adults becomming asthmatic..due to what?oh hell I don't know!...The Weather channel..hahahaha!,he doesn't need NOAA...

   0 0
5. John Hartz at 00:44 AM on 24 April, 2016

   Recommended supplemental raeading:

   Interview: UN members fear U.S. 'sabotage' of Obama's climate commitments by Louis Charbonneau, Reuters, Apr 20, 2016

   0 0
6. Tom Curtis at 00:46 AM on 24 April, 2016

   RickG @3, I think the whole section from 7:10 onwards, where Ted Cruz argues NASA shouldn't fund weather satellites because the core function of the National Aeronautical and Space Administration is to study space (and apparently space only).  Had NASA been only the NSA, perhaps he would have a point.  But as it happens, the NASA act states:

   "(c) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall
   be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the
   following objectives:
   (1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the
   atmosphere and space"

   (My emphasis).

   As it happens, climate is a "phenomena in the atmosphere".

   Cruz's argument, therefore, depends on a fundamental misrepresentation of the purpose of NASA, based on an abysmal ignorance of (or pretended ignorance of) NASA's enabling legislation.  That Cruz's ignorance of legislation is as abyssmal as his ignorance of science should be no surprise.  It raises the question as to whether he has basic knowledge in any field relevant to his role as a legislator.

   2 0
7. One Planet Only Forever at 02:26 AM on 24 April, 2016

   Tom Curtis @ 6,

   I do not extend the likes of Ted Cruz or George W. Bush any courtesy of doubt about their intelligence, awareness or understanding.

   They are highly educated individuals with full access to substantial amounts of information. I am almost certain that they deliberately do what they do with full awareness and understanding of the unacceptability of what they hope to get away with.

   The fact that they can rally popular support for understandably unacceptable attitudes and actions (like already fortunate people continuing to benefit from the burning of fossil fuels), is a serious problem, that creates serious problems that can be made bigger for as long as the likes of them can get away with.

   1 0
8. chriskoz at 18:54 PM on 24 April, 2016

   
   One Planet@7,

   Tom's take on Ted Cruz is more damaging to Cruz' reputation than yours is. It is just beyond believe that a guy who so utterly ashamed himself can still be a presidential hopeful. Advertise this nonsense he's just said far and wide to the american public and his chances in this election  should drop to zero.

   Sadly, voters rarely consider candidate's intelligence and integrity as main criteria. Popularity, fuelled by lobbying and advertising by a party, is the main criterion. Less intelligent guy is even better, because he would more likely be a puppet president, complacent to the party caucus. That's why we have candidates such as Cruz & Trump on top of Rep endorsement.

   0 0
9. One Planet Only Forever at 00:48 AM on 25 April, 2016

   chriskoz@8,

   I agree that exposing the absurdity of Cruz presented by Tom would be damaging in the mind of a person who values integrity and honesty and the advancement of humanity to a lasting better future for all. However, the portion of the population that the likes of Cruz succeed in appealing to clearly value impressions. And they are likely to like impressions that they think legitimately support the views they prefer to believe. That would lead them to accept anything that discredits or dismisses information that contradicts what they prefer to believe (probably claiming it is a deliberate deception created by someone trying to take wealth and opportunity away from them).

   I consider it very dangerous to presume that the likes of Cruz , Trump or G.W. Bush are unintelligent or gullible. In fact thta type of claim would be able to be used to justify dismissing a criticism of Cruz of Trump because there would be plenty of evidence that they are not unintelligent or uninformed. It is almost beyond a doubt that they are highly intelligent and well informed and fully understand the ability to drum up undeserved popular support for attitudes and actions that are impediments to the advancement of global humanity to a lasting better future for all by creating and disseminating deliberate misrepresentations of things what they are aware of.

   The potential popularity of the desire to personally benefit in ways that can clearly be understood to only temporarily boost the perceptions of prosperity of a portion of humanity (to the detriment of others, particularly to the detriment of future generations), leads many intelligent people to misuse their talents for personal gain (like trying to present an economic financial case justifying the imposition of costs on future generations by declaring that it is OK to create problems for others if you think you would lose opportunity for personal benefit if you did not continue to get away with creating problems others would have to deal with).

   1 0
10. william5331 at 05:23 AM on 27 April, 2016

    I seem to remember reading somewhere that a lot of Texas is pretty close to sea level.  What beautiful just irony.  Should be fun to watch them continue in this vein as the water lapps around their ankles.

    0 0
11. RedBaron at 23:27 PM on 27 April, 2016

    @ william,

     Not fun at all. Not only will it cost astonomical amounts of damages, untold human suffering, massive ecosystem destruction, etc...; it fundamentally highlights the failure of scientists to form an effective coalition with conservatives to propose mitigation strategies acceptable to them.

    Too often I hear heavy criticism and disdane for the denialists. I do it myself, but I also offer alternatives acceptable to conservative thinking.

    But ultimately until you come up with an acceptable mitigation strategy that isn't anathema to everything conservatives hold dear, AND communicate that, then denialism will continue. It has to, because in conservatives eyes the only alternatives offered are suffer, or suffer. If that's all the choices they see, then many will prefer the only way out which is deny this unwritten future will happen. It's your failure to communicate. Always remember that.

    Comments like how "beautiful the irony" would be to watch the suffering just so you could gleefully proclaim "I told you so" while you waggle your tongue is not helping.

    0 0
12. Digby Scorgie at 11:08 AM on 28 April, 2016

    #11  RedBaron

    I was under the impression that people have been doing their damndest to communicate "acceptable mitigation strategies" to conservatives, but the conservatives are simply having none of it.  In the face of such intransigence it's natural to become cynical.  When the climate chickens come home to roost, one could derive satisfaction from watching the conservatives burn in the hell of their own devising.  The only problem is that the rest of us will burn too.  Damn!  I knew there was a catch somewhere!

    0 0
13. bozzza at 18:10 PM on 28 April, 2016

    @ Red Baron,

    It's not up to scientists to form a coalition! Where is the method in that? 

    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.