Ted Cruz: "Of course" I don't regret voting against

>>172845
He may be a slime bag, but at least he's a slime bag that stands by his decisions.

>>172845
Hypocritical asshole!

>>172845
What does climate change have to do with a flood? Do liberals actually think floods are a new phenomenon caused by fossil fuels?

>>172845
Hypocritic Christians

>>172877
What do you think caused the flood...

>>173076
A hurricane.

>>172846
If he votes against federal funding for Houston, yes.

Somehow I don't think he will.

>>173080
what are the primary factors that contribute to the destructive capacity of severe weather?

>>173097
tell us about how hurricane weren't regularly destroying coastal parts of the world which were exposed to them for the entire human history.

hurricanes have always happened. the burden of proof is on you losers to provide evidence that somehow they're increased over the entire time we've recorded them. not random "we're doing it cause i'm a dipshit who can't into causation and my religion is liberalism"

>>173093
It depends. If you follow the duller parts of American politics youll find that unpopular legislation gets forced through by being paperclipped to a very popular bill. Basically its stuff like emergency relief funds and veterens benefits on the cover but there is a bunch of shit underneath about raising taxes, adding/removing regulations and federal power expansions. If our congress could stop being slimey for 10 minutes and just help someone it would be easier to allocate funds quickly but someone always has to slip in an agenda because very few representatives can withstand "HE DOESNT WANT TO HELP HURRICAN VICTIMS, HE HATES VETERENS, HE HATES FIREFIGHTERS FROM 9/11"

>>173093
Doing so would be political suicide. Let's hope he does.

>>173115
https://www.wunderground.com/education/webster.asp

>>172877

Literally everything weather related is man made global warming to liberals

>recod low temps
Global warming
>record high temp
Global warming
>hurricanes/flooding
Global warming
>Decade without any hurricanes/flooding
Global warming

It really is a religion. It does not use the scientific method and is politically biased to the extreme

>>173175
>800 year flood in Houston
Hmm what could be the cause

>>173175
Global warming is an average increase in global temperature. The increase in energy absorbed by the atmosphere translates into a wide range of phenomena, variously rapid increases in average temperature and levels of precipitation in some places and decreases of the same in others, as well as increases in severity and frequency of extreme weather events. That's all captured by an average increase in temperature of the climate, which is the most direct consequence of greenhouse gas emission.

So every instance of weather is probably be influenced by global warming to some extent, but on average we can expect all weather to change markedly from what we would otherwise have.

>>173182
By itself it won't mean much, but in context of other similarly infrequent weather events coinciding it is remarkable.

>>173182
Getting stalled in one spot for several days. The same thing happened in the same spot 16 years ago, except just a little further inland so it burnt out faster instead of recharging from the gulf.

>>173175
You're actually right. It is currently showing itself as a destabilization, when the polar caps thaw is when shit is going to get crazy. Remember, water vapor is a greenhouse gas, too.

>>173150
You can't possibly expect him to read that can you? Give it to him in 140 characters or less

>>172845
He shouldn't it was filled with tons of pork barrel spending.

>>172872
>>172846
>>173005
It was a toxic bill full of pet projects.

>>173076
weather.

>>173150
>>173309
You do know that hurricanes are at an all time low right? The past decade has seen a downtrend.

But go ahead and scream global warming every time there is weather. It just makes everyone else see how stupid you people are.

>>173196
Warming is natural and not caused by humans.

>>173182
weather?

>>173317
Peer reviewed studies or GTFO.

>>173316
>hurricanes are at an all time low
warmer ocean temperatures don't necessarily make hurricanes more likely, they make them more severe, but for some reason I am not surprised that you didn't know that
there's a summary of the evidence here
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

>>173331
>Believing anything (((they))) write on the internet

>>172845

as long it kills amerifats everyone will be ok with it..

>>172846
"I am not in the habit of endorsing for men who insult my wife and father"
*endorsed Trump anyway*

So much for sticking by his decisions

Why are climate change deniers so smug but at the same time so fucking stupid?

>>173119
Why is this allowed? Every bill should have a clear and singular purpose.

>>173342
>using (((joo parenthesis))) in reference to a publicly accountable science agency
>defending the misinformation spread by corporatists who in large part are actually jewish

Are you on meth or just schizophrenic?

>>173182
>>man-made global warming isn't real
>oh yeah then why is there rain??
this is the liberal equivalent of somebody asking why there are still monkeys if evolution is real

>>173434
Because then congress would become even slower and it would be harder to reach compromise on various items. For example if the house was more even even, a single rider or pork spending add on may be enough to snatch a vote from the opposing side pushing the whole bill through. Without the ability to attach rider the shit is dead in the water.

Everything has its pros and cons.

>>173429
Same reason as anti vaxxers. They think they're not sheeple because they don't understand a mainstream position doesn't automatically mean it's wrong

>>173504

>equating anti vaxxers to people who doubt man's role in climate change and refuse to pay carbon taxes that don't solve any problems

Global warming really is a religion

You even call people non believers

>>173523
Denying science is denying science, I see no real difference. The scientific method is designed to be rigorous and to eliminate false positive. It's okay if you don't understand how data interpretation works, but you need to admit you're wrong and stop standing in the way of people who want to save your planet.

>>173504
They literally only disagree with it because it's a "liberal" point of view to care about the planet apparently.

>>173537
Flat earth and blood letting were science at one point

Global warming does not follow the scientific method

>>173552
>Flat earth and blood letting were science at one point
They predate the scientific method.

>Global warming does not follow the scientific method
Yeah, there's no source for that.

>>173552
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

The myth of the flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages in Europe was that the Earth was flat, instead of spherical.[1][2]

**During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks**. From at least the 14th century, **belief in a flat Earth among the educated was almost nonexistent**, despite fanciful depictions in art, such as the exterior of Hieronymus Bosch's famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights, in which a disc-shaped Earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[3]

>blood letting

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mechanical-leech-sucks-bl/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirudo_medicinalis#Today

You were saying?

>>173554

So you're saying it was at one point believed to be true and they it was changed.

Amazing. It's almost exactly like what I just said

Leeches used to treat a specific illness during research isn't the same as how they were used to treat everything from diseases to colds

Nice false equivalence.

See Mr after clasd

>>172845
Fuck Ted Cruz, if I was in his district I'd vote against him. A fucking embarrassment to this great state like most of the politicians stuck on conservative autoblow.

>>173578
>It's almost exactly like what I just said

Actually, it isn't. The theory of human caused climate change is supported by data. The practice of bloodletting was based on guesswork by rural doctors.

>>173554
Flat earth is a meme, no one actually believes that. Like the flying spaghetti monster

>>173597
>"data"

>>173605
people believe in religion, its not that much of a stretch

>>173609
Yes, data. Information recorded from instruments.

>>173625
this is the same data that had scientists telling us we would be dead in 5 years every year since 1975

oh right

>>173627
Show me an article specifically stating that for every decade since the 70s.

And data doesn't say shit, they're just values put on a graph. However, if I were a scientist projecting the impact of the warming trend, I would tell people about the most severe potential outcome. After all, we're talking about an entire planet's well being. The more people who are inspired to take action the better.

>>173634
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Citations
this nearly covers it

>It's a climate change denial thread

Fuck off.

>>173638
I got two thirds of the way through them and haven't seen a single statement that said we'll "be dead in 5 years" or anything even vaguely like that. Either be more specific, or admit your loss.

>>173313
>>173314
What percentage of pet projects or pork barrel spending was there? You can't say something is there and not cite it

>>173650
thats unfortunate

>>173653
What do you even fucking mean by that? I think you're legitimately too stupid to debate with.

>>173655
i gave you sources and you cant read/find it. what can i do now? ask you to read...again

>>173638
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Citations
That's 266 citations. Pick ten that legitimately imply civilization is over in 5 years and I could understand your viewpoint better, but I'm not gonna dig through all that because you think it might be in there.

>>173656
You didn't give any sources lol, you told someone to do your work for you. Pick a few that you believe support your case and show em

>>173659
>show articles you believe are wrong
okay
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/09/fossil-fuel-infrastructure-climate-change
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/28/world-has-three-years-left-to-stop-dangerous-climate-change-warn-experts
http://time.com/4839039/climate-change-christiana-figueres-g20/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/07/31/we-only-have-a-5-percent-chance-of-avoiding-dangerous-global-warming-a-study-finds/?utm_term=.6dd181ac6be6

yadda yadda yadda.believe it or, these things didnt happen

>>173660
Well I'm glad you learned how to google, but none of these came from your supposed list of citations from the earlier global warming wiki.

Furthermore, four of your new citations are from 2017, with the fifth from 2011, so not exactly dating back into the 1970's. Seeing as we aren't five years away from THIS YEAR, it's kind of hard to judge whether these articles are correct or not, although everyone is entitled to their own opinion

>>173523
>equating anti-vaxxers to people who think the sky wizard controls the temperature
yes
>hard science backed up by data really is a religion
no
>You even call people non believers
you don't believe in reality

jesus fucking christ I wish you animals would attempt to read about a subject before you try talking about it

>>173660
None of these prove your point.

>>172845
The bill Ted Cruz voted against contained:

>$150 million for fishery disaster areas in Mississippi and Alaska
>$20,000 for a new car for the Inspector General of the Justice Department
>$10.8 billion for the Federal Transportation Administration; and cancellation of loans related to Hurricane Katrina
>$4 million for repairs at the Kennedy Space Center
>$3.3 million for the Plum Island Animal Disease Center
>$150 million for fisheries in Alaska damaged by a 2011 Japanese tsunami, which littered debris on Alaska’s shoreline
>$2 million to fix an (apparently quite expensive) roof at the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, D.C.
>$13 billion for future flood preparations (that is, money that was not spent on victims of Sandy but on preventing future, Sandy-scale disasters from occurring)
>$58.8 million for forest restoration on private land
>$197 million “to … protect coastal ecosystems and habitat impacted by Hurricane Sandy”
>$10.78 billion for public transportation, most of which is allocated to future construction and improvements, not disaster relief
>$17 billion for wasteful Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), a program that has become notorious for its use as a backdoor earmark program.

But le evil republican doesn't care about poor people!

Luckily the dumb fuck science deniers are a minority and are going to get dragged into a reduced-emissions future whether they like it or not.

>>173906
Pretty sure the fishery and coastal stuff on that list would have been protecting the livelihoods common folk.

I wonder how many times lyin' Ted manage to prevent the spending that could've been fixing your broken country.

>>173906

So much of that just pisses me off so much

It's just obvious that the majority of that is just bullshit slush fund money

When will you faggots get it through your thick skulls?

Fossil Fuels doe NOT cause Global Warming.

It doesn't create hurricanes, it doesn't create floods, it doesn't create wildfires, and it doesn't create drought.

It creates efficient reliable energy; nothing more, nothing less.

>>173940
>ExxonMobil has deposited $0.02 into your account.

>>173940
They're talking shit about you over here, Mikhail.

>>173630

>>173940
Feel free to back up your claims with evidence whenever you like, there's rather a lot of evidence that contradicts you

>>173005
>Christians

You misspelled "protestants".

>>173906
>$3.3 million for the Plum Island Animal Disease Center.
And dammit, we need that money to produce more Montauk Monsters! If they go extinct, we'll be overrun by Dover Demons, Mothmen and Globsters. MMs are those creatures' only surviving natural predators in the wild.

Pending approved FEMA claims for Hurricane Sandy should be paid before newer claims are paid.

also, as Cruz is playing political games, it would be very good to have a congressional inquiry about his claims that Sandy relief legislation was full of pork, so Congress can go over both Sandy and Harvey's budget, line by line. This should happen in 2018, a few months before the mid-term election.

>>173947
>>173942
>>174047
How about you back up your claims they do? So far its just debunked alarmist nonsense.

>>173947
>>173942
only paid shills are leftists. The election exposed that.

>>174578
>>174580
ebin
>debunked
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
hurricanes will probably be getting worse, whether or not it's already happening is up for debate, but that doesn't change the fact that the time to act is today

>>173150
>https://www.wunderground.com/education/webster.asp

Earth's temperatures go through downtrends and upswings. We are on an upswing. Yes, warmer water makes for a rougher storm. However, the burden on you is still to prove that human activity has accelerated the process significantly faster than one would otherwise expect. This has yet to be definitively proven.

>>176536
>burden of proof
this old argument, feel free to wade through the reams of evidence, or read this summary here
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
normally the burden of proof rests upon the one making the extraordinarily claim, so you can go ahead and prove your extraordinary claim that you think all this evidence is bunk

>>172845
>but since I'm running for president
wtf is that picture trying to say? Election's over, Ted won't primary Trump, and he's doing this because he's in Texas. He still wouldn't give a fuck about the other 49 states

The endless bickering between fossil shills and climate alarmists continues.

>>173076

You're right. Before the Industrial Revolution, hurricanes didn't exist.

>>176897
Read the thread

>>176781
Until you invent cold fusion it's not going to stop

>>176781
just because there are two sides that disagree doesn't mean the right answer is somewhere in between.

>>172846
If you make shitty decisions, being incapable of realising you made shitty decisions is not more desirable than changing your mind

>>176781
le radical centrists appears!

I agree with you tho

>>176958
So who should we be pissed at? The people who attached pork spending to the bill rather than let a clean bill pass. Or Ted for trying to strike the pork filled bill down?

In politics, no side is 100% clean.

>>173434
It doesn't and how would you define legislators to define clear and single purpose. If you are actually interested watch how the debt ceiling increase debate and subsequent bill gets railed down with several other completely different bills