With candidates emerging for the 2016 Presidential election, the politics of science is coming to the forefront. As word leaked out that Senator Ted Cruz was going to announce his presidential campaign, opponents quickly launched a campaign of personal attacks, labeling him anti-science.

So what exactly did he say that was so offensive? Did he promise to banish science class from all schools and universities? Did he promise to reprioritize NASA and turn it into a Muslim outreach- like President Obama? Did he suggest that we should bury all cars and ban them from cities like Al Gore? Is he calling for the end of nuclear energy or banning GMOs? Is he confused about the difference between men and women, or does he not know when life begins like so many prominent Democrats?

No, he simply disagrees with one of the sacred cows of politics. Senator Cruz doesn’t buy into the global warming alarmism, and for that sin he’s labeled “anti-science”.

One writer- Allen Clifton, co-founder of Forward Progressives, claimed that Cruz looked foolish after the NASA chief, Charles Bolden, had to explain basic science to him. The writer went on to smear Cruz, claiming that he proudly showed off the fact that he knows absolutely nothing about science, is scientifically challenged, ignorant, an idiot and a fool. Lovely.

It’s no wonder the United States is so polarized. It’s the, “If you don’t agree with me and give me my way, then I’m going to destroy you!” mentality. Where’s the tolerance?

I watched the actual recording of the hearing with NASA, but I didn’t see the bumbling fool this critic portrayed Cruz as; what I saw was a Senator doing his job. While Cruz isn’t a scientist (both his parents are), at least he understands the core mission of NASA. He, like most Americans, consider that NASA is in the business of space exploration. And according to Allen Clifton, that makes you anti-science and worthy of being insulted.

Senator Cruz simply questioned NASA’s budget, pointing out that the earth science division had a 41% increase, while space exploration- the area he believes is its core mission- dropped 7.6%. Cruz questioned if it was appropriate for NASA to shift its resources away from one of its core functions, and Bolden defended the budget. There was no drama. Bolden explained that the budget reduction in space exploration is a result of trying to reduce launch costs and contracting out launch bids to other companies, such as SpaceX. He also defended NASA’s increased budget into earth sciences because he believes it’s critical to understand our planet. Nowhere did Cruz say anything anti-science, ignorant, foolish or idiotic. That’s completely in the imagination of the writer of this hit-piece. The writer purposely intended to demonize Cruz by twisting his words. The writer accused Cruz of claiming that NASA should only focus on space exploration, but Cruz never made that claim… he simply questioned the allocation of resources. How is it anti-science to suggest that space exploration be increased, or that the earth sciences could survive with a reduction? I’d bet that if Hillary Clinton wanted a 5% increase in space exploration this writer would hale her as pro-science and a voice of reason!

This hearing aside, I agree with Cruz’s stance on climate change, and I consider him a pro-science candidate. He serves on the Senate’s science committee, and he’s one of the most formidable debaters in congress who doesn’t need a teleprompter. He graduated with honors from Princeton University and with high honors from Harvard Laws School. So we clearly have a well-educated, intelligent man.

I’m also happy to say that Senator Cruz fought back, responding to his critics: “If you look at global warming alarmists, they don’t like to look at the actual facts and the data. The satellite data demonstrate that there has been no significant warming whatsoever for 17 years. Now, that’s a real problem for the global warming alarmists, ’cause all of the computer models on which this whole issue was based predicted significant warming, and yet the satellite data show it ain’t happening.”

Amen! Cruz actually gets it. The alarmist predictions have failed, and that’s how real science operates. It’s the predictive power of science that drives it, and if the predictions fail, then the theory is falsified. But, as Cruz pointed out, the alarmists don’t care if their beliefs have been falsified; that’s why they must resort to name-calling and personal attacks. Cruz is exactly right. In science, a theory doesn’t win by name-calling. It’s supported because of the data. But if it does become established scientific theory based on heavy-handed personal attacks, then that’s politics- not science. And that’s another reason why climate change should be rejected. Science isn’t up for a vote. Consensus in science has nothing to do with truth. When global cooling was the consensus, the alarmists were wrong. And when global warming was the consensus, the alarmists were wrong again. And that’s why it’s now called “climate change”- because now, no matter what happens, they can claim victory. But it’s not real science.

On a side note, I came across this article from Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore explaining why he’s a climate change skeptic, and it includes one of his video presentations. Moore was a fanatical environmentalist with Greenpeace, but when they strayed from the truth, he left.

Now he provides powerful testimony, confirming what we already know about global warming alarmists. He agrees that there hasn’t been any significant global warming for over 17 years, but even if the earth were warming, that would be good for the planet. Historically speaking, he points out that it was much warmer during Roman times, and it was warm enough for the Vikings to colonize Greenland and Newfoundland.

He explains that the reason why there are so many alarmists is mainly due to politics and conflicts of interest. For example the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only exists to consider the human causes of global warming, but not the natural causes. Politicians find it easy to prey on victims by invoking fear and guilt, while appearing to be the savior. There’s a staggering amount of wealth to be collected world-wide, and that can be used for redistribution. The media benefits from the conflict, scientists benefit from grants, and businesses benefit from subsidies- as well as profiting from customers who want to save the environment by purchasing “green” products.

Moore points out something that should be obvious to any educated person- namely that carbon dioxide is necessary for life and isn’t a pollutant. If the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dropped below 150 parts per million, all plants would die. Today we’re at 400 parts per million, which is better than what it was during the Industrial Revolution. But the optimal level is about 1,500 parts per million, so we’re still a ways from the optimal amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. He’s right when he says that “Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it.” And my favorite quote is, “Let’s celebrate carbon dioxide,” because it’s a positive factor in feeding the world.

But I would add that God created the earth for man, and he created it to sustain man. Many of us are familiar with the fine-tuning of the earth; the earth is optimal for the existence of mankind- the size of our planet, distance from the sun, atmosphere, the existence of other planets, the moon, etc. Therefore there’s no reason for alarm or panic. And we need to make sure more politicians are aware.