Ted Cruz Looks Foolish After NASA Chief Has to Explain Basic Science During Hearing (Video)

ted-cruz-nasa-hearingIn case you haven’t heard, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is the chairman for the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness. Yes, a man who doesn’t believe in science or climate change and whose own father has called evolution a “communist ploy” chairs a subcommittee focused on science.

During a hearing concerning NASA’s funding, Cruz seemed to proudly show off the fact that he knows absolutely nothing about science or what NASA really does. When NASA Administrator Charles Bolden tried to emphasize why NASA is so vital to studying climate change, the scientifically challenged senator from Texas was having none of it – so Bolden was forced to make Cruz look like an absolute fool (not a hard task, I know).

“We can’t go anywhere if the Kennedy Space Center goes underwater and we don’t know it, and that’s understanding our environment,” Bolden said. “It is absolutely critical that we understand Earth’s environment because this is the only place we have to live.”

That’s when Cruz showed off his total ignorance about science and what NASA really does.

“I would suggest that almost any American would agree that the core function of NASA is to explore space,” Cruz said. “That’s what inspires little boys and little girls across this country. It’s what sets NASA apart from any agency in the country.”

Yes, Cruz really tried to counter the claim by an expert at NASA that climate change must be studied so that we can better understand our planet, by saying that space should be NASA’s primary focus because “that’s what inspires little boys and little girls.”

That’s just… idiotic.

What NASA does goes far beyond just space exploration. It is as vital for them to understand and study our own planet just as much as it is for them to study what lies outside of it. To claim that NASA should just focus on exploring space is completely ridiculous.

“The fact that earth science funding has increased, I’m proud to say, has enabled us to understand our planet far better than we ever did before,” Bolden added. “It’s absolutely critical.”

Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) also took shots at Cruz’s ignorance by pointing out just how absurd it is to say that the funding for NASA should be based on science while the Texas senator continued to doubt the words of a leading scientific expert at NASA. 

“The chairman has mentioned that he wants science to drive the process here,” Peters said. “Here we have leading experts in our country on science saying that the cuts that we saw in earth sciences were disastrous in the Bush era.”

But as most of us know, science has nothing to do with this. Hell, many Republicans don’t even believe in science. There are quite a few members of the GOP who have openly said they believe God controls the weather and that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. And let’s not forget that just a few weeks ago a Republican senator tried using a snowball he gathered outside as “proof” that climate change is a hoax.

It really is a sad day in this country when we have people who don’t believe in science chairing important committees focused on science.

Watch the exchange below:

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • GenerallyConfused

    I highly doubt that even if someone presented pure, scientific physical evidence to Cruz, he’d realise that it was true. Purely ludicrous and downright dangerous to permit someone who allows his ignorance of how the science works head a committee of science.

    • robingee

      And as much of a joke as these people are, we can’t seem to GET RID OF THEM because enough Americans believe what they say. It’s reached a cartoonish level of insane ignorance at this point. Cruz could say that Marvin the Martian is vital to the mission of NASA and be completely serious about it.

      (BTW I would rather have Marvin the Martian in charge than Cruz.)

      • GenerallyConfused

        At least he’d always lose is Pew32 explosive space modulator.

      • Chicken Scratch

        Yeah, and Marvin the Martian is a beast.

    • Randy

      Because after all, someone calling themselves GenerallyConfused is so intelligent.

      • GenerallyConfused

        Being confused about goings on does not equate to being unintelligent.

        I will ask you to negate any of the assertions I posted above, instead of picking a single detail such as a chosen name. One could point out that it behooves any person who has even a small iota of knowledge on how the internet functions to not put their own personal information on any website as that can – and has – caused a great number of disruptions of personal social media sites like Facebook. Hence the need for choosing a title or name that does not disclose said identity, one would feel constrained to use an appellation different from the moniker one uses regularly.

        That being said, have a wonderful life and may you receive all the happiness you deserve.

    • Matt

      Cruz is proud of the fact he doesn’t know sh*t about science, and is openly hostile towards it.

  • MjrMissConduct

    The problem with these committees is that they are like High School Yearbook class, you just volunteer even though you don’t have anything to offer.

  • BlkInMass

    Authentic AssHatt Racist Loser!
    Go back to either Canada or Cuba!

  • D Lemon

    Rafael is an embarrassment

  • major jones

    Ted Cruz is just plain stupid. He forgets he is talking to a person who can critically think and some 5th grade reading tea party person. He can’t handle facts

  • TJones

    So Cruz is saying NASA is spending too much on Earth Science. Of course he would say that because he doesn’t believe in climate change and doesn’t want NASA to collect the hard data that (we already know) proves that we are crapping in our only nest and contradicting his hallucinatory “opinion”. As I once saw in a Dilbert cartoon “ignorance is not an opinion”.

  • Kenneth Kozak

    Most of the negative replys are not going to help in this discussion. The title of the article is misleading and the writer should present an accurate picture when coming up with the title… What Mr. Cruz (whom I am no fan of), said was basically very realistic. I challenge anyone reading this drivel, ask five of your friends what NASA does …what NASA is responsible for… do you think any one of them will say.. “Studying climate change” …if you do, your as messed up as the title of the article.

    • I agree, I was planning on stopping here just long enough to say something to the effect of the article title should have said something about the fact that this has nothing to do about science and everything to do about budget.

      Yes there was a bit of dressing down in regards to if Florida goes under water we will have nowhere to launch from but that is no where near the immensity of the title of this article.

  • Devin D.

    I’m conservative, and could utterly obliterate ANY OF YOU in a scientific argument. I’ll make my points short.

    1. NASA falsified claim to get funding.

    2. We can’t determine cause of global warming (both prehistoric, and law of entropy).

    3. You make it far worse than it actually.

    4. Humans need natural gas to sustain growth.

    5. Alternative sources are no in any form effective.

    Challenge me, I dare you.

    • MorganLvr

      Most of your points are rather difficult to answer specifically because they are unclear. Like “Humans need natural gas to sustain growth.” Growth of what?

      “Alternative sources are no in any form effective.” That’s just flat out wrong. If we spent HALF as much developing alternative sources as we do on toxic tar sands and fracking – both of which are VERY expensive – we would be great.

      As far as bringing up entropy – I WISH you ignoramuses would read the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics before you use it. It states that over time entropy must increase in a CLOSED system. Which the earth and the Universe are NOT. I’m not sure why you think entropy has anything to do with climate change, but it doesn’t any more than it does with evolution. Also, I don’t understand your use of prehistoric. There are many ways to precisely determine ancient climates, so your point is…?

      You DO realize that none of your “arguments” are even close to being scientific,

      I await your answer.

      • Devin D.

        Are you really stating the universe is not a closed system? You should probably let all of the theoretical physicists and astrophysicist they are wrong. Below is a scholarly source that utterly disproves your claim. So yea, the second law of thermodynamics is extremely relevant. The fact that you claim the earth to be separate from the universe, and the universe to be on its own accord is humorous. Unless you want to tell me the scientific community is wrong, and you are right. Ha!

        Oil fracking is the sole reason for your gas prices dropping so low, and domestic production to surpass our importation of oil. I am a Petroleum Engineer major, and multiple professors (reservoir, well characteristics, advanced phase shifting) have claimed the exact same thing. It may be expensive, but you wouldn’t understand the first thing when it comes to energy; I’ll try to explain it anyways.
        When it comes to energy, the energy states of electrons shifting lower is the cause of energy; it’s called photon exchange/release/etc… The photon allows for far more complex structures and bonds to form amongst atomic molecules. I wont even bother to give you compound structures, but I’ll go ahead and put it in terms you can understand.
        Natural gas/petroleum (prehistoric remains Sir) has a unique structure in that the broken bonds result in a far greater energy production. In other words, natural gases/petroleum have more bang for their buck. It makes sense seeing as they have had hundreds of thousands of millions of years to form (under high pressure and heat). It has many bonds, therefore yields a greater result (not in all cases). This is my radio-active elements are often manipulated in factories. The elements/chemicals that are manipulated are very high on the atomic table, hence more electron bonds to dissipate the energy. As you and I know, these are not safe, which brings me to my next point.
        Attempting to utilize any other element/chemical compound has (so far) found that fossil fuels bi-products aren’t so bad. The bi-products of some of these horrendous chemicals often yield highly toxic, radioactive, or poisonous chemical. To make matters worse, the energy wavelength can also play extremely harmful effects to humans…
        We are not in any position to even attempt to alter some of the extremely harmful chemicals for energy (generally due to high covalent/ionic/etc.. bonds); which renders the use of other elements and compounds with lower energy levels… obsolete. It would require a massive amount of the chemical/ in question, and would be extremely inefficient. With the required amount of energy to fuel the world, it would more than likely deplete the chemical in less than 10 years.
        Fossil fuels are a dominate source of energy in our society. It fuels many vital technological researches, and your car when you try to start it in the morning. It is not cheap, but the idea I’m certain you would advocate for (solar and wind power) is far more expensive than fossil fuels. Do you have ANY idea of how much money it costs to build either of these (not to mention maintenance)? Also, the fact it is highly determinate on the weather… Are you starting to get the idea? I’m not saying we should not begin seeking another source of energy, but we simply don’t have the resources to halt the use of these critical oils beneath the earths crust.
        Don’t try talking about the universe to me; I know far more about it than you ever will. Thermodynamics is my second language with rhetoric being my first. I hope you have enjoyed getting absolutely obliterated; have a wonderful evening.
        Devin D

      • Lucid life

        I think you try to convince yourself you are smart, because your language is often off point and sounds like an 8th grader trying to be a know it all, meanwhile the adults chuckle at your arrogance and naivety. It’s pretty simple Mr. Big oil kool- aid drinker, solar will only get cheaper and more efficient while fossil fuels will get more expensive and less efficient. Oh and there’s that pesky global climate devestation, but you are apparently from another planet so you won’t need to worry.

      • Devin D.

        That’s a pretty big claim for someone with such a small brain. You couldn’t even begin to comprehend the chemical components that go into fossil fuels, nor will you ever. I hope you aren’t wasting your time trying to learn this because I highly doubt you ever will.

      • bogtrotterr

        I hold a Phd in Geology. I have my own oil and gas exploration company and the jargon you attempt to illustrate your knowledge make you be the fool you prove you are. Go to bed sonny boy. You are out gunned at every turn here.

      • bluedolphin14

        Oh my Devin D. Stop embarrassing yourself. I’m embarrassed for you… sheesh… You are a testament to the stupidity in this country that makes us a laughing stock throughout the world. A little humility would go a long way for you. Close your mouth, open your ears, and learn from the adults in the room.

      • Dusty Ayres

        The alternatives will only take us far enough to sustain us; we need more than that to keep a society going.

      • Lucid life

        The sun produces enough energy for 100 earths, if we develop better photovoltaic technology, ample potential for future growth AND sustainability

      • Dusty Ayres

        Only if we go into space to get it, and I don’t see anybody wanting to go and set up orbiting solar arrays to beam solar energy as broadcast waves back down to Earth to be collected for power generation (although the proposals have been around for years.) That is how solar energy will work for us, not what you and others want (which is dependent on weather conditions to work anyway.)

        As well, you can’t force solar and wind to work for you in peak hours, neither source works like that (and as I said above, solar is dependent on weather conditions.)

        The best powers source is nuclear,despite all the fear-mongering from people like you, and despite what’s happened already (if we were to go to solar and wind, we’d just be making coal more prominent, with all of the increases in noxious emissions that usually happen with coal-powered plants-of course, nobody wants that.

        In general, my favored energy policy is this:

        -Try to increase efficiency to reduce the need for power while generating enough for the needs of the population

        -When you need power plants, try for hydroelectric or geothermal first

        If you don’t have the opportunity for these, then go for nuclear power

        -Additionally, invest in wind and solar power to supplement your electricity-generating system, they won’t ever replace traditional power plants completely, but they can help reduce the need for additional power plants.

        Coal is much, much worse, because nuclear, the vast majority of the time, is controlled and has little to no impacts on people’s lives. There are serious accidents that occurred, but I still prefer these to the continued poisoning and slow, crawling disaster of coal and natural gas. These accidents can also be avoided, both

        Chernobyl and Fukushima were preventable; Chernobyl, by using a containment building and Fukushima, by preparing for a larger earthquake and tsunami than what it was prepared for (other power plants were affected as much by the earthquake as Fukushima Dai-Ichi but haven’t had anywhere near the level of the problems of that power plant, so even under-designed plants had a more than 50% chance of surviving without major accident through this earthquake and tsunami).

        If nuclear power is to die because of Chernobyl and Fukushima, then the deaths related to this decision because of increased fossil fuel power generation would quickly dwarf the number of deaths that could ever be attributed directly to the disasters at both stations.

      • Lucid life

        Sustain does mean keep going by the way

    • Lucid life

      Climate change is real….. There is evidence, evolution is real….there is evidence, the GOP is full of religious morons who believe we are all children of Adam and Eve’s inbreeding children…… Thankfully they are old and dying off, and will never win a presidency ever again. RIP GOP

      • Devin D.

        I never claimed it wasn’t, but the disaster you make the destruction out to be is plain wrong. I never claimed any of the statements you have made to be true, nor denied them. In fact, I never brought it up in the first place, so stop bringing up sporadic arguments that aren’t relevant to my points.
        Global warming is one issue, yet it occurs on a regular basis; frequently throughout the millennium as a matter of fact. Let me ask you one question: do you even know what energy is? You wouldn’t be so adamant to stop the use of natural gas if you knew the price humanity would have to pay for it.
        Now, if you want to speak about the points I’ve brought up, I’d be more than happy to.

      • Lucid life

        I do know what energy is…… I have a bachelor of SCIENCE in electonics engineering, energy is just moving matter. E=mc^2 or energy is mass times the speed of light, or 300 x 10^6 km/hr. Let me put this as simple as I can for you…… It is MUCH more sensible to use solar based on long term renewability instead of short term profit. Fossil fuels are barbarous and the only way to survive a growing population is renewables.

      • Lucid life

        *electronics engineering not electonics my bad

      • Devin D.

        “…energy is the moving of matter.”
        “I have a bechelors in SCIENCE..”

        As much as you are trying to sound sophisticated, this single phrase gives you away. You QUITE obviously do not have a bachelors in anything science related, as you don’t even have the slightest clue as to what a photon is. “Oh, but quote Einstein’s special relativity theory and maybe I’ll sound smart!?” Ha, don’t even try kiddo.

      • Ваша Мама

        You argue against these people saying they are bringing up sporadic arguments that have nothing to do with your points, but you bring up the fact that he doesn’t know what a photon is. This has nothing to do with your points or his, and more importantly, no one truely knows what a photon is. If you could fully define what a photon is, you would win the nobel prize. Light acts like particle sometimes, and a wave the other times. Quit being a dolt.

      • Mike Cuthbert

        Wow! You are more of a cretin than I thought! Arguing degrees instead of facts is clever but useless. Your grammar is obtuse, your spelling reckless, your logic flawed and your arguments are specious and petty. Who is proving to be the idiot in this exchange?

      • bogtrotterr

        You are quite full of yourself you little shrimp. If you would stop telling everyone how intelligent you are it might be possible for us to believe so. As is, nope.

      • Devin D.

        Never stated otherwise. Give reading my comments fully a try sometime, it will save you from becoming the supposed idiots you condem.

    • Zum Zen

      1. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. If you are the scientist you claim you are, you must have heard of this. So prove it!

      2. You are invoking entropy (so you took some basic physics), and it is pretty clear from your answer below that you don’t know well how that works. Stating with certainty that the universe is a closed system is pretty ignorant of the lack of scientific consensus. You only need to go as far as the Wikipedia article on “Heath death of the universe” to know that there is no simple answer. Also, we are talking about the Earth, a clearly open system, so citing that the universe is a closed system, wrong or not, is like suggesting that the water in my kitchen shouldn’t flow because the oceans are still.

      4. See http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3. No, we don’t. There are many energy sources, and the choice of which is being used is a matter of perceived cost effectiveness and politics.

      5. See link above. If they were not “in *any form* effective”, you would see 0% next to them in that list. So they are somewhat effective.

      Oh, and your grammar is just awful.

      • Devin D.

        I’ve given evidence the universe is closed, so it really isn’t all that extraordinary of a claim is it? You CLEARLY do not understand the consensus of the scientific community, as the “Big Bang” theory explicitly states that we are expanding into “nothing.” We know it is “nothing” because of hyper-inflation within the initial conditions of the Big Bang (discovered due to calculation resulting from faster than light expansion). Therefore, It is IMPOSSIBLE to have an open system (as we KNOW there is a set amount of energy).

        The conservation of energy proves this. We cannot destroy matter/energy, and by definition implicates a CLOSED SYSTEM. You want a source for this? Go open an elementary physics book.

        You stated a logicians request to “prove it.” So let me break down in philosophical logic for you.

        [P1] If we had an open system, then we would lose energy (if p, then q).
        [P2] We do not lose energy (not p).
        [FC] Therefore, we cannot have an open system (therefore, not q).

        -modus tollens

        Now you must disprove this statement, because I have just defended it logically (heads up: you cannot, and your argument has just been disproven). I will not do your research for you, as this should be common knowledge (take from you apparently).

        The fact you use Wikipedia as a source already portrays your lack of credibility. The heat death is a joke amongst the scientific community. The “big freeze” is far mor credible than this previous error, which has already been proven extremely unlikely.

        Simple question regarding your source: why has it not yet been implemented? If it is all that incredible, why have we not yet began to utilize this source? Fantastic observation Einstein.

      • Zum Zen

        Actually, I wanted you to prove that NASA falsified claims. There were numbers in my answer, corresponding to the points you were making in your original post.

        Now, you chose to only debate my point on the closeness of the universe. I’m assuming you agree with all the other statements I have made, including the fact that the closeness of the universe was not relevant to the discussion about the Earth, making it a strawman.

        But while we’re at it, on the issue of a closed universe, here is your problem:
        “[P2] We do not lose energy (not p).”

        While conservation of energy is a reasonable postulate for most situations (and I’m not at all debating local energy conservation), I don’t think it’s that easy to extend it to a universe that we barely understand. See, for example, http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

        And if you haven’t heard of Sean Carroll, you might just have to wait until you take your first General Relativity class if you ever go that route. You’ll probably use his textbook.

        That or read the first sentence of http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.1629 in the introduction.

        For a somewhat pedagogical introduction to the issue of energy conservation in General Relativity, see http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html. It has plenty of references.

        So anyway, I think you might discover it to be wiser and more rewarding in the long run to try to understand things rather than to make bombastic claims just to win an argument. Losing with dignity feels nicer than winning without.

      • Devin D.

        “Actually, I wanted you to prove that NASA falsified claims.”

        -You should have probably stated that, as opposed to assuming your sporadic claims warrant a concise link to my arguments. Vague subject pronouns are no fun for anyone, so please do not use them.

        “I’m assuming you agree with all the other statements I have made…”

        -Do not make an unwarranted assumption. I have never stated to agree with any of your points, so do not assume I have. Thanks.

        “fact that the closeness of the universe was not relevant to the discussion about the Earth, making it a strawman.”

        -No, that would (by definition) make it an “unwarranted assumption.” However, it would STILL be a remiss to claim it an unwarranted assumption. You debated the universe to be open, and used earth relatively. You did not set the earth as the system in question with your argument, so quit bandaging your broken argument to act like you had.

        “here is your problem:
        ‘[P2] We do not lose energy (not p).'”

        -Ok, now I KNOW you are attempting to troll me. If we are going to be speaking of quantum mechanics, I think the following link would help to disprove your randomly searched Google article. http://www.fulviofrisone.com/attachments/article/452/Pauli%20W.%20Relativistic%20field%20theories%20of%20elementary%20particles.pdf

        Sean Caroll is preaching an idea founded by Einstein (who himself has claimed energy to be conserved). You are correct, we do not know everything, but if I used your logic to back my claims up we could take an abstract philosophical concept from Aristotle and disprove existence itself. There is far more credible evidence of this energy dissipating into virtual particles than your asinine claims. As virtual particle theory states: you may have energy pop out of existence from nothing, but only with a negative particle to destroy it within moments of it being created. When you get to your first physics class, your teacher will explain net forces that cancel out so you may understand this fundamental principle.

        Check out this link for a well documented study of the 4 fundamental forces (strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational), and the conservation of energy in each if you still need proof you are wrong. http://www.mathunion.org/ICM/ICM1983.2/Main/icm1983.2.1217.1224.ocr.pdf

        Unlike yours, mine is in the form of a professional lab report, and produced by experts in the field of theoretical physics and quantum mechanics. However, lets just say for the sake of your pride that your article is somewhat scholarly and credible. The expansion of the universe, in its very own right, shows us red shifting to occur with cosmic, and gamma radiation. What is it creating? SPACE. MATTER. ENERGY. It is not being released into anything, and both of the predominate theories (string theory and quantum field theory) dismiss your claim.

        Here’s another link describing thermodynamic conservation to a closed universe. http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.124.287

        If you have a Wiley account, view the mathematical approach on the law for conservation. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpa.3160130205/abstract

        In logical philosophy, we claim your argument to be of the following:
        “appeal to ignorance,” (as you base your claim from not understanding the universe) “”appeal to/from authority,” (due to the fact you are citing gentleman not fit to make claims on behalf of theoretical physics) “slippery-slope,” (as you do not have grounds to link the studies in any fashion with the context of entropy, nor of actually disproving the works of scientists far more suited than yours) “cherry picking,” (as you have not refuted the works of Stephen Hawking, nor of Albert Einstein, nor Carl Sagan, etc….).
        In summary, there are only very select circumstances in which matter can be created, and immediately destroyed; however, they always net a force/energy of 0 Newtons, or watts (meaning it really isn’t created). It is like 1-1=0, 2-2=0, 64-64=0… To make matters worse, the only situation in which you state this can occur, is a theory from a theory from a theory. It isn’t credible in the lease bit, and your articles even state this.

        Nice try, but you still fail.

      • Ваша Мама

        Your P1 is flawed. Open system does not automatically mean you are losing energy. More energy coming in then leaving means you are gaining energy. You, again, are a dolt.

      • Devin D.

        Oh, and here’s you “big freeze” theory even stating the universe is closed (from Oxford).


      • Zum Zen

        You realize I hope that the meaning of “S3 closed universe” in that paper has nothing to do with the thermodynamic meaning of “closed”.

        S3 is the topology of a 4-dimensional sphere. Spheres are “closed”, in the sense that if you keep going in any direction, you are eventually going to get back to a point where you were before. This is in contrast with an “open” topology, such as a plane, where you can keep going forever in one direction without going through any point you have already been through.

        Anyway, that paper says that contrary to the popular belief at the time that universes that are like 4-dimensional spheres eventually re-collapse with a “Big Crunch”, this isn’t true for a number of cases. It says nothing about the shape of our universe.

        I’m going to stop talking to you. It’s pretty clear that you lack the knowledge or desire to have an informed conversation on this topic.

      • Devin D.

        “This isn’t true for a number of cases.”

        Prove it.

      • Lucid life

        Black holes are where a point of mass reached such gravity density it bursts through as a singularity or Big Bang into a parallel universe, no matter is destroyed or lost preserving the law of the conservation of energy.

      • Devin D.

        Umm, cool? That’s a pretty far-fetched theory as is, but you are reinforcing my assertion of energy conservation. Why you thing this is some sort of antithesis is beyond me…

      • bogtrotterr

        Use your spell check since you can’t spell.

    • Devan Brown

      You are arrogant, boring and clearly unattractive. There. I challenged YOU. Oh, did you mean your argument?? Pfffffffffft……

      • Devin D.

        Coming from someone with a cat as their profile picture…

      • Barbara Hathaway

        Oh Devin D., you entered this game of wits unarmed.

    • wilder5121

      You made a complete fool of yourself with your first sentence, “sparky”. You’re a laughable buffoon. Next!

    • Praveen Jose

      Not sure which sources you would trust as accurate but no other types of radiative forcing can be used to model the recent temperature rise.
      Solar activity has been going down since the 1990s. http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/
      Since areosol mostly released through human activity reflected sunlight the Earth should be cooling but it is still warming.http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/aerosol&climate.html
      The is no other explanation for the recent warming other than greenhouse gases.
      Here are the absorption and emission spectrum of different gases along with CO2 as you can clearly see it correlates with the IR radiation specrum. http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf

    • Clearwater

      I am a professional scientist and you aren’t going to “obliterate” anyone with an understanding of the facts or a modicum of intelligence.

      1. What claim has NASA falsified to get what funding?

      2. The mechanisms fostering global warming are well understood and have been for the better part of a century, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which you mistakenly call the Law of Entropy) is only valid in a closed system; the Earth’s environment doesn’t qualify.

      3. You (who?) make it (what?) far worse (is this a quantitative or qualitative assessment?) that it (what?) actually (ever heard of a comma?)

      4. Source?

      5. Define “alternative” and then supply a source for this claim. And please, proofread before posting.

    • Kurt Schulten

      Even “if” you were right, you’re kinda being an egotistical ass. BTW, if you want to pat your own intellectual back in public, you really should check your posts for grammatical errors before submitting them. Have a good day, Skippy.

    • Mike Cuthbert

      If you are presenting yourself as a scientist, where did you get your training after kindergarten? NASA “falsified” WHICH data to get WHAT funding?on what do you base your bald statement that we can’t determine the cause of global warming? You make It far worse than it actually WHAT? Specifics help in scientific discussions. In what way do humans need natural gas to sustain growth and for what areas of growth? Alternative sources are no [sec] in any form effective. You know this before they have been explored and tried? If you know this already, you are a necromancer, not a scientist. From the evidence you presented yourself, you are far from being a scientist; more likely a high school dropout member of the Tea Party.

    • bogtrotterr

      Why, because you can’t construct a cohesive argument. The only thing you can obliterate is your inflated ego of yourself.

  • sherry06053

    Cruz seems quite smart. He’s for smaller government and a climate change denier – because any changes would be expensive to big oil companies . What better way to undermine an entire government agency than to become chair? He doesn’t give a damn if he looks stupid to those with intelligence – his constituents are Texans – TEA PARTY Republicans. They are Fox News watchers. His goal is to defund NASA and to cut back on any government funding that will prove climate change. He’s just beginning toward that ultimate goal. A lot of his constituents work for the oil industry, either directly or indirectly, and his biggest donors are the Koch bros. and big oil companies. He’s PLAYING stupid, but he’s in this for the money. He knows he’ll never become president, but he will be living in style and getting rich along the way.

  • Karl Heinrich

    So you guys have completely abandoned “global warming” now huh? Climate change would have been a good one to start with because you can blame ANYTHING on “climate change” and you’re right it DOES change. But carbon dioxide (you know what WE exhale and plants need to breathe) is NOT the problem. You MIGHT want to stop falling for the left vs. right/ republican vs. democrat fake paradigm and focus on geoengineering, pollution and leaking nuclear power plants. This “climate change” movement is fake and is only about a global tax which will lead to global government.

    • Dusty Ayres

      I supported your comment about nuclear power only in that we need more, not less, of it; the rest, I tuned out.

  • chapril

    Once again another repeat performance of the GOP, if they have no answer they pass on to the next person. What a bunch of pathetic people that were voted in. Go back to Canada Cruz that is if they allow you back in.

  • Gary Menten

    Dear Ted,

    The Earth and everyone on it is part of the Solar System. The Solar System is part of the Milky Way. The Milky Way is part of the universe. It is NASA’s job to explore all of above.

  • Dusty Ayres

    In a sense, he’s right, NASA’s job is to send people into and to be exploring space and it should be doing that, but it also needs to do this, too. The thing about neocon morons like Ted Cruz is that he’s of the party that put(s) millions of dollars into military spending, but none into NASA for it to be going into or doing anything in space (where’s the moonbase and space station similar to the Russian Mir station, Ted?) So he can’t even be (and shouldn’t be) talking about this until he and his party puts their money where their mouths are.

    BTW, here’s a great left-wing progressive reason for us to get into space: Put Whitey Back On The Moon

  • firegazer1

    This is not an impressive observation, nor is it meaningful. We typically don’t have scientists running political or governmental committees. I’m not saying it wouldn’t be practical, but the truth is that 99% of the politicians would need and/or benefit from having a NASA scientist explain science to them. So what?

    I can tell you one truth though…….. Ted Cruz is not stupid.

  • The MDG

    Ted Cruz is such a fucking asshole with no knowledge of science. His whole arguments basis is a chart, literally he can’t even put forth a plausible argument himself. He literally is just referring to a fucking chart with numbers. This man is really in charge of the senates space and science really, really? Fucking american land of the doomed.

  • Matt

    Picking on Cruz is low-hanging fruit.

  • Randy

    Sadly, all of you “forward progressives”, both being words taken from the socialist Karl Marx, miss the entire point. Cruz is correct in stipulating that NASA should get back to its primary mission, conceived by brilliant men and women of another generation. All of the hard sciences are necessary and important, but the visionaries also understood that you must inspire the next generation to want to be come like them. That is precisely what occurred with the successes and failures of Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, STS, etc. Charles Bolden was very publicly given his primary mission by POTUS to perform outreach to the Muslim world and show its accomplishments. EPIC FAIL!

  • bohemio

    If Tom Cotton (R) AR is “Sarah Palin with a Harvard degree” then Rafael Edward Cruz is “Michele Bachman with a Princeton degree”.