US Senator, Ted Cruz, is the Chairman of the Senate Space and Science. So far Cruz isn’t impressed with what National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is doing, especially on issues of budget allocation and priorities.

Cruz is a well-known denier of climate. That is why for him NASA’s increasing focus on Earth studies raises more questions than answers. During a recent Senate subcommittee hearing on the $18.5 billion budget requested by President Obama, Cruz aired his dissatisfaction with NASA on the issue of Earth Sciences. Cruz went on to question the core mission of NASA. Further to that, Cruz stated that NASA has been increasing its budget for Earth studies at the expense of space missions. He pointed out that Earth Sciences budget had gone up by 41% at a time when space budget was down 7%.

US Senator Ted Cruz disagrees with NASA on climate change

By increasing Earth study allocation while reducing that of space mission, Cruz stated that NASA was not fairly allocating resources. In fact, he said that the agency was shifting away resources from core functions to what he believes are non-core functions.

Heated argument

Cruz’s observation degenerated into a heated argument because NASA chief, Charles Bolden, didn’t share his sentiments. According to Bolden, studying the Earth is just as important was space study. Additionally, he pointed out that the objective of NASA from the start has always been to investigate and explore the Earth and space environment. That, he said, enables them to make the world a better place.

Bolden also noted that space missions will be for nothing if say the Kennedy Space Center is engulfed by water.

Push for more space budget

NASA has also been under attack from critics who felt that its massive space projects were irrelevant to the life on Earth. Nevertheless, the outspoken Cruz holds that the way to go for NASA is more budget allocation for space missions. Cruz noted that NASA’s space mission is what inspires American kids.

72 Responses

  1. tradertom2

    Cruz is a mystery. He was a brilliant student at Princeton and Harvard Law School – and he was a brilliant lawyer.
    And then he went into elected politics as a Tea Party candidate – with ignorant beliefs about everything.
    It just makes no sense. Is he a total fake who is taking on a role that will get him elected from an ignorant voting district? Or does he really believe all of it because his father is nut (but smart)?
    It truly makes no sense.
    There may be a few in history like him – all from backward Southern areas. It could be that such areas are like a different planet – so a smart child growing up there becomes a bizarre intellectual combination.

  2. fred z

    I have great respect for intelligent people like Cruz but some highly intelligent people like Senator Cruz have no practical sense or they are like a kid looking for attention to hold an audience . I do not trust Mr Cruz due to the way he conducts himself to be a true leader for the good of all , he seems to care more about himself and making noise instead of working towards good causes.

      • Lemnoc

        I notice you like to split hairs, have you no real substance to your remarks. other than being a grammar nazi?

      • Lemnoc

        I notice that you resort to namecalling, without refuting one thing I have written. I like that.

  3. Nathan Merrill

    “Bolden also noted that space missions will be for nothing if say the Kennedy Space Center is engulfed by water.”


  4. moneywhereyourmouthis

    Self aggrandizing megalomaniac. Can you imagine the ego this guy would have if he could increase his support base beyond .000000001 of the populace?!

  5. Nick Segura

    I have a cousin who studies this kind of thing. He laughs every time the argument comes up that they are just trying to jump on the global warming bandwagon to get funding for research. He told me straight up that oil companies are literally trying to throw money at anyone who will “refute” climate change, and if he really wanted funding, it’d be a hell of alot easier to take their money and say climate change is all hooey. But he doesn’t, because the science supports man-made climate change, AND he has an ounce of integrity. But you go ahead and believe the likes of Cruz and the Oil industry, because they have nothing to lose, do they?

  6. Sisboombah

    As if anyone cares what Moron Cruz thinks about global warming…

    • Kurtis Engle

      He is chairman of the space and science committee.

      This is what you call a bad-bad thing.

  7. Jason Steadman

    ROFLMAO! “Ted Cruz disagrees with NASA” has got to be the most hilarious thing I’ve ever seen in print. How dare they study the planet we live on, instead of planets we’ll never live on! The nerve! Ted Cruz knows way more than rocket scientists about these issues! We should be listening to him!

    What a total f*cking idiot. Anyone who voted for this blithering fool should be shot out of mercy. I swear their goal is to make America the dumbest place on Earth. What’s ironic is how these turds won’t be able to shout “WE’RE NUMBER ONE! WE’RE NUMBER ONE!” If any of them actually get their way

  8. DavidsComments

    Cruz wants NASA to STOP providing facts that contradict his fervent wish that there is no greenhouse effect. Cruz: “My mind is made up! Stop confusing me with facts.”

  9. HavaBrain

    “Cruz noted that NASA’s space mission is what inspires American kids.” Well, it certainly did during the space race, and the Apollo missions. The news coverage featured a battalion of Engineers and Scientists. I grew up in that time, and the moon landing must have inspired a lot of us, It inspired us because we saw that Science worked.

    Science works. It always works. Some of those inspired kids became Earth Scientists or even Climate Scientists.. They did the science on climate change. and the answer was that we had a problem with carbon.

    The Senator from Texas is not interested in that answer and will have them work on something that will inspire children

  10. usaf19

    Ted Cruz would like NASA’s missions to look for the existence of God.

    • thefermiparadox

      Or Jesus. Politicians love them some Jesus. Didn’t you know he actually walked on water and changed water to wine ? Real magic shit there. No lies. It’s verified by adults. No way that could be folklore and stories. Just no way. Back then powers were different.

  11. Indarapatra

    This person is dangerous. He will ruin us all! Stop voting for him please!

    • krankyvet

      A lot of people are moving to Texas, from both north and south. And a majority are NOT RWNJs. May the demographics get him soon…

      • krankyvet

        At least bad and religion showed up in the comment. But quotes around climate change?

      • Lemnoc

        I do not think that climate ‘change/global warming’ has been proven conclusively, especially anthropogenic ‘climate change’.

      • Nick Segura

        “I do not think that climate ‘change/global warming’ has been proven conclusively” And you are .. who? Your scientific credentials are .. what?

      • Lemnoc

        And what are your scientific credentials? I stated my opinion. It differs with yours. Accept that.

      • usetheguillotine

        How arrogant! What qualifications do you have to make pronouncements of this kind?

      • Lemnoc

        What qualifications do you have to to rebut me? My opinion differs from yours – go ahead, prove me wrong, using empirical facts.

      • usetheguillotine

        Opinions are worthless, yours and mine included. These are questions of scientific facts, not opinions. Since you are the one denying the facts, you are the one needing to quote empirical facts. Don’t you get it?

      • Lemnoc

        Wrong – the onus is upon you to prove conjecture AS facts, which you apparently cannot.

      • streettrash

        Wouldn’t it be smart to err on the side of caution in this circumstance? We see pictures of severely smog filled cities in China… just looking at the stuff, you can tell nothing good will come out of it. We have technology that provides cleaner energy now. The sun pours down unimaginable energy on this planet… and we are digging up stuff out of the ground and burning it. Seems primitive. Seems stupid to be against clean energy.

      • Lemnoc

        I am not against clean energy, and never said that I was. I don’t think ‘climate change/global warming’ has been proven conclusively. That is my opinion; enlighten me if you like, prove to me, using empirical facts, that ‘climate change/global warming’ exists, and is caused by man.

      • Kurtis Engle

        This page doesn’t like URLs either. So :

        Google : NOAA temperature change and CO2 change

        And Google : NOAA History of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 800,000 years ago until January, 2014.

        That should do it, because there is no more to it.

      • Lemnoc

        Yeah, links filled to the gunwales with maybes, possiblys, could bes, preditions, conjectures, et cetera.

      • Kurtis Engle

        And that settles that. You cannot be reached.

      • Lemnoc

        Neither can you – like the religious, you have faith in conjecture; I do not. I only deal in the empirical and concrete. Man’s limited intellectual capacity at this time in history cannot predict the future by using flawed computer simulations based on averages at best. As the saying goes – ‘garbage in, garbage out’.

        You strike me very much like the Christians and muslims I have encountered. Learn to think for yourself, and question everything you are told, even my words, as I am only a man.

      • Lemnoc

        That’s right, call names, rather than admit defeat. Insults are the last refuge of the out-argued.

      • Kurtis Engle

        No, seriously. You petulantly refuse to look at the data, and then claim no one can prove it to you. Childish.

      • Lemnoc

        Try defining reality. You cannot, as you have no idea as to what reality really is. No one does, not even me. Even this dialogue between us could be an illusion; you have no way of objectively defining reality, as our existences are completely subjective. Descartes said that 370 years ago; try proving him wrong.

        The ‘data’ you so vociferously cite regarding ‘global warming/climate change’ is conjectural, based on subjective summations of past alleged conditions, and attendant future extrapolations, based on preceeding subjective summations. Such allegations are not ‘proof’ in the scientific sense of the word, as conjecture is not falsifiable; there is no normative to falsify. Russell pointed that fact out in the 1920’s, see his teapot allusion.

        I candidly submit that you are the one who is puerile, resorting to calling names due to my disagreement with your position. That is your problem, not mine, I wager you are young and impressionable.

        Further, your opinion of me means nothing; your intransigent stance reminds me of muslims who call me an ‘infidel’, or Christians who tell me that I will rot in hell for my atheism. I admit the Christians are half right – I will rot after death, in a box, but not in hell, as death is final. Conversely, my opinion of you is just as meaningless, to you, id est, as you view me as ‘the enemy’, for my not subscribing to your personal worldview. How dogmatic of you. I simply view you as one who disagrees with my position, and nothing more; I do not allow petty emotion to color my thinking, though I do enjoy arguing with adversaries; even you have something to teach me about the human condition.

        Accept the fact that I disagree with you; I suggest that you be tolerant of those who do not share your dogmatic worldview with regard to anthropomorphic ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’, using whichever term that you prefer. I consider those who simply accept what they are told as pliant at best, gullible at worst, accepting what is stated as fact, without employing dialectical thinking. Consult Hegel or Marx for clarification on the dialectic if you like.

        History is replete with millions of human beings who accepted what they were told, and lived to bear the consequences, e.g., Christians, muslims, nazis, communists, progressives – the list is endless. Five hundred years ago the Catholic Church murdered people who challenged geocentrism, the ‘church’ following a pagan astronomer and philosopher named Claudius Ptolemaeus.

        Try thinking for yourself; refer to those intellectual giants like Critias.

        For the record, I am open to convincing, empirical evidence of anthropogenic ‘global warming/climate change’, just like I am open to the convincing, empirical evidence for the existence of god – all I require are empirical facts, not supposition or conjecture, e.g., ‘faith’. Please give me empirical evidence of your position if you can; I shall consider your empirical evidence if you can provide it, and I will concede defeat at your hands if your evidence is convincing.

        So far, in hundreds of debates with others, I have encountered no facts for ‘global warming/climate change’, or god, for that matter. Note that I am repeatedly asking for empirical evidence, and I shall continue to reiterate that request.

        I cynically await more insults from you; it only serves to discredit your position.

        All I ask is for you to prove me WRONG. I challenge you to do that.

        Veritas odium parit.

      • Kurtis Engle

        You have done a very creditable job of proving yourself wrong.

      • Kurtis Engle

        How do I ‘refute’ you, when you will not even look at the data?

        The amusing part is, you think you have won.

      • Lemnoc

        No, I have won nothing, and neither have you, though you are much too puerile to admit a slalemate.

        That is your problem.

      • Lemnoc

        I have looked at the data – I am not convinced.

        Try proving me wrong – apparently, you cannot. All you can do is call names.

      • Lemnoc

        Yes, I do – “climate change” is conjectural, just like religion is. If you don’t like my opinion, accept that I differ with you and move on.

      • dcjesus2

        7 billion people dumping trillions of tons of toxins into the air, water and earth…how dare we think we are so arrogant to think this will have an impact…now lets let lemnoc and cruz sit in their closed garage with the engine running and get some of that fresh air..

      • Lemnoc

        That’s right, resort to personal attacks rather then proving me wrong. Try learning to think for yourself.

      • Kurtis Engle

        Prove you wrong? To who? You? Don’t make me laugh.

      • Robert Chow

        you are dead wrong supporting climate change is liken to the darwin unfound theory on evolution. tell me if you will: how in the hell ape becomes three major races-mongol, negro (latin for black), and white? why in the hell i can’t understand russian, spanish, arabic and so so languages with its own dialect? as many time i visited the zoo, i have’nt encountered monkey asking me for banana in my language. i once wrote in on climate change but never got reply from these pole diggers – if all the active volcanos on this earth are able to stay domain, may be we will have ice age. which would you want – freeze you ass off or boiling in the water like the frog? God is in control and merciful to those lost as well as those saved thru Jesus Christ the Lord that died on the cross for our sin and rose again on the third day according to the scripture. Amen!

      • Lemnoc

        I am an atheist evolutionist and secular humanist, and I think that ‘climate change/global warming’ is only conjectural speculation, based on computer models.

        Unfortunately, many zealots have turned such conjecture into a near religion, complete with dogma, congregation, high priests, and heretics, like me. I am anathema due to my disagreement with the herd; and my words should never be uttered as it is an affront to the true believers. Such people have no tolerence for dissent of any kind, quite similar to the Roman Catholic Church of the middle ages, and those today who follow Islam. Religious people despise me too; I consider the source, so it doesn’t bother me in the least.

        Forty years ago it was stated that we were headed into an ice age; now we are supposedly headed for an inferno. Earth will take care of itself, with or without the temporal race of man.

  12. greese007

    The energy industry spends large sums of money in their attempts to buy credible scientists who will support their agenda against the facts of global warming. But they cannot find scientists to support their viewpoint whom are a) legitimate, and b) credible. So they have to settle for buying politicians who are a) scientifically illiterate, and b) not remotely credible.

  13. I know what you really are.

    They should have a literacy test for politicians focusing on history math and science. It is more than apparent we get stuck with the low end of the crop.

  14. IJK

    How can this clown be chairman of anything to do with space and science?

  15. Glen Jones

    Why should anyone be given credence about their point of view on global warning that have a public policy degree? Why do we have so few intelligent people in important policy positions? Oh yes, they would be too smart to pursue politics in the first place! Especially Cruz who has especially limited views on virtually all positions.

  16. PayingAttention

    Space inspires kids but they are smart enough to know that their future depends on the health of the planet we all live on. Cruz is making noise. PS Texas gets a good chunk of the space program money and cruz is a Texas Senator. Oh, there’s the oil too.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

I accept the Privacy Policy

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.