Ted Cruz's problem is the GOP's antiscience problem

Presidential candidate Ted Cruz has been in the news recently decrying the scientific certainties about climate change -- foremost among them being the fact that it's happening, second among them being that it's getting warmer and worse.   More on that in our next article.

But first, here's some opinion on why being on the stupid side of the climate change debate is not good for the GOP.

We don’t have a Ted Cruz problem on climate change. We have a GOP problem on climate change.

Excerption 1:

"Any and all of these explanations lead to a convenient policy conclusion: Speedily transitioning to cleaner fuels isn’t worth the money or effort. As Mitt Romney put it in 2011, “We don’t know what’s causing climate change, and the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try and reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.”

The underlined is one of the main reasons I oppose climate denierism - because it's blocking the necessary transition to cleaner fuels, including nuclear energy.  And so I will have to keep plugging along with the rest of the scientifically literate.

Excerption 2, the final paragraph:

"No one should expect climate models to be perfect. But they are experts’ best reckoning of the risks that unabated carbon dioxide emissions pose to human civilization — risks worth hedging against. Republicans, pompous in their dismissal of the risks, implicitly or explicitly resist this logic. The difference between Cruz and many other Republican politicians is that he revels in the full, unvarnished arrogance and irresponsibility of their positioning."

I just thought to myself that maybe making climate change the issue isn't the way to go here - maybe making antiscience in general into an issue would be a better tactic.