Cruz and Smith Subpoena Ice

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) have issued separate subpoenas for those they believe are withholding crucial information in order to advance President Obama’s global warming agenda. They have threatened criminal prosecution if the targets of their subpoenas fail to appear, or refuse to surrender their private e-mails.

They target of their separate subpoenas: ice.

Senator Cruz has requested the FBI to determine the whereabouts of Arctic sea ice. He claims the sea ice has illegally gone into hiding, in order to obstruct his repeated assertions that there has been no global warming for the past 18 years. During that time, Arctic sea ice has disappeared dramatically, a move which senator Cruz believes is designed to undermine our freedom and destroy the economy.

Cruz also praised Antarctic sea ice for its recent surge, but cautioned that its more recent decline may be due to terrorist attacks by Arctic sea ice. “Obviously the ice is in league with ISIS,” said senator Cruz, “who may be helping them avoid capture.”

Meanwhile, congressman Smith issued a subpoena for the missing lake ice in Wisconsin and other areas of the U.S. He was joined by Wisconsin governor Scott Walker in denouncing Wisconsin’s lakes as cowards, unable to force the ice to appear in time for Wisconsin’s usually lucrative ice-fishing industry. “It’s an obvious attempt to destroy our economy,” said governor Walker, “First the glaciers, then the sea ice, now the lakes and rivers. It’s a world-wide conspiracy.” Meanwhile, Smith emphasized that the missing ice may be due to fraud by scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The ice could not be reached for comment.


11 responses to “Cruz and Smith Subpoena Ice

  1. Tamino tell the truth, you’re writing a piece for “The Onion”, right?

    • I really hope so. Tamino, if you weren’t planning to submit this to The Onion then I implore you to do so.

  2. Hmm, this post seems to be early–99 days early, by my quick tally, figuring of course that 2016 is a leap year!

  3. For the ice’s sake, I hope James E. Hansen is no longer in charge of the capital hill heating system.

  4. It could be either of them. From The New Yorker:

  5. Sadly, this just appearing on the tom toms. Merry Christmas, from Lamar Smith and totally in the tank Judicial Watch:

    Press Release:
    “Judicial Watch Sues for Documents Withheld From Congress in New Climate Data Scandal”

    My opinion, staff are more vulnerable than scientists. Tobis said no, but I disagree, I’ve been there.

    Judicial Watch previously investigated alleged data manipulation by global warming advocates in the Obama administration. In 2010, Judicial Watch obtained internal documents from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) related to a controversy that erupted in 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA’s handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA’s rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.

  6. Not sure if my previous went in, but will wait for tomorrow to avoid duplicate. Meanwhile, this is very funny!

  7. “They target of their separate subpoenas: ice.”

    The target…

  8. Thanks for the laugh, a somewhat headshaking though.

  9. The Judicial Watch suit might have a positive side. One part of their request was regarding:
    “The utilization and consideration of satellite bulk atmospheric temperature readings for use in global temperature datasets”.

    Spencer & Christy’s UAH data has been shown repeatedly to be flawed and, as far as I’m aware, they have not detailed the method which they used to create the algorithm used to generate their time series. They may have done so in various conferences, but both the old MSU and the newer AMSU algorithms are a mystery to me and I’ve attempted to read all their published work.

    This year, S&C have introduced a new approach with their Version 6.0, which combines the output of 3 different channels into a single time series. They have not detailed their method for determining the weightings used to arrive at their algorithm and their work has not (yet) been published after peer review. This new approach has already been presented on various blogs and Christy may have also included these data in his recent testimony before Sen. Cruz’s subcommittee.

    Then again, Christy’s work is supported by the Agriculture Department, not NOAA…

    • Yes, judges (and juries) do require evidence, and on the whole they’ve found against the denial manufactury. But meanwhile, great play is being made of it, and those who prefer to be deceived are getting one more tidbit to bolster their illusions.