What happens when Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina are compared head to head?

I don't understand why Carly Fiorina has so much buzz. Katie Couric, one of the high priestesses of the global warming religion, separately interviewed both her and Ted Cruz about it, and the contrast couldn't be more different. In a scene so loaded that it screams the famous Admiral Ackbar line, "It's a trap!," Archbishop Couric started her questioning of Ted Cruz by saying, "97% of scientists agree that global warming is man-made," essentially asking Cruz if he is a fool or an ignoramus.

Cruz's response? He is totally unruffled, totally unapologetic, smiles genially, and tells Couric that the "97% of scientists" is based on a discredited study. Cruz says, "Let's talk about facts," and talks about the fact that there hasn't been any global warming in 17 years. Period. "It's not happening," said Cruz bluntly. Then Cruz talked about how the media pushed "global cooling" on us in the 1970s, and whether it's global cooling or global warming, the basic motive behind it is always the same: increased government control of the economy. And then Cruz said that liberals changed the name to "climate change" so they could always claim there is a problem regardless of whether it gets hotter or colder. Cruz further said that the Democrats are abandoning union workers in favor of environmentalists, creating an opening for Republicans. So Cruz started with a question meant to put him on the defensive and turned it around to (a) disprove global warming, (b) explain how it is a scam used by the government to control us, and (c) turn it into an opening to attract union voters. And he did it with a manner that was gentle and friendly and smart. He was superb, really brilliant. But when the Right Reverend Couric asked the same question of Carly Fiorina, she hemmed and hawed when it came to the very basic question, "Is man-made global warming a problem?" Carly repeatedly answered, somewhat evasively, that it wasn't a problem compared to fighting ISIS and other issues, but she didn't want to answer the basic question. She also said that a single nation acting on its own cannot affect climate change. She says we have to focus on innovation, like clean coal. But she doesn't answer the basic question until finally at the end, when, asked for the fourth or fifth time, Carly admits that "climate change" is real, just not as important as other issues. Carly's interview was bad for several reasons. First, she looked evasive on answering the basic, simple question of whether man-made climate change is real, and she looked evasive because she was evasive. Not good. Secondly, she got the answer wrong. As we all know, there has been no global warming for 17 or 18 years. Thirdly, while she correctly stated that the U.S. could not solve the "problem" alone, she bought into the left's argument that there is a problem. She accepted the premise of their argument, and once she does that, she operates on the defensive. After watching that interview, a low-information voter might think, "Well, even Republicans agree it's real. Now I have to figure out who is better on this issue." Compare her response to Ted Cruz, who changed the entire focus of the question and turned it back on the Democrats. It's just no comparison. By the way, for those of you who might disagree with me, the article I link to in National Review actually praised Carly for her performance, making the opposite point I was. If you're curious, go there and watch the two interviews and decide for yourself. This article was produced by NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.