Rick Perry: Global Warming Based On Scientists Manipulating Data (VIDEO)

BEDFORD, N.H. — GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry told New Hampshire voters Wednesday that he does not believe in manmade global warming, calling it a scientific theory that has not been proven.

"I think we're seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists that are coming forward and questioning the original idea that manmade global warming is what is causing the climate to change," the Texas governor said on the first stop of a two-day trip to the first-in-the-nation primary state.

He said some want billions or trillions of taxpayer dollars spent to address the issue, but he added: "I don't think from my perspective that I want to be engaged in spending that much money on still a scientific theory that has not been proven and from my perspective is more and more being put into question."

His comments came at a packed breakfast meeting with local business leaders in a region known for its strong environmental policies. And he made his global warming comment in response to a question by an audience member who cited evidence from the National Academy of Sciences.

But Perry's opinion runs counter to the view held by an overwhelming majority of scientists that pollution released from the burning of fossil fuels is heating up the planet. Perry's home state of Texas releases more heat-trapping pollution carbon dioxide – the chief greenhouse gas – than any other state in the country, according to government data.

Global warming has become an issue for contenders for the Republican nomination to run away from, since many conservatives question overwhelming evidence showing climate change is happening and the big government solutions to stem it.

Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney – who all at one point supported steps to curb global warming pollution – have since tempered their stances. But unlike Perry, both Romney and Huntsman acknowledge the scientific evidence.

On Wednesday, Perry promised to return regularly to a state that was not kind to a past Texas governor; Arizona Sen. John McCain upset GOP frontrunner and former Texas Gov. George W. Bush here in the 2000 presidential primary.

For many New Hampshire voters, Wednesday offered their first close look at the longtime Texas politician, who formally launched his White House bid over the weekend.

At the breakfast, Perry also questioned the loyalty of the Federal Reserve, just days after saying that if the Federal Reserve puts more money in the U.S. system, it could be considered a treasonous act that would be treated "pretty ugly" back home.

He noted the criticism he took for the comment, but did not back away from them. And he called on the institution to open its books.

"It would go a long way toward either finding out whether or not there is some activities that are improper of that they've been handling themselves quite well," he said. "But until they do that, I think there will continue to be questions about their activity and what their true goal is for the United States."

Perry also said he would not have signed the debt-ceiling compromise brokered by congressional leaders and the White House to avoid a national default.

"No I would not have signed it," he said. "We got to quit spending money."

Perry was meeting with more business leaders Wednesday before touring the seacoast region Thursday.

___

Dina Cappiello contributed to this report from Washington.

Comments

[maxwells]

04:06 PM on 08/27/2011

Science isn't based on the silly ideological a/o monetarily-driven rants of politicians and their shills.

For example,

for current high CO2 levels to be plausibly "natural" in our era of low volcanic activity

(volcanoes emit far less than 1% of the 35 billion tons per year of CO2 due to human activity),
http://vol­canoes.usg­s.gov/haza­rds/gas/cl­imate.php

there must be, for low volcanic activity periods, some solid past data showing CO2 levels approaching our current 390 ppmv (parts per million by volume).

Yet, w/i the past 780,000 years, where we have clean, year-by-year, Antarctic ice core data, THERE SIMPLY AREN'T ANY SUCH INSTANCES, NOT EVEN CLOSE.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/domec/domec_epica_data.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html

Viewing the above shows that

Current CO2 levels exceed anything w/i the past 780k years by a whopping 100 ppmv.

But indirect evidence does exist that ~40 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 levels were comparable to now, along with elevated temperatures.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6005/819.abstract

And for CO2 levels comparable to what's projected for later this century (500 - 650ppmv), global average temperatures were eventually up to 29 degs F higher.

http://www2.ucar.edu/news/3628/earth-s-hot-past-could-be-prologue-future-climate

[Robco1]

07:27 PM on 08/27/2011

Brilliant post, Maxwells. If I could fan you again I would!

This is what has me up at night: the destabilizing methane: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1246.abstract

and 4 degrees C. and beyond: http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/programme.php

[Publicola]

10:47 AM on 08/27/2011

Oxford Journals

Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?

HIV does not cause AIDS. The world was created in 4004 BCE. Smoking does not cause cancer. And if climate change is happening, it is nothing to do with man-made CO2 emissions. Few, if any, of the readers of this journal will believe any of these statements. Yet each can be found easily in the mass media...

All of these examples have one feature in common. There is an overwhelming consensus on the evidence among scientists yet there are also vocal commentators who reject this consensus… Their goal is to convince that there are sufficient grounds to reject the case for taking action…

Denialism is a process that employs some or all of five characteristic elements in a concerted way.

The first is the identification of conspiracies. When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes that something is true, it is argued that this is not because those scientists have independently studied the evidence and reached the same conclusion. It is because they have engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy. The peer review process is seen as a tool by which the conspirators suppress dissent, rather than as a means of weeding out papers and grant applications unsupported by evidence or lacking logical thought…

continued...

[Publicola]

10:52 AM on 08/27/2011

…What is Denialism, continued

There is also a variant of conspiracy theory, inversionism, in which some of one's own characteristics and motivations are attributed to others. For example, tobacco companies describe academic research into the health effects of smoking as the product of an ‘anti-smoking industry’, described as ‘a vertically integrated, highly concentrated, oligopolistic cartel, combined with some public monopolies’ whose aim is to ‘manufacture alleged evidence'...

The second is the use of fake experts. These are individuals who purport to be experts in a particular area but whose views are entirely inconsistent with established knowledge. They have been used extensively by the tobacco industry since 1974… In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute developed a Global Climate Science Communications Plan, involving the recruitment of ‘scientists who share the industry's views of climate science [who can] help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases’…

The use of fake experts is often complemented by denigration of established experts and researchers, with accusations and innuendo that seek to discredit their work and cast doubt on their motivations. Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco... is described on the Forces website as ‘infamous for being the boldest of liars in “tobacco control” that most ethically challenged gang of con artists’, adding that... 'his studies define the term junk science’.

continued...

[Publicola]

10:54 AM on 08/27/2011

…What is Denialism, continued

The third characteristic is selectivity, drawing on isolated papers that challenge the dominant consensus or highlighting the flaws in the weakest papers among those that support it as a means of discrediting the entire field…

The fourth is the creation of impossible expectations of what research can deliver. For example, those denying the reality of climate change point to the absence of accurate temperature records from before the invention of the thermometer. Others use the intrinsic uncertainty of mathematical models to reject them entirely as a means of understanding a phenomenon...

The fifth is the use of misrepresentation and logical fallacies. For example, pro-smoking groups have often used the fact that H|tler supported some anti-smoking campaigns to represent those advocating tobacco control as N@ zis… Logical fallacies include the use of red herrings, or deliberate attempts to change the argument and straw men, where the opposing argument is misrepresented to make it easier to refute…

continued...

[MJinCanada]

06:40 PM on 08/26/2011

So studying climate change costs money?

Do climate change deniers even realize that the effects of NORMAL climate activity already cost trillions of dollars around the world every year?

Not just hurricanes and tornadoes but:
- frost action spalling on concrete bridges, tunnels and buildings
- potholes in roads from thawing and freezing
- erosion of farmland by wind and water
- cracking foundations from saturated soil mechanics -- much more so if saturated expansive clay soil freezes
- riparian flooding and storm surges
- crop damage from drought, hail and frost

Now throw in:
- twisting and cracking of pipelines, runways and other northern infrastructure from melting permafrost
- increased beach erosion and coastal soil saturation and storm surges that go further inland with ever inch the oceans rise
- increased rainfall, drought or severe storms in the most productive agricultural areas
- milder winters that increase insect, weed and rodent survivability
- increasing desertification of some subsaharan, steppe and prairie regions, resulting in mass migrations and social instability (think Ethiopian famine mixed with the 1930s dust bowl migrants).
- coral die-off from warmer, more acidic ocean water, decreasing the hatching and survival of small fish that feed larger commercial fish stocks

Even if climate change data was uncertain, even if it could be proven that it wasn't caused by humans, we still have to figure out how to adapt before millions die.

[Publicola]

06:21 PM on 08/26/2011

Debunked: NIPCC Global Warming "Skeptic" Bob Carter

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) "skeptic" uses Trick to Hide The Incline in global warming, a­s statistician Tamino demonstrates.*

NIPCC global warming "skeptic" Bob Carter is a leader of and/or contribute­r to other of the most prominent organizations that are "skeptical­" of man-made global warming as well, including:

* The Heartland Institute

* The Science & Public Policy Institute (SPPI)

* The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

* The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)

ICSC Executive Director Tom Harris repeatedly refused to address NIPCC global warming "skeptic" Bob Carter's de facto fraud here on HuffPo, despite the fact that the NIPCC global warming "skeptic" ­is also the ICSC's Chief Science Adviser.**

heian120: "CRU and the games they played… generally made a mockery of Climate Science."

Dear heian120,

Isn't NIPCC global warming "skeptic" Bob Carter committing de facto global warming fraud by representing increasing global temperature data as flat? *

Isn't that like a global warming hoax, a climate science scam, a blatant deception, an indefensible­ lie, an inexcusable misrepresentation, outright fraud, etc.?

In short, isn't global warming "skeptic" Bob Carter's de facto fraud "making a mockery of Climate Science"?

------------------
* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/

** http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/social/Publicola/climate-change-denial_b_896543_97738177.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Publicola/climate-change-impacts-water-resources_n_911152_101378826.html

[Science First]

09:14 PM on 08/26/2011

So both sides have there own "Climategate" scandal now?? Looks like finally both sides have adopted the same tactics....finally the non-Alarmists have lowered themselves to the same ethical level of the Alarmists. Of course...the Alarmists have been there for 20 years....as they've been pointing to every current heat wave or "extreme weather event", that have somehow miraculously gotten here 100 years ahead of what the climate modelers predicted, in order to help concoct a junk science argument, and a false sense of urgency.

So both sides have sunk to this level now.....well......I say it's time to cut off all the grant money and put the great Alarmist and non-Alarmist minds to work on something else! This topic has obviously been a contrivance for some time. Let's not forget modern science at one time gave us the "Science of Eugenics" for several decades as well.

Let's devote all the climate science money to ending world hunger, lack of clean water, and an absence of access to energy.....all in the 3rd world that is. Let's not dole out any corporate welfare here in the US for this......let's really save some lives and end some genuine misery in the developing world.....instead of battling some contrived crisis 100 years from now!

Or.....do you Alarmists want to do more insincere international conferences on someone else's money for a while longer??

[realpolitic]

12:21 AM on 08/27/2011

Who represents the "other side" in your two sided scenario?

[Robco1]

03:18 PM on 08/28/2011

Alarmists, alarmists, alarmists. You do like that little manufactured smear word, don't you?

Only one side bears any wrongdoing in the manufactured smear campaign known as "climategate" by denialists and "swifthack" in the reality-based community. http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/12/09/climate-gate-timeline/
http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/10/swiftboating-right-wing-noise-machine-climategate/

The truth is that scientists have produced an overwhelming body of evidence to support their observations that man-made CO2 emissions are warming the planet, and the "other side" has produced this:

The 1994 TASSC memo, in which PR firm APCO Worldwide plans selling its astroturf science denial created for Big Tobacco to industries like Big Oil: http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024233595-3602.html

The 1998 API memo exposing the very same TASSC science denial strategy in the hands of Big Oil: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Science_Communications_Plan_%281998%29

The 2002 Luntz Memo coaching the GOP on talking points for the same campaign:
http://www.ewg.org/project/luntz-memo-environment

The 2006 "Vampire" Memo exposing how merchant of doubt Pat Michaels took $100,000 from one coal-fired utility alone to shill against science:
http://www.desmogblog.com/vampire-memo-reveals-coal-industry-plan-for-massive-propaganda-blitz

BTW, sound familiar? http://www.monbiot.com/2010/12/13/reclaim-the-cyber-commons/

[gallon]

10:28 PM on 08/26/2011

Science First: "So both sides have there own "Climatega­te" scandal now?? "

Two sides? There is science. And then there is the denier campaign, funded by Big Energy who channels their money through public relations fronts like Heartland.

Science First: " . . finally both sides have adopted the same tactics . . "

The climate denier campaign are the ones who have adopted the same tactics used by Big Tobacco in their campaign to avoid cancer liability. Same tactics. Same folks.

http://cli­mateprogre­ss.org/201­1/02/20/de­nier-bots-­live-why-a­re-online-­comments-s­ections-ov­er-run-by-­the-anti-s­cience-pro­-pollution­-crowd/#mo­re-43114


Science First: ".....do you Alarmists want to do more insincere internatio­nal conference­s "

More disingenuous propaganda from this shill. Consider that Heartland hosts climate denier conferences, patterned after actual scientific conferences. The Heartland Institute hopes to confuse and disrupt public opinion by presenting the junk science view as the valid perspective.
Check this out, it is extensive and well funded by Big Energy.

http://climateconference.heartland.org/
http://climateconference.heartland.org/about-2/background/
http://climateconference.heartland.org/about-2/speakers/

Heartland also concocts a fake climate report, again patterned after a legitimate scientific report, again with the express purpose of confusing and disrupting the entire issue.

Not the IPCC (“NIPCC”) Report.

These guys are disreputable. What is your connection Science First? Your blather is exactly like that of Heartland. No science. All attack.

[maxwells]

11:06 PM on 09/02/2011

Science First = Heartland Troll ?

[maxwells]

11:57 AM on 08/26/2011

We're supposed to have "faith" in Rick Perry, a guy who tried to peddle life insurance policies on retired Texas teachers to Wall St.?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUxmYG1FXsE
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/rick-perry-texas-life-insurance-scheme_n_935666.html
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/Gov-Perry-Implicated-in-Teacher-Life-Insurance-Scheme-128413113.html

How LOW (Phil Gramm - LOW?) can you go? And why would anybody believe anything that comes out of that guy's mouth?

[maxwells]

03:36 PM on 08/26/2011

To put it crudely, it used to be that when someone, not in your immediate family, took out a fat life insurance policy on you, that guy was also planning a boating accident and a pair of cement shoes for you.

[Publicola]

12:17 AM on 08/26/2011

U.S. National Academy of Sciences (2010)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities­. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon­, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanation­s…

Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782

[Science First]

09:24 PM on 08/26/2011

RE: "There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documentin­g that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities"

But Phil Jones of the highly acclaimed East Anglia Climate Research Center just said there hasn't been any statistically significant warming in 15 years. Meanwhile, during those same 15 years...the Chinese and the Indians and the Europeans and the Americans and the Japanese have been emitting CO2 at record high levels that the world has never seen before!!

If he is right about the lack of warming......how is that compatible with all the settled science theories??

And, if you want to be taken seriously, you should skip the "ad hominem" attacks on me.....and explain the apparent scientific contradiction...or fallacy....or incongruity!

[chrisd3]

11:15 PM on 08/26/2011

"But Phil Jones of the highly acclaimed East Anglia Climate Research Center just said there hasn't been any statistica­lly significan­t warming in 15 years"

No, he didn't "just" say that, he said it in early 2010. It included data only through the end of 2009, and the reason for the trend not quite reaching statisticial significance (it was actually 93%) was that there wasn't sufficient data.

What he has "just" said, as we have already discussed, is that there is now sufficient data, and the trend since 1995 now IS significant.

"If he is right about the lack of warming"

That is NOT what he said. In fact, he explictly said that there WAS warming, and he even gave the number: 0.12degC/decade.

You aren't confusing "warming that is almost but not quite statistically significant" with "no warming", are you? I sure hope not, because a mistake like that would embarrass a freshman statistics student.

"how is that compatible with all the settled science theories??"

It is compatible because climate data is noisy, and there was not enough data at the time. Now there is, and the trend has reached significance. Again this is freshman statistics at best.

[gallon]

10:42 PM on 08/26/2011

Science First: "And, if you want to be taken seriously, you should skip the "ad hominem" attacks on me.....and explain the apparent scientific contradict­ion...or fallacy...­.or incongruit­y! "

Publicola is quite well founded with his science. Seems to me you Science First are the one making all the ad hominem attacks around here. There is no scientific contradiction, or fallacy. But there is the Science First lack of scientific understanding.

Science First: "But Phil Jones of the highly acclaimed East Anglia Climate Research Center just said there hasn't been any statistica­lly significan­t warming in 15 years."

You are mistaken. Or are you deliberately misrepresenting science again? Publicola corrected your mistake earlier. "He said there wasn't significan­t warming over that time period at the 95% confidence level, which isn't the same thing.” Read it and understand it and quit trolling with it.

[heian120]

04:50 PM on 08/25/2011

he is right. Too much of GW theory is based on the CRU and the games they played with data that included ERASING it rather than letting it go to people who could show it didn't fit with their views. they frustrated peer review and generally made a mockery of Climate Science.

[gallon]

06:35 PM on 08/25/2011

Vivid imagination.

[jimboy71]

07:19 PM on 08/25/2011

Yet 7 independent reviews of your conjecture absolved them of any wrongdoing.

SEVEN.

[heian120]

09:43 AM on 08/26/2011

you mean 7 whitewashes. What they did was clear. the fact that they got away with it is why I think GW science is in the toilet. read here
http://climateaudit.org/

[gallon]

10:37 AM on 08/26/2011

heian: "you mean 7 whitewashe­s"

Jimboy said what he meant to say. Stop rewriting peoples comments. That is despicable. There were seven or eight investigations. Each and every one of them completely cleared the scientists.

Including the investigation conducted at the order of Sen. James Big Oil Inhofe. His own investigation found nothing.

Stop parrotting this tired canard. It is false and comes from questionable sources.

[jzefram]

08:34 PM on 08/23/2011

Perry's comments on global warming is right on. Global warming by oil is called junk science. None of the evidence points to petroleum as the major cause of global warming. The evidence is made up environmentalists and their team of scientists to use their agenda to frightened people and force them into changing their lifestyle habits like driving electric cars and hybrid cars. Fossil fuel was created naturally. It existed before man started driving cars and before man created a means to use fossil to harness electricity. The earth was warming up before man ever used petroleum. For example, the Grand Canyon could not be the way it is today because it took thousands of years for huge amounts of water to carve the canyon. In the short span of time, the use of oil could not cause global warming to the extent that it could carve the Grand Canyon into what it is today.

[DocSkull]

03:16 PM on 08/24/2011

"None of the evidence points to petroleum as the major cause of global warming."

That isn't correct, but even if it is a minor contributor shouldn't we do our best to manage its contribution?

[heian120]

04:51 PM on 08/25/2011

and how much are you willing to PAY to do that?

[gallon]

09:52 AM on 08/25/2011

jzefram: "Global warming by oil is called junk science. None of the evidence points to petroleum as the major cause of global warming."

That is completely backwards and you know it.

The petroleum and coal industries fund the anti AGW pubic relations campaign. This campaign has agents everywhere trying to confuse and disrupt the global warming issue. For example, the deniers are everywhere in this thread. Of of the Big Energy public relations firms, Heartland, goes to the trouble of hosting anti climate science conferences.

http://climateconference.heartland.org/
http://climateconference.heartland.org/about-2/background/
http://climateconference.heartland.org/about-2/speakers/
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/

The foundation science of global warming is strong, running all the way back to the year 1800 when intense infrared was discovered coming from the sun.

Herschel, William, “Experiments on the Refrangibility of the Invisible Rays of the Sun,”
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, pp. 284-292, 1 plate,
vol. 90, April 24, 1800.

In 1824 it was calculated that the earth should be at about minus 19 deg C. This was far colder than measured temperature of course. The logical deduction was that the atmosphere was acting as a blanket, retaining the surface heat.

[heian120]

04:53 PM on 08/25/2011

problem is the data is inconclusive, was manipulated and ids still limited.

the small amount of warming we have seen cannot be all balmed on man made CO2 and you know it

[jzefram]

02:52 PM on 08/26/2011

You do realize that most of everything that we use is made out of petroleum. First of all, all your so called scientists are just speculating that global warming is due to oil. Their data is false and misleading. You have not considered that volcanoes contribute heavily to global warming. Again, a natural occurring substance. Volcanoes release over 250 million tons of CO2 emissions a year. This data came from the US government. Volcanoes are not just on land but exist in the ocean. The temperature of lava (molten magma) is 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Earth has warming up long before oil was discovered and used. Even when there was the Ice Age, the Earth was warm underneath the ice and land mass. Please consider that your beliefs are causing Americans to spend more money on green energy when they don't have enough money to feed and cloth themselves and their children.

[George Sherrington]

03:09 PM on 08/23/2011

One thing I think all of you bashing Gov Rick for this should think about...he says that scientists are using lies and misinformation to get millions of dollars for their research. Isn't it clear that Gov Rick would know more about spreading lies and misinformation for money than most others in this country. After all, he, and most of the Tea Party types, are champions at collecting money for their campaign coffers with lies and misinformation. Who would understand this better?
Well, possibly the Florida state legistlature, but let's not start about that.

[heian120]

04:55 PM on 08/25/2011

he is too low its more like 50 BILLION

“The cover of the August 13, 2007 issue of Newsweek sports a picture of a very active sun with a title “Global Warming is a Hoax.” But the cover story isn’t about how the man-caused global warming hysteria is a hoax. It is a diatribe about how those who are skeptical about man’s influence on climate are denying the truth and are undermining the true science. Science that allegedly shows without a doubt that man is causing global warming. The article’s title, “The Truth About Denial,” provides the lead-in for the accusation that the skeptics are receiving millions of dollars (primarily from big oil, of course) to provide research disproving man-caused global warming. The author, Sharon Begley, accused Exxon alone of giving $19 million to such efforts.

Nineteen million dollars since 1990 is a lot of money – until it is compared to the whooping $50 billion that has fed the man-caused global warming hysteria. You read it correctly, that is $50 billion. Of course, Newsweek conveniently left that bit of information out of its article. The conventional wisdom that man is responsible for the cataclysmic warming over the past 100 years was bought and paid for with your tax dollars and huge foundation grants. Although $50 billion has bought big headlines and doomsday rhetoric, the actual research has shown almost no connection between earth’s CO2 and its temperature.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Coffman/mike10.htm

[jimboy71]

07:24 PM on 08/25/2011

Drivel.

[chrisd3]

08:59 PM on 08/25/2011

Oh, right. A piece written by conspiracy theorist Michael Coffman, whose degree is in "forest science." He doesn't source his numbers, and he quotes the inimitable Bob Carter, the Heartland "scientist" who draws arbitrary horizontal lines through arbitrary points on a graph and tries to fool us into believing that they're trend lines.

Convincing.

[Robco1]

12:23 PM on 08/22/2011

What a piece of work. $11 million. That's how much this clown has sucked out of the fossil fuel lobby to sing their tune. And that's just the money that can be directly attributed to the fossil fuel lobby. His third largest donor block are lawyers and law firms. Industry has long used its law firms to funnel money to its shills in politics.

It is understandable why Perry would project onto scientists the motivations of the pro-pollution politicians and lobbyists he hangs out with. Virtually nothing is more important to them than money and the influence of its buys, which can be maintained only by making crap up.

It is understandable, perhaps, but not forgivable, since the health and well-being of our children and grandchildren and countless future generations – billions of people — are at stake...

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/17/298288/rick-perry-big-oil-climate/

The moral center of a flukeworm.

[dktshb]

06:40 PM on 08/21/2011

How is that record heat and drought coming Perry. Looks like many TX cities have already broke all time record consecutive days of 100F or more and it is only the middle of August. The previous records were set back in 2009. Nope there aint no such thing as global warming. I'll keep listening to politicians who support big oil over scientists because I am not too bright.

[heian120]

04:57 PM on 08/25/2011

you do know this says nothing about GW don't you? Where were you when we had record cold???? GW???

[jimboy71]

07:26 PM on 08/25/2011

Record cold is only significant if the days with low temperature outnumber the days with high temperature above the mean. If the warm outweighs the cold, then the current year's mean will lie above the one preceding it. That's net warming.

[gallon]

11:38 AM on 08/26/2011

Actually the record Texas cold this spring was also global warming. The jet stream got pushed way out of it's normal path the south. That is what happened.

[StephenBP]

07:47 AM on 08/21/2011

Gee, FOX weather misleader Joe Bastardi predicted that Arctic Sea Ice Extent would not go below 5.5 million square kilometers this year, I just noticed that it is already down to 5.3 million square kilometers as of yesterday.... and there is still a month of ice melting season left!

And it is also currently on its way to being the first or second lowest amount of Arctic ice on record?

Hey Joe, how'd you get that Fox show gig?
Hey Joe, how'd you get that Fox show gig?
Perhaps because you wallow in lies all day like a barnyard p*g...
Perhaps because you wallow in lies all day like a barnyard p*g...

[jimboy71]

11:24 AM on 08/21/2011

Yup.

[ajp1511]

04:57 AM on 08/21/2011

Just what America needs another republican Wacho from Texas.

[ClimateHawk]

09:59 PM on 08/20/2011

No, they did not predict an ice age in the 1970s.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/09/now_out_in_bams_the_myth_of_th.php

[heian120]

04:58 PM on 08/25/2011

right they predicted potential rapid cooling

[jimboy71]

07:26 PM on 08/25/2011

You mean Time and Newsweek, the ad rags?

[chrisd3]

11:37 PM on 08/25/2011

No, they didn't.

Why don't you go read those infamous Time and Newsweek articles again, and see if you can find ANY predictions.

Just for fun.

[cborgia]

10:12 AM on 08/20/2011

Gee, I might have said that the electoral success of the Publican Party in general, and Ranger Rick in particular, is the result of manipulating the happy bottom quarter of the national gene pool with lies and malicious propaganda. And Ricky, as Ronnie was apt to say (when he was kept marginally lucid by stimulants), there you go again: more lies about global warming, more BS about the economy, more of the same tired trash the whole brigade of marching morons chants in near unison in hopes of setting up a standing wave in the national seas of idiots that will carry them to the top.
Give it up, chump, it appears that you can't even fool 40% of the people all of time. I know that you're not supposed to be able to go broke by underestimating the American public, but I find it heartening that disapproval of the Tea Party Congress is headed for 85%. Perhaps there is hope even for some of the 30% of Americans who were hopelessly addicted to Faux News and Publican propaganda to return to the real word of facts and consequences. If so, Ranger Rick and his cohorts are headed for a long run as a side show act in which they compete every night for top billing as head geek. BTW, Ricky, don't pawn your AC. It's getting warmer ever year, you pinhead.