Rick Perry, a Tea Party Republican candidate for president, is a liar. It’s true. The good, nonpartisan folks at Politifact prove it on a regular basis. Even when you ignore his ignorant and bigoted beliefs, like homosexuality is like alcoholism, and when you ignore his questionable actions, like taking massive campaign contributions in exchange for favors and political appointments, or, despite his state’s having the third-highest rate of teen pregnancy, Perry says, “abstinence education works,” not to mention firing those who don’t vote for him, Rick Perry lies twice as much as he tells the truth.
Last week, Perry made news when he said, more and more, scientists are questioning global warming. Perry called global warming a “contrived phony mess,” and suggested that climate change scientists are on the take, falsifying their data to make a buck, and falsely claimed, “we are seeing almost weekly or even daily scientists are coming forward,” to denounce the validity of climate change science.
“I do believe that the issue of global warming has been politicized,” Perry said. “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. I think we’re seeing it almost weekly or even daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”
Politifact deeply investigated, and reports,
“Perry’s remarks give the impression that the science of global warming is in dispute, that some scientists feel one way, and some scientists feel another way. He says that skepticism is growing. In fact, our research shows that’s not the case. We found that there is solid consensus among the major scientific organizations and that the skeptics seems to be small minority. We rate his statement False.”
One of the most oft-cited reports is from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), a scientific body considered the leading international organization on climate science. It includes the scientific consensus of thousands of researchers from 194 countries.
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,” the most recent report states. “The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone.” (External forcing refers to anything outside of the normal climate system that changes the climate, including the results of human activity, sunspots or volcanic eruptions.)
In the United States, the U.S. Global Change Research Program coordinates and integrates federal research on climate. Its 2009 report mirrored the IPCC’s conclusions: “Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.”
Earlier this year, a committee organized by the National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences again reviewed the current research on climate change. The committee concluded that climate change is occurring, that it is caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities, and that it poses significant risks for a range of human and natural systems. It specifically rejected the view that that those findings are in some way questionable.
“Although the scientific process is always open to new ideas and results, the fundamental causes and consequences of climate change have been established by many years of scientific research, are supported by many different lines of evidence, and have stood firm in the face of careful examination, repeated testing, and the rigorous evaluation of alternative theories and explanations,” the committee said.
We asked the Perry campaign for comment on this, but we didn’t hear back. In response to similar questions from the Washington Post, the Perry campaign pointed to various writings questioning climate change. But the Post’s report noted these writings were anecdotal and “not evidence of the groundswell of opposition suggested by Perry.” We concur.
{ 7 comments }
Perry seems reasonably accurate to me. The issue though isn't whether 'global warming' is real as those who make a living politicizing GW often like to state, the issue is with the magnitude of warming caused by man and whether there is a true danger. It is true that a lot more skeptical work is being produced these days but in the science, skeptical work is difficult to publish through peer review and even more difficult to get free $$ to do.
I have experience with it myself and your 'lie' statement is too strong and your question about what people are truly skeptical of is incorrectly posed. I wonder if reporters are smart enough to get the main issue or if they intentionally make the incorrect argument.
Jeff, you are correct that getting money for research is difficult, especially if the project goes against current views in science. However, Perry accuses scientists of deliberate fraud and collusion which is at best unfair and at worst an ad hominem attack on people who have scientific integrity. Further, the National Academy of Sciences has recently reviewed research on climate change and supports the conclusion of the majority of climate scientists. To say that Perry seems reasonably accurate to me ignores the facts. The evidence is very strong that human activity is a major contributor to climate change.
"Further, the National Academy of Sciences has recently reviewed research on climate change and supports the conclusion of the majority of climate scientists. "
I'm always amazed when people quote the boards of government funded institutions which support government funding. I think the government should pay me for instructing you also.
"However, Perry accuses scientists of deliberate fraud and collusion which is at best unfair and at worst an ad hominem attack on people who have scientific integrity."
There is quite a bit of blatant exaggeration in climate science. If you don't read paleoclimatology papers, I wonder if you ever heard of cliamtegate?
"The evidence is very strong that human activity is a major contributor to climate change. "
The evidence is certain that human CO2 release causes warming. How much warming and how bad it is are separate issues. There is considerable evidence that climate models run significantly higher than observations in general. The other problem is there isn't anything we can do to stop CO2 emissions anyway. Perry isn't wrong on those points. The money has biased the science, the politics have biased the story. In the end, all we get from the media is stuff like you just wrote, dogma with little resemblance to the data.
Jeff,
I do not agree with you. I do not think you have evidence that is sound and you have presented none, only rhetoric that is typical of what I read in right wing blogs. Further, you would find yourself at a disadvantage if you think the government should pay you to educate me. I suspect you do not have the knowledge to do so. It is the height of arrogance for you to suggest something like that without knowing who you are addressing. You have the right to believe whatever you want, the right to your own opinion, but you do not have the evidence that you have presented that are supported with facts. Where is the scientific evidence supporting your claims, not the political anecdotes?
Search for 'the Air Vent' on google. I think I've seen your handle around somewhere, if you don't already know, I run the blog which climategate was noticed on. We were discussing hide the decline over a year before it became obvious to the rest of the world. When you write spoonfed lines like above, it is clear that you are not a climate scientist yourself.
There is a great deal of evidence laid out in publication and discussed at my blog (data and code included) that supports everything I have written here. It is up to you to figure it out yourself though.
I've published in climate science too so check it out and let me know if I'm qualified to have the opinions I do or if it is just rhetoric.
I checked out your blog and Climate Science. You are a real true believer, Jeff. Have a nice day.
You too. Just be careful with the rhetoric if you don't know the science yourself. It is heavily politicized.
Comments on this entry are closed.