« | »

Perry: Global Warming Is Unproven Theory

From an overheated Los Angeles Times:

Rick Perry calls global warming an unproven, costly theory

The Texas governor says scientists have ‘manipulated data’ to win research dollars.

By Maeve Reston, Los Angeles Times

August 17, 2011

Reporting from Bedford, N.H. — Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Wednesday reaffirmed his view that global warming is an unproven scientific theory that has been advanced, at least in part, by scientists who have "manipulated data," and he argued that programs intended to limit climate change are costing the nation "billions if not trillions" of dollars that he believes could be better spent elsewhere.

Mr. Perry should be being hailed for his scientific breakthrough. He has finally discovered the real cause of ‘global warming’ — government funded research grants. And, yes, it is man-made.

"We are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change," Perry told an audience of several hundred voters, business leaders and local officials who gathered for a breakfast in Bedford. "Yes, our climate’s changed — they’ve [sic] been changing ever since the Earth was formed."

Note how Reuters kept in Mr. Perry’s hick-like grammar. (If he even said it this way.)

But Perry’s claim that the earth’s climate is always changing is far closer to the truth than the theory of man-made global warming is. In reality, the earth has been warming ever since the Ice Age. For the record, science has never fully explained the occurrence of the Ice Age or its subsequent disappearance. Or, rather we should say the earth’s Ice Ages, since there have been at least five major Ice Ages in the planet’s history.

In fact, there is still no ‘scientific consensus’ as to what caused any of them, either. However, there is a general consensus that outside these Ice Ages (that is, in ‘normal times’) most of the earth was ice free, even at high latitudes (aka, the poles).

So even if the earth is getting warmer, it may just be returning to its more normal, non-Ice Age state. And who are we to try to stand in the way of Mother Nature?

Without citing his sources, Perry added that the cost of implementing what he called "anti-carbon programs" is billions of dollars: "I don’t think, from my perspective, that I want America to be engaged in spending that much money on what is still a scientific theory that hasn’t been proven, and from my perspective is more and more being put into question."

How crazy for Mr. Perry to talk this way without "citing his sources."

Perry expressed his skepticism about global warming during his debut at the Politics & Eggs series, a virtually mandatory event for presidential candidates in the state that holds the first primary each election cycle.

One of his questioners was Jim Rubens, a Republican from the village of Etna who works as a consultant for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

And we believe Mr. Rubens is a Republican, too. By the way, the Union Of Concerned Scientists is a radical leftwing anti-US environmental advocacy group that masquerades as scientists.

Rubens prefaced his question by reading statements from Perry’s book "Fed Up!" that global warming is "a contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight."

Rubens, an investor who works in the clean-energy sector, asked Perry how he reconciled those views and his assertion that the Earth is "experiencing a cooling trend" with findings that fossil fuel combustion is the primary cause of global warming and that Earth surface temperatures have risen above the 20th century average every month since the mid-1980s.

Note that Mr. Rubens is literally ‘invested’ in man-made global warming. Also note that Mr. Rubens did not cite his sources for his claims.

If both "observed scientific data" and the National Academy of Sciences are wrong on the issue, Rubens asked Perry, "doesn’t that call into question the entire science discovery process that is the basis for America’s status as an advanced technological society?"

This is what passes for logic in the 21st century.

"You may have a point there," Perry quipped, adding that he believed the issue had become politicized. Without citing any specific examples, the Texas governor charged that "there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects."

Apparently, University Of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit’s email scandal — so called ‘Climate-gate’ — passed Reuters by completely. But it’s not like they are in the news business. They are in the propaganda business.

His opinions put him at odds with the vast majority of experts. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made up of more than 2,500 scientists, found with 90% confidence that recent warming was caused by humans. Its conclusion is supported by years of accumulated scientific data. The U.N. has warned that there is so much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that even if concentrations held at current levels, the effects of global warming would continue for centuries

What media bias?

But just remember, if our news media will go so far out on a limb for ‘global warming,’ what won’t they lie about?

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, August 18th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

18 Responses to “Perry: Global Warming Is Unproven Theory”

  1. JohnMG says:

    Mr. Rubens is a ‘consultant’ that earns his money from fueling the old familiar “the sky is falling–the sky is falling!’ chant.

    Also, note how he takes Perry to task for not citing specific sources, yet he (Rubens) employs the same tack to attack Perry. Republican, my ass. The Union Of Concerned Scientists couldn’t discern global warming from global whoring, an activity in which they are vigorously engaged. If they had one scintilla of decency they couldn’t carry on with this deception. But then, money talks and bullshit walks.

  2. Mithrandir says:


    Ever notice how the most ardent supporters of global warming are the same people who will directly benefit from the hysteria?

    ~Al Gore won the Nobel Prize for it.
    ~Scientists get big grants to get result politicians want to hear.
    ~Politicians get to raise taxes, thereby regulating/punishing their enemies, and reward their friends.
    ~Businesses that are “green” will get top priority for gov’t handouts.
    ~Textbook sellers will get priority for approved opinions on global warming.
    ~”Warmians” have their gospel, saints, messiahs, chants and prayers, heroes and villains just like any other religion.

    Democrats LOVE global warming because it’s another issue in which they can manipulate the population, and don’t doubt it, the population is just a tool, or thing, to be manipulated for their own benefit.

  3. BannedbytheTaliban says:

    “The U.N. has warned that there is so much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that even if concentrations held at current levels, the effects of global warming would continue for centuries…”

    That is a rather convenient finding. Now when the draconian regulations and global wealth redistribution that are used to tackle AGW fail, they have a reason to keep them going. It is almost like they planned it that way.

    • Natural Born Citizen says:

      Has anyone measured the concentrations of greenhouse gases emanating from the UN building?

  4. proreason says:

    Perry can’t go wrong by bashing global warming. Everybody now knows it’s a fraud.

  5. wirenut says:

    Oh my sides! This just keeps getting better. Open question to our informed public.
    What do global warming nuts and a really bad case of STD’s have in common?
    A. Both are hard to get rid of.
    B. Both need multiple partners.
    C. Most are found lurking around bus station toilet seats.
    Feel free to add to my list at anytime!

    • mr_bill says:

      D. Both groups should refrain from attempting to breed.

    • JohnMG says:

      E: They are highly resistant to penicillin as a cure.

      F: They both leave long-term lingering side effects.

      G: Ignoring them won’t make them go away.

    • Reality Bytes says:

      WN, with C may also find NJ Gov. Jim (call me Tina) McGreevy.

    • TerryAnne says:

      H. Both have some sort of stick rising that precedes the “bad stuff”.
      I. They both smell bad (this more for the Save the Environment hippie side).
      J. Dripping liquids factor in there somewhere…

  6. AmericanIPA says:

    Any Republican who wants to be President needs to understand that they are going to be torn limb from limb over every little thing they say or do. Think about what Bush went through and what Sarah Palin has gone through and realize it will be worse. Anything they disagree with the liberal media on is enough to make them the dumbest person to ever walk the earth. Our sorry excuse for a news media is heavily invested in liberal/socialist philosophy and they won’t take kindly to any facts thrown their way.

    And if the news media doesn’t treat a Republican candidate like trash or even has a nice thing or two to say about him (McCain, Crist, Huntsman) we should run from that candidate as fast as possible.

  7. wirenut says:

    I would like to amend (C.), to. Both were sired by the same bus station toilet seat, and would like to add.
    K. Both just need to be infected to become an expert.
    L. A single shot probably won’t cure either one.
    M. Both have to “giveitup” in order to get it.
    AMERICANIPA, that’s why “we” are “here” and we put libtard media on HIGH- SPEED IGNORE. They just hate us for it. Truth be told, they just hate us.

  8. BillK says:

    “Vast majority of experts” of course being defined as the Government-funded scientists whose funding would disappear were climate change to be shown not to be anthropogenic or otherwise not worthy of study.

    Science has long stopped being actual science – meaning all about what the data actually shows – and has become essentially doing research to show why your research project is in need of expanded funding and/or greater staffing.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Bingo! You nailed it.

      What’s perhaps the most laughable is the 1960’s TV commercial methodology used by the left to “sell” their gobbledygook.

      Remember, “Four out of five dentists agree” and “Studies have shown”.

      So, the critical thinkers reached critical mass when it came to AGW and demanded to see the data. When analyzed, the data showed to be sorely lacking and the “hockey-stick graph” turned out to be one of the biggest crocks in scientific history. Then, there was the case of the curious “missing data” that someone said was destroyed or the files hacked, etc. Gee….sounds like “my dog ate my homework” to me. Wasn’t the data so universally accepted as to be duplicated in many different research facilities/universities, etc.?

      Well, when you have such overwhelming data that the world has a right to know about, yet you keep it as a closely guarded secret so that only certain people can see it, doesn’t that smack of an agenda to you? No? You don’t think so because, in your mind, if the “wrong people” got ahold of it, they would cause trouble?

      Trouble for whom, exactly? If the data is so clear….where is it? Everyone else who has studied the concept and theory of AGW has come out and said the data they have accumulated is “inconclusive” which means they lean toward your argument but that the data doesn’t support it.

      Then, there’s the argument about why there are dinosaur fossils in Alaska in the permafrost. http://www.amazon.com/NOVA-Arctic-Dinosaurs-Nova/dp/B001IBCS3M/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1313767003&sr=1-2

      How is it that they could live in such northern latitudes if the Earth wasn’t warm at the time, as the fossil record indicates? Why would it be warm in the 60,70 and 80 degree latitudes? Could it be that Cretaceous creatures had too many coal-fired powerplants and were driving their SUV’s and flying in their corporate jets causing deadly greenhouse gasses to accumulate to earth-killing levels?


      Everything in nature is cyclical. That means it has ups and downs for those of you in Rio Linda. But man is no more causing global warming than I am going to receive a huge amount of money from an e-mailer in Nigeria.

      “It’s not that they’re stupid; It’s that they just know so much that isn’t so.”

  9. sticks says:

    ” What won’t they lie about?” Lets see thinking…thinking…thinking…(drawing a blank here).
    Didn’t they have wonderful computer projections going many years into the future showing the terrible disasters comming upon us? By then the people, living in huts and working 14 hrs a day to pay rent to the feudal landlords (and hopefully have a loaf to feed their children with) will be to miserable to care much.

  10. David says:

    Ahg, Perry. Stay on message. Climate change is a scientific question, leave it to the scientists. The point should be what role government should play. Keep to the conservative message that whether we want to reduce emissions or increase them as a society (or anything else) the vehicle for doing that is the market not the government.

    • proreason says:

      Good advice, David.

      But I still think it helps Perry, since it’s so obvious now that the science has been manipulated.

  11. jimreport says:

    Imagine if they discovered that it was normal for glaciers to melt during the period we are in, formaly called “interglacial period”.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »