WP: Rick Perry’s made-up ‘facts’ about climate change

[JMS]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rick-perrys-made-up-facts-about-climate-change/2011/08/17/gIQApVF5LJ_blog.html?fb_ref=NetworkNews

Perry recieves the infamous four Pinocchio rating!!

Rick Perry’s made-up ‘facts’ about climate change

“I do believe that the issue of global warming has been politicized. 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. Yes, our climates change. They’ve been changing ever since the earth was formed. But I do not buy into, that a group of scientists, who in some cases were found to be manipulating this data.”

— Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Aug. 17, 2011

This is a pretty sweeping statement about global warming by the newly announced GOP candidate for president. Perry has long been a skeptic of the science behind global warming, having highlighted that stance in his book, “Fed Up!”

But these remarks, made in New Hampshire on Wednesday, seem to take his skepticism to a new level, with significant and specific allegations:

1. A substantial number of scientists have manipulated data so they will have dollars rolling into their projects.

2. 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.

How true is this?

The Facts

The question of whether humans have contributed to climate change in recent years has generated increasing skepticism among the American public, especially as proposals to deal with the problem, such as reducing carbon emissions, have come with high price tags. But Perry is wrong to suggest that that skepticism has gained strength among scientists.

To the contrary, various surveys of climate researchers suggest growing acceptance, with as many as 98 percent believing in the concept of man-made climate change. A 2010 study by the National Academy of Sciences, which surveyed 1,372 climate researchers, is an example of this consensus. After all, it was first established in 1896 that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could help create a “greenhouse effect.”

There have been similar studies by, among others, the United States Global Change Research Program, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Yes, there are a few skeptics in the field, but even they generally do not question that human activity is warming the climate. A collection of statements by various scientific societies that support the consensus on climate change can be found here.

In response to our queries, Perry spokesman Mark Miner sent us a link to something called the Petition Project, which claims to have collected the signatures of 31,487 “American scientists” on a petition that says there is “no convincing scientific evidence” that human release of greenhouse gasses will “cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate.” The petition is a bit old, having been started in opposition to the 1997 Kyoto agreement on global warming.

But this petition doesn’t back up Perry’s claim of a growing army of scientists opposed to the climate change theory.

Only 9,000 of the signers actually have PhDs, and the list of signers’qualifications shows only a relatively small percentage with expertise on climate research. (One study estimated that under the petition’s rather expansive definition of a “scientist,” more than 10 million Americans would be qualified to sign it.) Judging from news reports, the number of signers has barely budged from 2008, further undercutting Perry’s claim of a groundswell of opposition.

Another Perry spokesman, Ray Sullivan, provided links to a number of recent articles that he said demonstrated skepticism in the scientific community. We reviewed the articles, and they are anecdotal in nature, not evidence of the groundswell of opposition suggested by Perry.

Despite our repeated requests, neither spokesman provided any evidence to back up Perry’s claim that “a substantial number of scientists … have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects” — perhaps because that particular scandal appears to be a figment of Perry’s imagination.

Perry appears to be referring to hundreds of e-mails that were stolen from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain and then disseminated on the Internet in 2009. One e-mail made references to adding a “trick” in the data, leading climate change skeptics to claim the data was manipulated.

But, although Perry claimed the scientists “were found to be manipulating this data,” five investigations have since been conducted into the allegations — and each one exonerated the half-dozen or so scientists involved.

So, in contrast to Perry’s statement, there have not been a “substantial number” of scientists who manipulated data. Instead, there were a handful — who were falsely accused.

The Pinocchio Test

Perry’s statement suggests that, on the climate change issue, the governor is willfully ignoring the facts and making false accusations based on little evidence. He has every right to be a skeptic — all scientific theories should be carefully scrutinized — but that does not give him carte blanche to simply make things up.

Four Pinocchios

(About our rating scale)

[AsburySkinsFan]

What a GOP politician who gets most of his money from companies that are in business to burn fossil fuels thinks that global warming is fake?! No WAY!!! :yikes:

/sarcasm

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Paging PeterMP

[SKINS@THEGOALLINE]

I wonder why he feels this way?

[Predicto]

I wonder why he feels this way?

Actually, I suspect he feels this way because it has become an unshakeable article of faith among the conservative GOP base that global warming is a hoax, or at least that "the science is unsettled." We see it in every GW thread on the Tailgate.

If Perry wants the nomination, he has to appeal to those voters.

[mistertim]

Haha. I love this part regarding the petition of "scientists" that the Perry spokesman sent him:

One study estimated that under the petition’s rather expansive definition of a “scientist,” more than 10 million Americans would be qualified to sign it.

[Stadium-Armory]

I find it inconsistent that he refutes global warming because the scientific evidence isn't conclusive, while at the same time basing his personal and political decisions on faith driven instructions from a deity.

[twa]

What is the difference between catastrophic climate change vs simply man made climate change?

trying to equate inequality in the totals from a petition rejecting one and accepting the other is rather weak sauce.

[@DCGoldPants]

Saying an Oil Spill is an act of God was interesting.

[bcl05]

I'm a geneticist. An MD, not a PhD. Research I've been involved in has to do with protein metabolism and genetic causes of autism and intellectual disabilities. Still, since I've been a member of various scientific advisory committees (I guess), I've received a number of surveys about global warming. Probably 90% of them have obvious "global warming is a hoax" bias, and appear to be written for third graders. I've never filled out any of them (since it couldn't be much farther from my area of expertise), but this kind of nonsense is the source of their "groundswell of opposition." Its just complete crap. Magical thinking. The anti-intellectualism of the current crop of GOP is the primary reason I won't be voting for them.

[brandymac27]

I'm a geneticist. An MD, not a PhD. Research I've been involved in has to do with protein metabolism and genetic causes of autism and intellectual disabilities. Still, since I've been a member of various scientific advisory committees (I guess), I've received a number of surveys about global warming. Probably 90% of them have obvious "globabl warming is a hoax" bias, and appear to be written for third graders. I've never filled out any of them (since it couldn't be much farther from my area of expertise), but this kind of nonsense is the source of their "groundswell of opposition." Its just complete crap. Magical thinking. The anti-intellectualism of the current crop of GOP is the primary reason I won't be voting for them.

It has to make you wonder if some of this sheer and blatant stupidity is a part of their motive to pander to certain groups of people (specific social classes, the less educated groups, etc). I say this especially regarding the tea party. The level of idiocy is becoming disturbing, and it really makes me question the intelligence, character, and overall psychological functioning of their (especially) hard core followers.

[@DCGoldPants]

I heard Bachmann referred to herself as Dr. Michele Bachmann about a decade ago. Can she fill out that survey?

[Predicto]

I'm a geneticist. An MD, not a PhD. Research I've been involved in has to do with protein metabolism and genetic causes of autism and intellectual disabilities. Still, since I've been a member of various scientific advisory committees (I guess), I've received a number of surveys about global warming. Probably 90% of them have obvious "globabl warming is a hoax" bias, and appear to be written for third graders. I've never filled out any of them (since it couldn't be much farther from my area of expertise), but this kind of nonsense is the source of their "groundswell of opposition." Its just complete crap. Magical thinking. The anti-intellectualism of the current crop of GOP is the primary reason I won't be voting for them.

I think they count on people like you refusing to fill out the surveys. Only the handful of nutters will fill them out. Then the surveyors can say "We surveyed 24,000 doctors and scientists, and a full 44% of the respondents expressed grave concerns about the gloabal waming hoax."

At least, that is how I would do it, if I were in that biz.

[alexey]

Somebody should tell Perry about that one time EPA put a glass dome around Springfield.

[Jumbo]

I'm a geneticist. An MD, not a PhD. Research I've been involved in has to do with protein metabolism and genetic causes of autism and intellectual disabilities. Still, since I've been a member of various scientific advisory committees (I guess), I've received a number of surveys about global warming. Probably 90% of them have obvious "globabl warming is a hoax" bias, and appear to be written for third graders. I've never filled out any of them (since it couldn't be much farther from my area of expertise), but this kind of nonsense is the source of their "groundswell of opposition." Its just complete crap. Magical thinking. The anti-intellectualism of the current crop of GOP is the primary reason I won't be voting for them.

I can relate to much of what you stated here, and share mostly similar leanings. I do try to remain open-minded and go case by case, but when I do generalize (and I believe one can do so relatively accurately much of the time given appropriate data, abilities, and effort ), I come to similar conclusions based on both observation of the national scene and what I directly experience in my own professional and academic circles.

[twa]

Saying an Oil Spill is an act of God was interesting.

So is conflating a catastrophic blowout and subsequent loss off a drilling platform with a spill ....but some like their things simple

It does look like God hates BP don't it ?

[DieselPwr44]

Made up facts?

Hey ,it works for this guy ..........

Perry's just following the business model set by the originator......

[Jumbo]

If that's true, 44, then he has no chance of my vote. Neither did Gore.

[mistertim]

So is conflating a catastrophic blowout and subsequent loss off a drilling platform with a spill ....but some like their things simple

It does look like God hates BP don't it ?

So you don't think it was a ridiculous thing for Perry to say that the incident/blowout/spill was an "act of God"?

[alexey]

So you don't think it was a ridiculous thing for Perry to say that the incident/blowout/spill was an "act of God"?

Everything is an act of God. It's quite simple:

1) Everything is an act of God.

2) Therefore I can point at any particular event and say it is an act of God.

3) Why did God do that? Why, it's obviously a crafty combination of whatever you want to hear with whatever I'd like you to believe.

If you go this route, then anything goes. And if anything goes, then everything goes wrong.

---------- Post added August-18th-2011 at 05:01 PM ----------

I can relate to much of what you stated here, and share mostly similar leanings. I do try to remain open-minded and go case by case, but when I do generalize (and I believe one can do so relatively accurately much of the time given appropriate data, abilities, and effort ), I come to similar conclusions based on both observation of the national scene and what I directly experience in my own professional and academic circles.

OK mister academic fancy pants. You could just write "I agree", you know :pfft:

[PeterMP]

http://gawker.com/5832243/rick-perry-gives-up-the-ghost-on-the-intelligent-design-lie

"In New Hampshire today, a woman coached her child to ask Perry his views on evolution. Here's what he said:

"It's a theory that's out there," Perry told the child. "It's got some gaps in it. In Texas we teach both Creationism and evolution."

This is interesting for two reasons: 1) Texas does not, in fact, teach creationism, or anything like it. While the Texas State Board of Education did rather famously mandate in 2009 that its science textbooks include information on "alternatives" to evolution, no textbooks containing those alternatives have actually been approved for use as of yet. In fact, just last month the board voted to approve new science materials that exclusively teach evolution.

Secondly, no one seriously—or openly, at least—advocates the teaching of Creationism in public schools anymore. Aware that Creationism is an avowedly theological and fundamentally unscientific precept, Christianist activists have concocted a pseudo-scientific-sounding "theory" called "Intelligent Design" as a sort of stalking horse to sneak their creation myth into the public education curriculum. Creationism is crude Biblical literalism; intelligent design merely takes into account the glory and complexity of the universe and deduces that something created it. Who? Oh, we don't want to get into teaching religion in public schools—that would unconstitutional!"

[alexey]

:munchout:

http://gawker.com/5832243/rick-perry-gives-up-the-ghost-on-the-intelligent-design-lie

"In New Hampshire today, a woman coached her child to ask Perry his views on evolution. Here's what he said:

"It's a theory that's out there," Perry told the child. "It's got some gaps in it. In Texas we teach both Creationism and evolution."

This is interesting for two reasons: 1) Texas does not, in fact, teach creationism, or anything like it. While the Texas State Board of Education did rather famously mandate in 2009 that its science textbooks include information on "alternatives" to evolution, no textbooks containing those alternatives have actually been approved for use as of yet. In fact, just last month the board voted to approve new science materials that exclusively teach evolution.

Secondly, no one seriously—or openly, at least—advocates the teaching of Creationism in public schools anymore. Aware that Creationism is an avowedly theological and fundamentally unscientific precept, Christianist activists have concocted a pseudo-scientific-sounding "theory" called "Intelligent Design" as a sort of stalking horse to sneak their creation myth into the public education curriculum. Creationism is crude Biblical literalism; intelligent design merely takes into account the glory and complexity of the universe and deduces that something created it. Who? Oh, we don't want to get into teaching religion in public schools—that would unconstitutional!"

It seems that we are reaching a point where litmus tests for GOP nomination are sufficient to disqualify people from the general election :dunce:

:munchout:

[Predicto]

OK mister academic fancy pants. You could just write "I agree", you know :pfft:

No, I'm pretty sure he is incapable of doing that.

[twa]

So you don't think it was a ridiculous thing for Perry to say that the incident/blowout/spill was an "act of God"?

No more than when my ins company uses the term,not a uncommon usage, and I certainly don't think their religion factors into their usage of it.

If you ask him who is liable and responsible I bet you will get a different answer than God:silly:

[Jumbo]

OK mister academic fancy pants. You could just write "I agree", you know :pfft:

Hey, it's sunny out here in the rain-forest and I'm wearing shorts!

Plus, I didn't fully agree AND had my own expressions to add--hence my wording....which = :geek::blahblah: :pfft: