Rick Perry Doesn’t Believe In Man-Made Global Warming. And Neither Should You If You’re Capable Of Thinking For Yourself.

To the left’s abject horror, Rick Perry doesn’t believe in anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming:

Perry: Theory on manmade global warming unproven, based on scientists manipulating data
 Article by: STEVE PEOPLES , Associated Press
Updated: August 18, 2011 – 3:30 AM

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.

Let’s see: “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.”  And “many conservatives question overwhelming evidence showing climate change is happening.”  This “journalist” loves the word “overwhelming.”

How about the first use?  Describing “the view held by an overwhelming majority of scientists.”  Is that one legit?

Nope.  Fake.  Liberals created a false report and have kept coming back to their false report that confirmed their false assertion again and again and again.  I wrote about this bogus pseudo-consensus in my article entitled “What You Never Hear About Global Warming” that I wrote in June 2008.  And BELIEVE me that any “consensus” is a LOT THINNER since the Climategate shennigans emerged:

The truth of the matter is that scientists from around the world are having to gather to discuss academic misconduct – the falsification or misrepresentation of research data – which is described as an “open sore” in scientific research. But the media does not seem to be interested in anything that would undermine their narrative of a crisis caused by global warming.

History professor Naomi Oreskes’ 2004 paper purporting to show “a unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming” garnered a great deal of media exposure. However, Dr. Benny Peiser’s devastating refutation of that paper by revealing its terrible methodology was largely shunned. Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte provided another refutation of Oreskes’ work. No matter: Oreskes paper is accepted as gospel by global warming advocates and by the media. Thus a history professor with an obviously biased and flawed methodology declares a scientific consensus on man-caused global warming, and that view has become the gospel-truth with the media which disregards the truth in favor of a footnote that supports their agenda.

Dr. Benny Peiser went on to present an 18 April 2007 paper titled EDITORIAL BIAS AND THE PREDICTION OF CLIMATE DISASTER: THE CRISIS OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION at the conference “Climate Change: Evaluating Appropriate Responses” before the European Parliament. He said:

Over the last 10 years, the editors of the world’s leading science journals such as Science and Nature as well as popular science magazines such as Scientific American and New Scientist have publicly advocated drastic policies to curb CO2 emissions. At the same time, they have publicly attacked scientists skeptical of the climate consensus. The key message science editors have thus been sending out is brazen and simple: “The science of climate change is settled. The scientific debate is over. It’s time to take political action.”

Instead of serving as an honest and open-minded broker of scientific controversy, science editors have opted to take a rigid stance on the science and politics of climate change. In so doing, they have in effect sealed the doors for any critical assessment of the prevailing consensus which their journals officially sponsor. Consequently, their public endorsement undoubtedly deters critics from submitting falsification attempts for publication. Such critiques, not surprisingly, are simply non-existing in the mainstream science media.

Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, has decried the myth of “scientific consensus,” and pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists. He has also pointed out that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of GHG-induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed. But he has largely been ignored by the media. Other scientists, such as Dr. Richard S. Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have similarly come out to declare their scientific skepticism of global warming alarmism. “I must state at the outset, that, as a scientist, I can find no substantive basis for the warming scenarios being popularly described. Moreover, according to many studies I have read by economists, agronomists, and hydrologists, there would be little difficulty adapting to such warming if it were to occur. Such was also the conclusion of the recent National Research Council’s report on adapting to global change.”

There are plenty of scientists who have officially put their skepticism to anthropogenic global warming in writing.  And that list is growing.

We had Climategate, in which it was revealed that numerous leading global climate change researchers were conspiring to conceal and even purge data and use “trick’s to conceal declines in temperaturesWe’ve also got NASA-gate.  The same NASA which has repeatedly “refused Freedom of Information requests on why it has repeatedly corrected its climate figures.”

Then there’s the issue of “WHAT THE SCIENCE REALLY SAYS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.”  And what the science says, in summary, is that we have overwhelming evidence of warming cycles that have repeatedly and routinely occurred in earth’s history throughout time about every 1,500 years.

And to make it worse for the proponents of man-made global warming, there is ALSO the fact that the same “global warming” that’s occurring on earth is occurring on other planets in our solar system which presumably don’t have carbon-spewing humans crawling all over them:

“Evidence that CO2 is not the principle driver of warming on this planet is provided by the simultaneous warming of other planets and moons in our solar system, despite the fact that they obviously have no anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Mars, Triton, Pluto and Jupiter all show global warming, pointing to the Sun as the dominating influence in determining climate throughout the solar system.”

Finally, I urge you to read the following easy-to-understand article that explains why this argument was framed by people who had little interest in “science” and basically framed the issue in a way which DEMANDED a conclusion that man was to blame:

An inconvenient truth: SOS from Al Gore
BY PATRICK BEDARD, September 2006
 
He’s baack! Just when you thought the scolding was over and it was safe to pull your ear plugs out, Al Gore has a brand-new harangue going.

Actually, it’s the same old doomsday prediction he’s been peddling since he was a senator bucking to be President back in the ’90s, only this time it’s packaged as a 94-minute film. An Inconvenient Truth previewed at the Sundance Film Festival last January. “This is activist cinema at its very best,” said the official festival guide.

You can guess what activated him; his long-playing paranoia about global warming. He and the mainstream media say it’s a done deal. We’re toast.

“Be Worried. Be Very Worried,” blared the cover of Time in April. “Climate change isn’t some vague future problem — it’s already damaging the planet at an alarming pace. Here’s how it affects you, your kids, and their kids as well.”

This is, by the way, the same Time that was telling us as late as 1983 to be worried, very worried, that temperatures were descending into another era of “glaciation.”

Gore’s “inconvenient truth” is that — there’s no tactful way to say this — we gas-guzzling, SUV-flaunting, comfort-addicted humans, wallowing in our own self-indulgences, have screwed up the planet. We’ve hauled prodigious quantities of fossil fuels out of the ground where they belong, combusted them to release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the sky where it shouldn’t be, and now we’re going to burn for our sins.

This feverish sort of should-and-shouldn’t evangelism plays particularly well these days among those who are looking for something to believe that carries no obligation to sit in a church pew. Nature has left us no scripture, so Gore can preach it as he feels it. Faith, brother. Don’t even pretend to understand. Anyway, humans, except for the rare enlightened ones like Al Gore, are alien trespassers in nature.

Let’s not dispute the earth’s temperature. It’s warmer than it used to be. As an Iowa farm boy, I learned about the soil we tilled. Most of Iowa is flat, graded smooth by glaciers. The rocks we plowed up in the fields, or plowed around if they were big, were rounded in shape. The glacier tumbled them as it scraped along, and it ground their corners off.

The North American ice sheets reached their largest expanse about 18,000 years ago and then began to recede. Within 5000 years they had pulled back considerably but still reached south as far as central Ohio. After another thousand years, however, the U.S. was largely ice-free.

Needless to say, there have been no glaciers reported in Iowa as long as anyone can remember. It’s warmer now. And if it would just warm up a bit more, fewer Iowans would need to trot off to Florida, Texas, and Arizona during deepest winter.

The long absence of farm-belt glaciers confirms an inconvenient truth that Gore chooses to ignore. The warming of our planet started thousands of years before SUVs began adding their spew to the greenhouse. Indeed, the whole greenhouse theory of global warming goes wobbly if you just change one small assumption.

Logic and chemistry say all CO2 is the same, whether it blows out of a Porsche tailpipe or is exhaled from Al Gore’s lungs or wafts off my compost pile or the rotting of dead plants in the Atchafalaya swamp.

“Wrong,” say the greenhouse theorists. They maintain that man’s contribution to the greenhouse is different from nature’s, and that only man’s exhaustings count.

Let’s review the greenhouse theory of global warming. Our planet would be one more icy rock hurtling through space at an intolerable temperature were it not for our atmosphere. This thin layer of gases — about 95 percent of the molecules live within the lowest 15 miles — readily allows the sun’s heat in but resists its reradiation into space. Result: The earth is warmed.
 
The atmosphere is primarily composed of nitrogen (78 percent), oxygen (21 percent), argon (0.93 percent), and CO2 (0.04 percent). Many other gases are present in trace amounts. The lower atmosphere also contains varying amounts of water vapor, up to four percent by volume.

Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and have no warming influence. The greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol are each rated for warming potency. CO2, the warming gas that has activated Al Gore, has low warming potency, but its relatively high concentration makes it responsible for 72 percent of Kyoto warming. Methane (CH4, a.k.a. natural gas) is 21 times more potent than CO2, but because of its low concentration, it contributes only seven percent of that warming. Nitrous oxide (N2O), mostly of nature’s creation, is 310 times more potent than CO2. Again, low concentration keeps its warming effect down to 19 percent.

Now for an inconvenient truth about CO2 sources — nature generates about 30 times as much of it as does man. Yet the warming worriers are unconcerned about nature’s outpouring. They — and Al Gore — are alarmed only about anthropogenic CO2, that 3.2 percent caused by humans.

They like to point fingers at the U.S., which generated about 23 percent of the world’s anthropogenic CO2 in 2003, the latest figures from the Energy Information Administration. But this finger-pointing ignores yet another inconvenient truth about CO2. In fact, it’s a minor contributor to the greenhouse effect when water vapor is taken into consideration. All the greenhouse gases together, including CO2 and methane, produce less than two percent of the greenhouse effect, according to Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, by the way, is described by one source as “the most renowned climatologist in all the world.”

When water vapor is put in that perspective, then anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.

If everyone knows that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, why do Al Gore and so many others focus on CO2? Call it the politics of the possible. Water vapor is almost entirely natural. It’s beyond the reach of man’s screwdriver. But when the delegates of 189 countries met at Kyoto in December 1997 to discuss global climate change, they could hardly vote to do nothing. So instead, they agreed that the developed countries of the world would reduce emissions of six man-made greenhouse gases. At the top of the list is CO2, a trivial influence on global warming compared with water vapor, but unquestionably man’s largest contribution.

In deciding that it couldn’t reduce water vapor, Kyoto really decided that it couldn’t reduce global warning. But that’s an inconvenient truth that wouldn’t make much of a movie.

Notice that the article acknowledges that it is getting warmer now.  Also notice that the author basically points out that “Greenland” is called “Greenland” because it used to be very GREEN rather than white with ice and snow.  And the glaciers that are melting now have formed, melted, formed again and melted again, over and over. 

It also points out that the global warming theorists arbitrarily decided to rule out 99.9 percent of the greenhouse gases that generate global warming in order to focus on the 3.2 percent of the man-caused carbon dioxide which is itself just one-tenth of one percent of said total global warming greenhouse gasses.

I’ll tell you what: Rick Perry says he doesn’t want to be forced to gut the American economy by forcing it to pay the $76 TRILLION that the United Nations says we need to fork out to “solve” the “crisis” of global warming.

If you want to doubt Rick Perry, fine: just bankrupt yourself by sending every single penny you’ve got to the U.N. and go crawl under a rock until you starve.  But please don’t inflict your foolishness on rational people who frankly have a lot more problems than global warming to worry about.

Tags: , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Rick Perry Doesn’t Believe In Man-Made Global Warming. And Neither Should You If You’re Capable Of Thinking For Yourself.”

  1. Russell C Says:

    But wait, there’s more – a largely unreported facet of the issue where the mainstream media has relied on a 15-20 year old accusation against skeptic scientists that is literally unsupportable. Please see my article here: “Huntsman vs. Perry on Global Warming: Recipe for Epic Huntsman/Gore Disaster” http://www.redstate.com/russellc/2011/08/24/huntsman-vs-perry-on-global-warming-recipe-for-epic-huntsmangore-disaster/

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Russell,

    Good information.

    By the way, I would ask Huntsman if he believes the US should bankrupt itself giving the United Nations IPC the $76 TRILLION it needs to “combat climate change.” If it’s truly a problem, we should, shouldn’t we? If it isn’t, Huntsman and Obama and all of these people should – in Maxine Water’s words – “Go straight to hell.”

    Huntsman is buying into the liberal establishment of a complete schism between religion and science in the first place – and then he goes on to state what amounts to a religious commitment to global warming in the very next breath.

    The scientific method itself, and in fact every single major branch of science, was discovered by a publicly confessed Christian. In fact, the Judeo-Christian worldview was ESSENTIAL to the discovery of science. It could have arisen nowhere else.

    Gleason Archer presents merely ONE of MYRIAD insolovable dilemmas for scientific naturalism:

    “But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

    On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self contradictory and self defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”

    Only a belief in God and in human nature created in the Imago Dei can resolve this dilemma.

    The left have their feet firmly planeted in midair.

    So when Huntsman virtually ruled out God in his – let me call it “mindless” – trust in evolution, and then says he believes in “science,” he just kind of wanders off the reservation and into the padded room.

    And in order to compensate for these massive weaknesses in their theories, all the left have are lies (e.g. virtually all scientists believe in man-made global warming) and demonization (e.g. flat-earthers).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: