Perry calls global warming an unproven, costly theory -'manipulated data' to win research dollars

…Jim Rubens, a Republican…..who works as a consultant for the Union of Concerned 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...Earth surface temperatures have risen above the 20th century average every month since the mid-1980s.

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

"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."

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.

Rubens said later in an interview...Perry was promulgating inaccurate information that could damage the reputation of the National Academy of Sciences……

I see Perry taking on the EPA like Reagan took on the Commies.

Perry's platform is going after regulators and lawyers.

He's already leading the fight for Texas against the EPA, researchers (higher education fiefdoms) and lawyers.

Environmentalism is killing Capitalism.

Environmentalism is killing jobs.

*****

This is how you "create" jobs -- you create an environment that is friendly to employers!

Rick Perry:

FIRST: "Don't spend all the money!"

SECOND: "Have a fair and predictable tax and regulatory policy!"

THIRD: "Have a legal system that doesn't allow for over suing and make loser pay!"

Aug 5, 2011: Finding middle ground on EPA-Texas electric squabble [EPA doesn’t do “middle” ground] “Texas' grudge match with the Environmental Protection Agency is getting nastier and riskier, with the fallout threatening to reach the state's power grid. Want another reason to worry about the lights staying on? Or how about another hit to the economy? You've heard lots of political posturing about Texas' way of life being threatened by an overreaching federal government. This time, Gov. Rick Perry has a point. …………..

Don't be surprised if the attorney general jumps in after Perry slammed the rule for threatening Texas jobs and families and putting reliable, affordable electricity at risk. Late last week, 31 members of Congress from Texas, including eight Democrats, signed a letter to the White House asking for relief. The utility commission also filed objections with the EPA.

Texas officials and the EPA have been clashing over air pollution and environmental issues for the past decade. The conflict has deepened under the Obama administration as the EPA turned more aggressive and Perry sharpened his attacks on Washington.”………

“Climate skeptic.”

They are reaching new lows with these absurd names.

Perry is not a skeptic of climate.

Is skeptical that we can trust any of the data coming from those claiming A) that there has been demonstrable “global” warming (that is, throughout the oceans, on the land surface, and in the atmosphere. THEIR measurements are principally tied to “surface land” temperatures.) and B) that man’s activity is the cause of the warming (AGW).

I’ve been studying this subject for a few years.

My conclusion is that any honest and true scientist at BEST can only be agnostic regarding whether there is demonstrable “global” warming (as opposed to temporary, cyclical warming or mere heat transfers — the atmospheric temperatures demonstrated a decline in temperature as the surface temperatures increased which indicates a transfer, not an overall increase) and that there is no evidence that man’s activity is causing said warming.

These would be the most ardent scientists. Others studying this issue and especially the politics and money behind it, are wise to conclude that AGW is not a “hoax” or “error,” it is FRAUD (deception intended for personal gain and to manipulate others).

“22 years ago when Al Gore was talking about the ozone hole over the south pole, no one knew where this was going. Inclueing you”.

Not totally true. Rush called b.s. on the whole thing from the get go.

A lot of people dismissed his overall theme on the subject.

Evidence and events have proven Rush correct. Sometime in the late 80’s Al Gore took a trip to the Aral Sea in the Soviet Union and came back an environmental bible thumper,(so to speak), and hasn’t shut up about it since.

It is up to Rick Perry to show us that his past support of Al Gore was not support for his then nascent, (because he was talking about it then, I’m from Tennessee, I remember when that stuff began to spew from facial orafice), global warming putsch.

However. Rick Perry is not on trial. Its a little offensive to see the advocates of AGW, or climate change, or what ever they want to call it today, get on their high horse and act like the denier on the dock is on trial for crimes against the state for denying the holocaust.

It makes the so called scientific community look more like a gang of thugs trying to force their point of view into an unquestionable uniform to which must all conform, rather than a search for the truth about what is actually happening.

“22 years ago when Al Gore was talking about the ozone hole over the south pole, no one knew where this was going. Inclueing you”.

Not totally true. Rush called b.s. on the whole thing from the get go.

A lot of people dismissed his overall theme on the subject.

His opinions put him at odds with the vast majority of experts These is a vast majority that does NOT think globull warming is manmade.

One of my favorite topics!

"The vast majority of experts", or more commonly, "scientists".

First of all, science (at least prior to grants from politicians becoming the principal source of money) is an adversarial process. Majority opinion is often wrong, sometimes amazingly wrong, and the major CREATIVE function of science and scientists is to DISPROVE consensus judgements.

Second, in this particular case, "experts" agree because if they don't, they lose, or don't get, their grants.

Third, the surveys of "scientists", or the petitions and letters signed by "scientists", include a large group of people working in fields unrelated to the subject at hand. The fact that someone has actual expert knowledge about animal phagocytic vacuoles or about the kinetics of metalloprotein complexing is meaningless as a qualifier of their opinion about the atmospheric carbon economy.

The AGW fraud, because of the involvement of politicians and wannabes, is the largest quasi-science fraud in history. If science exists in 100 years, there will be full-semester science classes to study the whole phenomenon.

I have very grave doubts that Perry is The One, but he did good on this issue.

Federal Ethanol Mandate Hurts Texans Texas plays a vital role in both feeding and fueling our country. We are the number one beef-producing state and a top ten producer of our nation’s poultry, egg and dairy goods. Our state is also a leading contributor to the nation’s domestic fuel supply, working hard to reduce America’s dependence on foreign fuel. Our state’s public and private sector are investing considerable resources into researching, developing and providing incentives for renewable fuel production. But we can only do so much under the current restrictions.

The high price of corn is hitting Texans at the grocery checkout and making things tough on our livestock industry. I believe the high price of corn is due in large part to a federally mandated increase in the amount of corn-based ethanol that is blended into our nation’s fuel supply. Some simple math can explain the problem: more corn for ethanol means less corn for our kitchen tables and less feed for our livestock.

In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that this year 30 to 35 percent of our nation’s corn supply will be siphoned away for ethanol production, and the problem will only get worse. This year’s renewable fuel standard (RFS) mandates that nine billion gallons of corn-based ethanol be blended into fuel supply regardless of market forces. It will further require 15 billion gallons to be produced by 2015.

Escalating corn prices are proof that this arbitrary government standard is artificially inflating prices instead of allowing free-market forces to work. Before this well-intentioned but misguided mandate was established in 2005 (and later expanded in 2007), a bushel of corn cost roughly $2. Today, that cost has tripled to nearly $6. Multiply that by the billions of bushels needed to feed our families and our livestock and you can easily see why global food prices have increased 83 percent over the past three years. If costs continue their upward acceleration, our livestock industry will continue to suffer and faces permanent damage in the very near future.

We need relief and we need it now.

Last month I asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a 50 percent waiver from the grain-based RFS mandate. So far, Washington is listening: the EPA recently opened a comment period to allow input from all stakeholders. I sincerely hope that the voices of our congressional and state delegations will be joined with all impacted Texans in a unified request for this waiver before our economy suffers further harm. Although many factors play into increasing feed and food prices, a partial waiver from the RFS mandate is the quickest, most effective way to bring relief to our farmers, ranchers and consumers. The mandate is not just hurting Texas. The impact of this errant policy is showing around the world, providing a grim preview of what the future may hold if changes are not made. While Texans are financially strained at the grocery store, other countries have experienced food riots unlike any seen in the last 30 years. Something that strains our robust economy can be a death blow to less stable economies in other countries.

If we think that the federal government’s short-sighted policies toward energy exploration and fuel refining have played a key role in the current fuel crisis, why would they be any better when regulating the allocation of a key agricultural staple like corn? If you think it’s bad for foreign countries to control our fuel, imagine what it would be like if they control our food supplies.

Beyond the issue of inflated costs, the federal mandate raises another important issue: government interference in the free market. No matter how well-intentioned, any government mandate that benefits one industry to the detriment of millions of consumers is bad policy. Our state’s robust economy is largely due to the free-market policies we have in place, including lower taxes, a reasonable regulatory climate and limitations on runaway litigation.Those approaches and innovative Texas businesses should be trusted to solve our current energy challenges. Non-food bioproducts such as algae, switchgrass, jatropha and camelina are promising energy alternatives that have no impact on food production and the environment. Algae, in particular, can produce significantly more biofuel per acre - by a factor of 10 or more - than any other available source, and has strong potential to produce both diesel and jet fuel. In fact, a $4 million grant was recently awarded through our Texas Emerging Technology Fund to Texas AgriLife Research at Texas A&M University to further develop this technology.

I can only imagine the progress that would be made in such areas if we could focus on the acceleration of other biofuel production technology that takes up less land, requires fewer resources and is ultimately more cost efficient.

The immediate issue at stake is how to alleviate the financial strain Texas’ families and livestock industry face due to increased food prices. A waiver of RFS levels is the best way to reduce those costs before permanent damage is done to both our state and nation. I hope you’ll join me in pressing Washington for this waiver. [end] - Rick Perry

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.