“Although I agree with Perry on this issue, I think he was nor prepared and his answer was weak. Why not talk about MIT scientist Richard Lindzen’s argument that, rather than enlightened and objective, “climate science” has taken us back centuries to a time when natural disasters were taken as omens, proof of our “sins” and the anger of Nature. “
because they will still say he’s just one of a few scientists versus thousands of other scientists so he must be wrong. You have to first debunk the idea that consensus among scientists equals truth.
Also, nobody really cares about Huntsman and there’s no point preparing all kinds of facts and figures just to deal with this guy.
So dodging the question was better than answering it? Perry just was not ready for the question. In a way, his weak answer helps the Alinsky crowd by giving them an easy target.
Also, nobody really cares about Huntsman and there’s no point preparing all kinds of facts and figures just to deal with this guy.
Hunstman is not a serious candidate. They could get a thousand characters to agree with the global warming dogma. Perry matters because he is the GOP frontrunner and the most well known global warming skeptic.