Denier Rick Perry Takes $11 Million from Big Oil, Then Claims Climate Scientists ‘Manipulated Data’ For Money
If you look up chutzpah in the dictionary, there is a picture of Rick Perry. Perry has received millions of dollars from Big Oil to push its pro-pollution, anti-science agenda:
So what does Perry do when a questioner points out that the National Academy of Sciences and observed data utterly disagree with his disinformation on climate change? He simply asserts with no evidence that a “substantial number” of climate scientists have “manipulated data” for money, as TP Green reports. Here’s the background and the video:
Anyone who knows actual scientists knows that they don’t do things for the money. Indeed, it is quite safe to say very few become scientists if money is among the top things they are interested in. In fact, virtually nothing is more important to a scientist than his or her professional reputation, which can be maintained only by doing research that can be reproduced by others.
It is understandable why Perry would project onto scientists the motivations of the pro-pollution politicians and lobbyists he hangs out with. Virtually nothing is more important to them than money and the influence of its buys, which can be maintained only by making crap up.
It is understandable, perhaps, but not forgivable, since the health and well-being of our children and grandchildren and countless future generations – billions of people — are at stake.
So what does Perry do when a questioner points out that the National Academy of Sciences and observed data utterly disagree with his disinformation on climate change? He simply asserts with no evidence that a “substantial number” of climate scientists have “manipulated data” for money, as TP Green reports. Here’s the background and the video:
At the Politics and Eggs breakfast in Bedford, NH, Perry was questioned by Jim Rubens, a former New Hampshire Republican legislator and technology investor, who noted that the National Academy of Sciences, which has advised presidents since its founding by Abraham Lincoln, has concluded that global warming is caused primarily by fossil fuels.“If observed scientific data and the National Academy of Sciences are both wrong on an issue involving thousands of scientists, and an issue as prominent as global warming,” Rubens asked, “doesn’t this call into question the entire science discovery process that forms the foundation of a hundred years of America’s technological preeminence?”Global warming has indeed been politicized by the fossil-fuel industry and the tea party extremists — but the degree of politicization is unique to this country, which should tell you all you need to know about its source (see National Journal: “The GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science that appears unmatched among major political parties around the globe, even conservative ones”).
“You may have a point there,” Perry replied, arguing that “there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects”:
You may have a point there, because 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. And I think 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. Yes our climate’s changed, they’ve been changing ever since the earth was born. But I do not buy into a group of scientists who have in some cases found to be manipulating this information.Watch video shot by ThinkProgress’ Travis Waldron:
And the cost to the country and the world of implementing these anti-corbon programs is in the billions if not trillions of dollars at the end of the day. And I don’t think, from my perspective, that I want America to be engaged in spending that much money still on a scientific theory that has not been proven, and from my perspective, is being put more and more into question.
Anyone who knows actual scientists knows that they don’t do things for the money. Indeed, it is quite safe to say very few become scientists if money is among the top things they are interested in. In fact, virtually nothing is more important to a scientist than his or her professional reputation, which can be maintained only by doing research that can be reproduced by others.
It is understandable why Perry would project onto scientists the motivations of the pro-pollution politicians and lobbyists he hangs out with. Virtually nothing is more important to them than money and the influence of its buys, which can be maintained only by making crap up.
It is understandable, perhaps, but not forgivable, since the health and well-being of our children and grandchildren and countless future generations – billions of people — are at stake.
No comments:
Post a Comment