Saturday, September 24, 2011

Rick Perry

QUESTION: Which scientists have you found most credible on this subject?

ANSWER (?!): "Well I do agree that, uh, there is... the sciences is not settled on this. The idea that we would put American's economy at, at, at jeopardy, uh, based on scientific theory that's not, uh, settled yet, is to me is just, it is nonsense. I mean it, it... And I tell somebody... I said, "Just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said here is the fact"... Galileo got, uh, outvoted for a spell. But the fact is to put America's economic future in jeopardy, asking us to cut back in areas that would have monstrous economic impact on this country is not good economics and I will suggest to you is not necessarily good science. Find out what the science truly is before you start putting the American economy in jeopardy."

I'm just saying. Read this man's words. Does it sound like he knows what he is talking about?

Knowing what we know about global warming, does it seem to you like he is sincere about the issue of global climate change? Could he come up with the name of a single scientist who might agree with him about climate change? That was the question asked.

Is he comparing himself to Galileo, as in - I find myself gettin' outvoted for a spell here?

Is he suggesting that the 97-98% of scientists who study the facts about global climate change and who agree on the human impact on climate are wrong? Should we believe Rick Perry's science over theirs?


*The science is settled on this. I'd suggest you read up on it. Find out what the facts are before you start spouting science.

*Good economic policy for our country would include doing something about this impending disaster before it gets worse, not pretending/hoping it doesn't exist.

*You are no Galileo. Not even close. I'd leave that one alone.


Chris Hass said...

Perhaps Perry has a chief of staff who once was a lobbyist for a big drug company that could use his connections to help develop an immunization to challenging well established scientific findings only when it benefits you politically.

We could make it mandatory.

George said...

How did he segue from saying the Science is not proven to then taking credit for Texas clean up its air? Is he suggesting that air clean up was driven by good economic decision-making? I seem to recall politicians fight that too. Whether you agree with his opinion on this matter or not, you have to recognize that this guy just went on national TV, fully aware that this topic would be covered and he didn't do his homework beforehand. If he had assigned one of his volunteers to dig up some research that he could review and memorize in a single afternoon (or less), so he could be prepared for a debate, he might have seemed to be credible. Instead he decided to wing it. He could have at least been better prepared for the debate, if only to better represent his financial supporters. What would he do with the economy? Wing it? This guy is an idiot!