Rick Perry: ‘Substantial Number’ Of Climate Scientists Have ‘Manipulated Data’ For Money

Posted on  

"Rick Perry: ‘Substantial Number’ Of Climate Scientists Have ‘Manipulated Data’ For Money"

Challenged in New Hampshire today about his accusation that global warming is a “contrived phony mess,” Rick Perry dug in, accusing climate scientists of a for-profit conspiracy. At the Politics and Eggs breakfast in Bedford, New Hampshire, 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?”

“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 formed. But I do not buy into a group of scientists who have in some cases found to be manipulating this information.

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.

Watch video shot by ThinkProgress’ Travis Waldron:

“Rick Perry is a very impressive candidate in demeanor and personality, but he is simply citing false information and implying that there is some large-scale conspiracy among scientists, including the National Academy of Sciences,” Rubens told ThinkProgress Green in a phone interview. “Candidates running for president need to cite the facts as they are.”

Transcript:

Q: Thank you, governor, for coming to our state. You wrote in your recent book that global warming is a “contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight” and that earth has been “experiencing a cooling trend.” On the other hand, the National Academy of Sciences, an independent body of our nation’s most esteemed scientists, has concluded that fossil fuel combustion is the primary cause of the warming. And every month since 1985, every month we’ve seen warmer than the 20th century average — the hockey stick. My question is: 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, doesn’t this call into question the entire science discovery process that forms the foundation of a hundred years of America’s technological preeminence?

PERRY: 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 idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change. Yes the climate is changing, they’ve been changing ever since the earth was born. But I do not buy into that a group of scientists who have in some cases found to be manipulating this information.

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.

« »

Comments are closed.