Rick Perry: Global Warming Is Based on Scientists Manipulating The Data
Update: Actual Quotes Added

Uh-oh.

Note: Commenters point out, correctly, that nothing in the article is an actual quote; it's all paraphrase. I am taking the quotes out of the headline, as that is the language taken from Politico, but not, as it implies, the language taken from Perry's mouth.

I always think it's better to pay lip-service to this childish fantasy, for fear of alarming childish minds, but what the hell. If he's goin' all-in, then go all in.

This is a very good year to make this announcement. Fewer people believe in this crap, and even among those who believe this crap, no one gives a shit, given that we're going into a double-dip.

Polling: Gallup says a near-majority think global warming claims are "generally exaggerated.

So, not a bad time to strike.

Good Argument In The Comments. Let me add my take.

First of all, people in the middle tend to vote on general attitudes, general tendencies, and policy proxies. They really don't know candidates' specific positions. They claim they all want substance; they're liars. They're bored by substance. They would just like to know that on a website somewhere is some substance that they can ignore.

One important proxy is whether or not a candidate is "Pro Science." If you're "Pro Science," you're smart and you seek the truth and you're rational like Mr. Spock and so on. If you're "Anti Science," you're a big fat dummy.

Perry can actually turn this into a winning issue -- not just politically, but on the public take on global warming -- if he exercises care to make his anti-global-warming position a Pro Science position.

See? If he's anti-global-warming because he's Anti-Science, he loses the issue, and loses votes.

If he's anti-global-warming because he's Pro Science, he wins.

To do this he needs to talk in some detail about an easy-to-understand fraud -- "hide the decline" -- and make a pro-science sounding analogy: He could note, for example, that churches often became corrupt when they claimed to know the absolute truth and would accept no questioning from priests or congregants.

The AGW cult is now like such a church, growing corrupt by the day as it deems every single challenge to its authority heretical. Sunlight is not just the best disinfectant, but it is crucial for finding the truth. You can't find truth in darkness.

You get the idea. A Republican can win on the global warming issue only if he casts the argument in terms that he is actually the defender of science.

If it's just a glib "scientists make shit up" statement, it's a loser. It just sounds like you're rejecting Science, and that doesn't fly.

Quotes: Via Miss80sBaby, At the National Journal.

“I do believe that the issue of global warming has been politicized," Perry answered. "I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. I think we’re seeing it almost weekly or even daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change. Yes, our climates change. They’ve been changing ever since the earth was formed.”

Pegging the global cost of implementing “anti-carbon programs” in the billions or trillions of dollars, Perry said, “I don’t think from my perspective that I want America to be engaged in spending that much money on [what is] still a scientific theory that has not been proven, and from my perspective, is more and more being put into question.”

Well that's a good enough answer, but I still think he has to play the pro-science card to seal the deal.

posted by Ace at 11:46 AM

| Access Comments