Texas Gov. Rick Perry Entering 2012 Race

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Not believing in manmade global warming is not the same as not believing in global warming.

I believe that global warming is occurring. I am not convinced that man is the cause of this.

After all if we did not have global warming then the ice age would never have ended.

The warming and cooling of the earth is a natural cyclical process that occurs over eons.

 

[meltzerboy]

GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry told New Hampshire voters Wednesday that he does not believe in manmade global warming, calling it a scientific theory that has not been proven.

“I think we’re seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists that are coming forward and questioning the original idea that manmade global warming is what is causing the climate to change,” the Texas governor said on the first stop of a two-day trip to the first-in-the-nation primary state.

He said some want billions or trillions of taxpayer dollars spent to address the issue, but he added: “I don’t think from my perspective that I want to be engaged in spending that much money on still a scientific theory that has not been proven and from my perspective is more and more being put into question.”

His comments came at a packed breakfast meeting with local business leaders in a region known for its strong environmental policies. And he made his global warming comment in response to a question by an audience member who cited evidence from the National Academy of Sciences.

But Perry’s opinion runs counter to the view held by an overwhelming majority of scientists that pollution released from the burning of fossil fuels is heating up the planet. Perry’s home state of Texas releases more heat-trapping pollution carbon dioxide – the chief greenhouse gas – than any other state in the country, according to government data.

cnsnews.com/news/article/perry-says-he-doesnt-believe-global-warm

First of all, Perry shows his ignorance of what is meant by a scientific theory. A scientific theory is the best we have for now; it is NOT the same as a hypothesis. True, it may be revised or discarded some day if we find evidence that it cannot explain, but so far the evidence in its favor is strong. Secondly (and related to the first point), Perry’s lack of knowledge regarding what a scientific theory is, he is using as a basis for his disbelief in global warming theory. Evidently, he is appealing to the public, whose primary concern, justifiably, is the economy. But it still makes one wonder what else he doesn’t believe in: the theory of evolution, perhaps? And it also makes one question whether one wants another possible George W. Bush, in terms of intellect, in the White House. On the other hand, perhaps the general public despises enough what is commonly referred to as the “elite” and prefers the common man, whom they can identify with more. Still, let’s be careful what we wish for.

 

[Ridgerunner]

First of all, Perry shows his ignorance of what is meant by a scientific theory. A scientific theory is the best we have for now; it is NOT the same as a hypothesis. True, it may be revised or discarded some day if we find evidence that it cannot explain, but so far the evidence in its favor is strong. Secondly (and related to the first point), Perry’s lack of knowledge regarding what a scientific theory is, he is using as a basis for his disbelief in global warming theory. Evidently, he is appealing to the public, whose primary concern, justifiably, is the economy. But it still makes one wonder what else he doesn’t believe in: the theory of evolution, perhaps? And it also makes one question whether one wants another possible George W. Bush, in terms of intellect, in the White House. On the other hand, perhaps the general public despises enough what is commonly referred to as the “elite” and prefers the common man, whom they can identify with more. Still, let’s be careful what we wish for.

If one counts Obama and his coterie of leftist appointees as representative of the “elites”, then, as regards the question whether to be governed by the “elites” or by the “common man”, I’ll take the latter.

As W.F. Buckley said “I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.”

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

Remember what a disaster people thought the gushing oil well in the Gulf was? Now they are hard pressed to even find any evidence of it.

I wonder if the climate change hysteria as potentially the same. Is it based on emotion and not science? Are people are so convinced because of the emotion of the issue that they feel it has to be that way?

Why are they not quick to condemn falsified data and re-evaluate unfounded theories? It is like convicting someone in a trial based on the seriousness of the crime and falsified data.

I think we should do what is reasonable to protect our environment, but I think we should proceed rationally - without emotion and without falsified data.

 

[sub_rosa]

I want to see a Perry / Palin 2012 ticket!!!

Me, too.

 

[meltzerboy]

If one counts Obama and his coterie of leftist appointees as representative of the “elites”, then, as regards the question whether to be governed by the “elites” or by the “common man”, I’ll take the latter.

As W.F. Buckley said “I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.”

I’m familiar with Buckley’s statement, but was he really one to talk? I view him as a bona fide member of the intellectual elite, if ever there was one. And I don’t say this in a disparaging way as he was an independent conservative thinker, the likes of whom we no longer have today.

 

[K-McD]

Great! I like him already. Anyone who publicly states he dosen’t buy into the global warming hoax is, so far, a great American. (not to exclude the rest of the world.)

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

So what? i don’t believe in it either.

 

[GEddie]

With our economy in the toilet, the country mired in several nonending wars and the world convinced that we are in permanent decline: why on earth should this issue be given any importance?

ICXC NIKA

 

[Raskolnikov]

Darryl1958:

Your cynicism is duly noted.

Excellent! Cynicism is so in vogue these days, I’m glad my attitude is fashionable.

My argument though is somewhat different than what you project it to be:

If everyone else is doing it, that means that the best course to take is not to spend trillions of dollars on taking the high moral road— to no effect!
The best course to take would be to pray to St Jude over yet another lost cause.

More pragmatically though,
if America sustains a healthy economy, then chances are that, if or when the consequences of global warming take effect, Americans will actually have some money and therefore options to deal with those consequences.

As with all other environmental problems, only the countries that have been able to afford to have been able to. Countries with the best of intentions are generally the most polluting because they can’t afford the solutions. they’ve invested all their capital into a future that doesn’t exist. In their attempts to make tomorrow a heaven on earth, they make the present a hell, all with the best of intentions, and all to no effect.
For tomorrow never comes. We just do not know what the future will hold for us, and it is invariably different than what even the smartest experts have predicted it will be.

Rather than panicking over what may or may not happen in the next century, the best course of action is to take care of the economy that we have now, with the technology we have now.The more that we take care of the economy now, the more that the economy will take care of us in the future.

If not for ourselves,then for our children. It is the compassionate thing to do.

Fair enough. It is one thing to say, “it’s a real problem, but a bridge we won’t have to cross for a long time, other priorities first” the position of renowned physicist Freeman Dyson, but then to say, “there is no problem” is something else, and that worries me. Dealing with global warming is obviously a very long term issue, as human beings may go centuries without being marginally harmed by it, but then one can also understand the concern of some worry that it may be put on the back burner over and ovare again, comparable to the national debt. When things go badly, we say “we’ll deal with it later.” When things go well, we just don’t care, it seems.

Fortunately, what is best for the environment is also sometimes best for the economy, like discouraging the gratuitous consumption of expensive fossil fuels. Taxing vehicles with low gas mileage and using the revenue to provide tax cuts in other areas would benefit the economy and reduce CO2 emission. I have no idea what Perry’s position would be on vice-taxing Chevy Suburbans though. My suspicion is he would be against it.

K-McD:

Great! I like him already. Anyone who publicly states he dosen’t buy into the global warming hoax is, so far, a great American. (not to exclude the rest of the world.)

Beleiving in global warming is un-Americans? And not believing in it is sufficient to make one a great American? That sounds like a view Stephen Colbert would hold on his show to caricature right-wingers. That anyone on here actually thinks that, does not surprise me any more; a sign perhaps that I’ve spent too much of my time on these boards.

At any rate, I am unfortunate enough to personally know far too many very intelligent, reasonable, scientintifically educated people who persuasively argue that anthropogenic global warming is a reality to be able persuade myself that it is a hoax. I simply cannot muster that much willfull ignorance. I guess that means I hate America.

 

[asia53]

I believe that global warming is occurring. I am not convinced that man is the cause of this.

Exactly!

 

[Mijoy2]

If it is God’s plan to end the world by us humans mucking it up then so be it.

I believe God’s design is such that we can’t manipulate it as much as the liberal mindset would like us to believe. We are given waaayyy too much credit.

We’ll destroy this earth without Divine intervention. However it will not be by our exhaust pipes spewing too much ****, it’ll be by our pride and desires spewing too much ****.

Gore is living in a scientific fantasy land.

 

[The_Reginator]

I think we should do what is reasonable to protect our environment, but I think we should proceed rationally - without emotion and without falsified data.

My thoughts exactly.
I’ve also been concerned that we’ve been concentrating on global warming rather than fighting pollution of all kinds.

 

[GEddie]

Environmentalism has become a front for anti-human nature worship.

The earth may indeed be warming, but any earth scientist will tell you, it’s been far warmer long before human times, and also much colder. Climate change is a normal part of nature.

Americans should not be made to sacrifice for the convenience of overseas elites who want their nature unchanged. RP has the right idea.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Rudolfo]

Funny, there seem to be 2 “global warming” threads getting quite a bit of attention here. This is one. The other is called something like, “Global Warming Speech by Al Gore filled with Vulgarities.”

There are 3 global warming theories, all are theories, none are conclusive. But the farther down the list you go, notice the advocates of that theory are increasingly hysterical, demanding, in favor of govt controls, accusatory and sometimes irrational.

1. Global warming is not occurring on any significant scale.
2. Global warming is occurring and will cause problems, but it is in the control of nature, complex forces out of our hands.
3. Global warming is occurring, will cause problems, and it’s our fault (“man-made”). (Or probably a few say, “It’s Bush’s fault.” )

 

[Raskolnikov]

GEddie:

Environmentalism has become a front for anti-human nature worship.

Not really. Maybe for some, but not for me, and not for most. I hate when people use the tired argument whenever I mention on here that I don’t think global warming is a hoax “careful, nature worship is a sin!” Most (actually, of the ones I know, all) of the science professors and students at my university think global warming is a reality. None of them, as far as I know, are nature worshipers. Most would get quie a laugh at being called nature worshippers. The two ideas have little to do with each other.

The earth may indeed be warming, but any earth scientist will tell you, it’s been far warmer long before human times, and also much colder. Climate change is a normal part of nature.

Fire also occurs in nature and is important to cycle of som ecosystems. That doesn’t mean that if someone lights my house on fire, I would merely say “well, it’s natural, so I guess nothing can be dome.” Nor would I be consoled by the fact that there have been much worse firse out in the prairie throughout the past.

RP has the right idea

The right idea? That might be saidd if he had offered some solution to a problem or even criticized a proposed solution to a problem. But denying that the problem exists? I don’t think that is the right idea.

Americans should not be made to sacrifice for the convenience of overseas elites who want their nature unchanged.

Well, it’s an old dilemma. The prisoner’s dilemma. It is in everyone’s best interest to cooperate to limit pollution, but it is in each individual’s interest to cheat the others and not cooperate. Now whoever can figure out the solution to *that *problem is the one with the right idea. (I did, I confess, intentionally quote your statements out of order just so I could end with that climax .)

 

[Wolseley]

GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry told New Hampshire voters Wednesday that he does not believe in manmade global warming, calling it a scientific theory that has not been proven.

“I think we’re seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists that are coming forward and questioning the original idea that manmade global warming is what is causing the climate to change,” the Texas governor said on the first stop of a two-day trip to the first-in-the-nation primary state.

He said some want billions or trillions of taxpayer dollars spent to address the issue, but he added: “I don’t think from my perspective that I want to be engaged in spending that much money on still a scientific theory that has not been proven and from my perspective is more and more being put into question.”

His comments came at a packed breakfast meeting with local business leaders in a region known for its strong environmental policies. And he made his global warming comment in response to a question by an audience member who cited evidence from the National Academy of Sciences.

But Perry’s opinion runs counter to the view held by an overwhelming majority of scientists that pollution released from the burning of fossil fuels is heating up the planet. Perry’s home state of Texas releases more heat-trapping pollution carbon dioxide – the chief greenhouse gas – than any other state in the country, according to government data.

cnsnews.com/news/article/perry-says-he-doesnt-believe-global-warm

Good! One more reason for me to support Rick Perry, right after his seven-point list for changing the Constitution.

 

[Stjudeprayforus]

Great! I like him already. Anyone who publicly states he dosen’t buy into the global warming hoax is, so far, a great American. (not to exclude the rest of the world.)

I agree. Makes me like him more.

 

[sub_rosa]

Excellent! Cynicism is so in vogue these days, I’m glad my attitude is fashionable.
Fair enough. It is one thing to say, “it’s a real problem, but a bridge we won’t have to cross for a long time, other priorities first” the position of renowned physicist Freeman Dyson, but then to say, “there is no problem” is something else, and that worries me. Dealing with global warming is obviously a very long term issue, as human beings may go centuries without being marginally harmed by it, but then one can also understand the concern of some worry that it may be put on the back burner over and ovare again, comparable to the national debt. When things go badly, we say “we’ll deal with it later.” When things go well, we just don’t care, it seems.

Fortunately, what is best for the environment is also sometimes best for the economy, like discouraging the gratuitous consumption of expensive fossil fuels. Taxing vehicles with low gas mileage and using the revenue to provide tax cuts in other areas would benefit the economy and reduce CO2 emission. I have no idea what Perry’s position would be on vice-taxing Chevy Suburbans though. My suspicion is he would be against it.

Beleiving in global warming is un-Americans? And not believing in it is sufficient to make one a great American? That sounds like a view Stephen Colbert would hold on his show to caricature right-wingers. That anyone on here actually thinks that, does not surprise me any more; a sign perhaps that I’ve spent too much of my time on these boards.

At any rate, I am unfortunate enough to personally know far too many very intelligent, reasonable, scientintifically educated people who persuasively argue that anthropogenic global warming is a reality to be able persuade myself that it is a hoax. I simply cannot muster that much willfull ignorance. I guess that means I hate America.

I understand your frustration. One has to know when to "hold 'em " and know when to “fold 'em” around here. This is hard right wing territory and they won’t listen or investigate no matter what you say. More’s the pity since we all live in the same country and breathe the same air, and alsp drink the same water. But thanks for trying. I have paid attention to your posts. God bless you.

 

[GEddie]

How’s Texas doing in education?

TX has universities that are among the best in the world.

It also sets the standard for secondary-school textbooks.