E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSTexas Gov. Rick Perry says climate scientists are manipulating data.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry stirred up a fresh scientific spat today with his claim that scientists were manipulating their data about climate change "so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects" — a view that serves to highlight the differences among the GOP presidential candidates on science-related issues.
During a town hall meeting in Bedford, N.H., here's what Perry, one of the front-runners for the Republican nomination, had to say about the state of climate science:
"I do believe that the issue of global warming has been politicized. I think there are a substantial number or scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. I think we're seeing, almost weekly or daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that manmade global warming is what is causing the climate to change. Yes, our climate has 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 [been] found to be manipulating this information. ..."
The comments are pretty much in line with what Perry has said in the past. He's playing off the suspicions raised by the "Climategate" e-mail controversy that broke in 2009. That flap revealed that the most outspoken climate researchers are all too human when it comes to talking about their intellectual adversaries in private — but in the end, they were mostly cleared of scientific malfeasance (although one published graph was judged to be "misleading").
The criticisms of Perry's view follow well-worn tracks as well: On the left-leaning Think Progress blog, Texas A&M climate researcher Andrew Dessler is quoted as saying that none of the credible atmospheric scientists in Texas agree with the governor. "This is a particularly unfortunate situation, given the hellish drought that Texas is now experiencing, and which climate change is almost certainly making worse," he said.
Think Progress goes so far as to list more than three dozen scientists who disagree with Perry.
Brian Snyder / Reuters
Texas Gov. Rick Perry extends his arm toward a lab worker during a tour of Resonetics Laser Micromaching in Nashua, N.H., on Wednesday. Resonetics CEO Chris Banas is to the left of Perry, and Cliff Gabay, the company's president, looks on from the right.
The Texas governor's views come in contrast with those of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, an early front-runner in the GOP presidential field. Romney has said "I believe, based on what I read, that the world is getting warmer" and added that "I believe that humans contribute to that."
As a result, he said at a New Hampshire town hall meeting in June, "it's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors." However, he said any measures to stem greenhouse gases should be applied on an international basis. He opposed putting a carbon cap-and-trade system into place because it would put America at a competitive disadvantage.
The Perry vs. Romney climate split may be the latest and buzziest difference to emerge in the race for the GOP nomination, but when you look closely at the candidates, you'll see other differences as well. Here's a rundown on four of the leading candidates, related to four hot-button scientific topics: climate policy, evolution education, stem-cell research and science funding:
Climate policy:
We've already summarized Perry's and Romney's views.
U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota opposes climate change legislation, saying that carbon dioxide is a "harmless gas." During a town hall meeting in South Carolina this week, she said that all the issues surrounding climate change would have to be "settled on the basis of real science, not manufactured science."
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas has called the concern about Earth's changing climate "the greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years, if not hundreds of years," based on the Climategate reports (see above). He's opposed to energy subsidies as well as government efforts to control greenhouse-gas emissions. "Pollution can be better taken care of under a private market system, under private property," he said.
(President Barack Obama, by the way, favors policies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, but the current "climate" in Congress has severely limited any progress on environmental initiatives.)
Evolution education:
Perry says he is a "firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it should be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution." Intelligent design is the view that the complexity seen in nature is best explained as resulting from the efforts of an intelligent designer — for example, God, or an alien civilization. But in Perry's case, certainly God.
Romney said during his presidential campaign that he believes "God designed the universe" and that he believes God "used the process of evolution to create the human body." As Massachusetts governor, he opposed the teaching of intelligent design in public-school science classes. "The science class is where to teach evolution, or if there are any other scientific thoughts that need to be discussed," he told The New York Times. "If we're going to talk about more philosophical matters, like why it was created, and was there an intelligent designer behind it, that's for the religion class or philosophy class or social studies class."
Bachmann says "evolution has never been proven" and believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside the evolutionary view of biological change. "What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide," Bachmann told reporters at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans in June.
Paul says "nobody has concrete proof" for evolutionary theory, although he acknowledges that "it's a pretty logical theory." In his view, the intelligent-design concept has more to do with personal beliefs rather than science. "In a libertarian society these beliefs aren't nearly as critical. When you have government schools, it becomes important," he said. "'Are you fair in teaching that the earth could have been created by a creator or it came out of a pop, out of nowhere?' In a personal world, we don't have government dictating and ruling all these things; it's not very important."
(Obama favors the current legal view that teaching the intelligent-design concept in public-school science classes would be unconstitutional.)
Stem-cell research:
Perry is opposed to human embryonic stem-cell research, which involves destroying human embryos to harvest the therapeutic cells. But he's a strong supporter of less controversial adult stem-cell research. In fact, he was a beneficiary of such research when he received an infusion of his own lab-grown stem cells to speed recovery from a back injury.
Romney has voiced support for embryonic stem-cell research in the past, but he says his position has changed over the years, and he now opposes such research.
Bachmann is opposed to federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, but favors less controversial initiatives that use adult stem cells or reprogrammed cells (also known as induced pluripotent stem cells or iPS cells).
Paul says the federal government should have no jurisdiction over the conduct of embryonic stem-cell research. He has, however, sponsored legislation that would use tax credits to encourage less controversial stem-cell studies, as well as the establishment of stem-cell and cord-blood banks.
(Obama has favored expanded federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research — an issue that has been tied up in lengthy legal proceedings. Most researchers hope that reprogrammed cells will eventually provide a way out of the moral and ethical controversy.)
Science funding:
Federal funding for the National Science Foundation has become something of a hot potato in some GOP quarters, in light of recent criticism of the agency from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.
Neither Perry nor Romney has made his views on NSF funding widely known, but in the past the Texas governor as well as the Massachusetts governor have touted NSF grants that came to institutions in their states.
Bachmann has faced criticism from the right-leaning Club for Growth for her "questionable" vote to reauthorize spending by the NSF. However, Bachmann did recently seek to reduce NSF funding to 2008 levels for a budget reduction of $1.7 billion.
Paul voiced strong opposition to federal funding for science education in 2000, saying that "Congress has no constitutional authority to single out any one academic discipline as deserving special emphasis." More recently, Paul was one of two members of Congress voting against a resolution to mark NSF's 60th anniversary.
(After he took office, Obama vowed to double NSF's $6.5 billion budget, but this year's $6.8 billion figure falls well short of that goal.)
What to add?
I realize I'm missing many other worthy GOP candidates, and many other worthy issues relating to science and technology. Feel free to add your comments about the candidates and the issues, but please keep the conversation civil. This isn't the place to talk about the debt crisis, or chew over the immigration issue, or handicap the horse race. That's what the First Read blog is for. Check in with First Read and msnbc.com's Politics section for daily coverage of the 2012 presidential campaign.
Update for 10:30 p.m. ET Aug. 18: Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, another GOP presidential hopeful, stirred the pot by sending along this Twitter tweet: "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." This follows up on The Washington Post's quote from Huntsman's chief strategist, John Weaver: "We're not going to win a national election if we become the anti-science party."
Although Huntsman accepts the view that greenhouse-gas emissions are contributing to climate change, he told Time's Swampland blog in May that cap-and-trade systems haven't worked and that "putting additional burdens on the pillars of growth right now is counterproductive."
On the stem-cell issue, a spokesman for Huntsman told LifeNews.com that the Republican supports research that involves "adult stem cells, non-embryonic stem cells and certain types of embryonic stem cell[s]" but does not support federal funding for research on new lines of embryonic stem cells. Such a stand appears to be consistent with the policy that was in place during George W. Bush's tenure at the White House.
Huntsman has generally been supportive of science funding: Among the efforts he supported as governor was the Utah Science Technology and Research Initiative at the University of Utah.
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. You can also add me to your Google+ circle, and check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Wasn't Gov Perry's response to the drought to get together with a bunch of people and say magic words in the hope that a supernatural being would come and rescue them?
You really can't expect the man to understand science.
I can concur with Gov. Perry's perception of Global Warming.
The Earth is 4.55 Billion years old. Only 11,000 years ago, the Northern Hemisphere was covered by a giant Ice Sheet called the Laurentian Ice Shield. This ice cap was in some places 8,000 to 10,000 feet thick (about 2 miles) and over 6,000 years old (from the previous warm period), @17,000 BP.
The time period from 11,000 years ago til now is .0002418% of the time the Earth has been in existence. This is about 2X the time of recorded History (at @ 6,000 years) or 5 times since the birth of Christ (2,011). Very short time periods in the scheme of the Earth.
What caused the demise of the ice that stood for over 6,000 years in the Northern Hemisphere and why would we think that the process that started the melting is anywhere over with today?
It has only been in the last 150 years or so that Mankind has been using fossil fuels to heat their homes or to manufacture goods.
Can we truely say the CO2 or other chemicals that we have used in the past 150 years would cause the climate on the Earth to heat up to this point, when in actuality it started to heat up 11,000 years ago when the population of the Earth was much smaller and we couldn't have possibly had any influence on the start of the Ice melt? It is like the old saying, "It gets coldest before the Dawn". The end of the Ice age was the dawn.
I think there is more to the story for Al Gore than the actual truth. It seems maybe there is some money to be had at the expense of people that do not know any better.
Al Gore is good at three things - debating, lying, and raising money. He is not a scientist nor an expert in climatology. He should not be directing any discussions on science. Scientists should be the one researching, showing data, and driving the discussions.
"Scientists should be the one researching, showing data, and driving the discussions."
They are, but nobody is listening to them. The only reason Al Gore has an impact is that Americans don't understand science enough to figure it out for themselves and would never consider actually listening to a scientist.
Del, the fact that it has warmed before does not mean that humans cannot affect the climate ALSO.
And we have NOT been warming ever since the last ice age. The temperatures peaked soon after the thaw and we have beeb varying just below that point ever since. Ice age cycles are NOT a smooth sine curve.
jock:
Some of the details that are presented in an inconvenient truth may have been later disproven, but that is the point behind scientific progress. We hypothesize, we experiment, we analyze, we come to a conclusion, rinse and repeat repeatedly.
This is the part that people don't seem to understand.
Jock:
There are too many Earth variables to believe that Mankind can influence the climate change to any great degree.
For your comment, I doubt there is any evidence to support the idea one way or the other that each day has gotten warmer in a "smooth sine curve". I wouldn't think that and it wasn't what I was saying. Something warm started the Ice to melt. Is it over? Can it shut off within a 11,000 year interval or is it just a part of how the Earth operates? Or if it shuts off does that mean we are going back to another Ice Age? Or will this climate stay like this for another 50,000 years regardless of Mankind's presence?
We have:
Volcanic actions -
the Sahara dust storms or no dust storms at any particular time which creates hurricanes, -
the amount of winds coming off the oceans produced by the sun heating the water, El Nino and El Nina -
the continental drifts creating the mountain ranges that are getting higher each year and interupting the "natural flow" of wind currents, -
You can add any number of instances. If you want to add mankind to satisfy Al Gore's lust for money, then I guess we can add that too.
But surely if Mankind died out today, would there never be another Ice Age or Warming period in the Earth's future?
There were plenty in the past before Mankind, so I am of the opinion that Climate is naturally occurring and there isn't much we can do about it nor should we worry about it.
The "too many variables" argument is really not a good argument. Scientists have studied just about every known variable that can affect global temperature in detail, and have found that only the increase in greenhouse gases can adequately explain recent warming. Anyone who has another "natural" explanation should be prepared to provide scientific evidence for it.
Eric:
You try to numerically solve an unsimplified 6 degree of freedom non-linear partial differential equation and come back and talk about it not being a good argument.
Those are just some of the equations that I deal with (not climatology either, climatology is even more complicated).
And simplification is taking out terms because they don't have a significant bearing on the result, not that they don't have any bearing, but a significant one. With the details of climate, there aren't a lot of simplifications that can be made.
I understand what you're saying about differential equations, however when it comes to thermodynamics there are only a very few things that can cause the entire planet (global average) to become warmer, for example the sun, changes to the Earth's orbit, changes in the amount of sunlight reflected, and an increase in greenhouse gases. The evidence clearly points to greenhouse gases as the primary cause. When it comes to figuring out how the extra heat will affect weather patterns, then the differential equations come into play, and things do get rather complicated, although the models have also greatly improved in recent years.
lets see,
1) energy from sun - one differential equation term
2) orbit of the earth - another differential equation term
3) reflection - yet another differential equation term
4) make up of greenhouse gasses (because different gasses have different effects) - that could be several or one term with some assumptions.
Those are just what you listed. I would imagine that there are far more terms in what is probably some really nasty PDE's.
You end up with a PDE that actually cannot be numerically solved without making assumptions to simplify the equations and remove components. Now if there are problems in the results, I can understand why. This is why we need to spend far more money and time and effort into understanding what is going on.
And no, I am not a rabid climate change fanatic, because to be honest, I don't think that we can reduce our CO2 consumption globally, what I believe that we can only hope to do is reduce the growth significantly. (Yes I am aware that Denmark has reduced its CO2 output but there is nothing to indicate that what they did could be transferred as a silver bullet solution). It isn't an easy thing to figure out, but a meteorologist who only deals with localized weather conditions is not someone that I would consider to be an expert in climate matters, because the two are quite different. One is micro, the other is macro.
Well, yes, they could all be differential equation terms in some long-term model of the Earth's overall heat energy balance, but what if it can be shown by direct measurement that only greenhouse gases have changed significantly in the past 30 years? Then it becomes a little difficult to explain recent warming in any other way. Anyway, I'll go along with "reducing the growth significantly" for now until things become more clear, but I think we need to make steady progress on alternative energy technologies.
Eric:
Well that is where I talk about simplification by removing terms, but if the greenhouse gases interact in ways with other gases, or that the impact of the greenhouse gases cause other impacts to be amplified, then you can't just simplify those terms out.
There is much more to it than just the math, you need to understand the subject matter. That is what distinguishes a climatologist from a meteorologist.
What you just said (impact of the greenhouse gases cause other impacts to be amplified; otherwise known as "positive feedback") is one of the reasons most climatologists are so concerned about the future. By the way, I completely agree with you about the need to spend more money on research ... unfortunately many politicians disagree.
Good example. Both politics and adultery involve failure to remain faithful.....science requires faithfulness to the data, especially when it shoots holes in a theory.
Ugh. All the bickering about Glabal Warming doesn't do anything to help reduce humanity's impact on the planet and its resources we all share. Rather or not global warming exists, it behooves us all to lessen out impact on sucha finite planet and its resources.
Rather or not a magic genie man that lives in the clouds created the earth, doesn't change the responsibility we should ALL share on how we treat the earth and what it offers us. Once it's gone, it's gone - god or no god; bible or no bible; politician or no politician; republican or democrat.
We need to get over ourselves and focus on more important things. Only lazy people sit and bicker and do nothing to enforce positive change. Religion LOVES the lazy person.
mt:
We will be a finite species. It has been estimated that today only 2% of animal life that has EVER occurred on the Earth is still here.
We are an animal species that wants to thrive. To do so means to use the natural resources that Earth provides. There will be an end to this as there is in all species that consume and over populate their home. There is no repsonsiblity for mankind to take care of the Earth. It is not in our nature.
All animal life needs four items to exist. Food, Water, Shelter, Space.
Water is almost gone in some countries or so polluted that they can not safely drink it. Food can be precious and hard to acquire in some areas such as Africa. Shelter from harm is far from great in the MiddleEast where people are killing each other by the boat loads, however not enough to balance the environment. If you remember, we tried that in last two great wars and we still have more people now than we did before. Space to be the species we were meant to be is fast becoming a premium. We are stepping on each others toes as we speak.
All four of these items are being used up at a mathmatical pace that can not be stopped. The Earth's population will double in the next generation or so.
Many people think Nature is the pretty scenery we watch at sunset. Nature is the way of the beast. There will come a time of reckoning and it won't be pretty.
There is no way any of us and especially Al Gore can stop it. That's the way it is and always has been.
And still no scientists debate let alone debunk Global Weather Change, but the laymen still pretends they can read and decipher the correct amounts of junk science to debate what they don’t have a clue about.
Global warming is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.
.
Pandering to the ignorant - and the smugly ignorant, who seem to clot the Republican Party - is a successful tactic for re-election.
Perry and his ilk likely know plenty about science - just enough to spin what they say to appeal to those most likely to keep voting them in.
So all you critics out there who love to bash scientific research...who exactly do you think you are? I am highly credentialed scientist, and we have this process called PEER review, not "get some bloke off the street" review. How would you like it if I came in to your place of work and started critiquing everything you did? The general public has a love-hate relationship with science. They love to use everything that we get right, and hate us for the things that don't work. There is a reason we call it "research" and not "do it once". You need to work, work, fail, work, and work more until you reach your goal, and that takes money. Our findings are backed up by substantial, reproducible evidence, which are then taken as fact. Global warming has substantial, reproducible evidence. End...of...story.
Actually scientific bodies of national and international standing have found "global warming" to be indefensible, so they now say "climate change". No matter what happens it can be called "climate change".
Any reference to a scientific body using "indefensible" in this context? Climate change is just a more general term that also covers changes in precipitation, for example. It doesn't mean that warming isn't happening.
Time was, I learned about the theory of evolution (amongst other sciences) during the week in school and the story of the Creation in my church's Sunday school. Never had a problem between the two; nor, apparently, did anyone else.
I still don't, and can't understand why these purported grownups do.
Theories (from the Greek theoria, view or speculation) came from the world of science. Theories put forth during my childhood to explain the origin of our solar system, for instance, have long since been rendered obsolete by the latest discoveries of astronomy, leading in turn to the newest theories to explain them. By their very definition theories aren't etched in stone, but are constantly being tested and revised. And that's good! That's as it should be. Makes us all think!
The story of the Creation, came from the world of faith. Virtually every human society that has ever arisen, has had its own stories of how their world came to be, of how they themselves came to be. Know what? All are equally valid.
By whichever of His many names, in whatever language, through whatever ritual, we may address Him, God does indeed move in mysterious ways His wonders to perform. If that's going a bit too fast for you - who was it who said, in so many words, "I have many other flocks, which you do not know of"?
No less than Albert Einstein is said to have remarked, "God does not play dice." Big Bang? Whoever do you think struck the match?
Actually nature consumes exactly the same way humanity does. Have you not seen PBS lately? Have you EVER seen a lion kill where the lions did not eat EVERY OUNCE of the prey they captured???? They stop eating because they run out of food, and they lay down and SLEEP because they are STUFFED, like a 400 pound man at a buffet.
heres an intelligent design question for you guys...
If your hand was designed to hold your own private part, why is masterbation a sin?
jj
Only an imbecile or a change-agent would deny that the climate change issue has been politicized.
The politicians who dismiss climate change as a hoax are completely at odds with the national security apparatus, which has evaluated and determined that climate change is indeed a national defense issue. As stated above, the melting of the Arctic ice sheet is rapidly changing the Geopolitical strategic models. The U.S. Navy knows this, and is drawing up contingency plans and models based on the fact that the Arctic Ocean will be an area of contention as it becomes navigable to the navies of the world.
After reading about Perry's comments on climate change and his views on creationism, I've begun to wonder how it was that the GOP obtained the elephant as their mascot. The democrats have it right - the jack ass is appropriate, but I believe the GOP should adopt the ostrich. Afterall, their classic response to something they don't like is to simply argue that it doesn't exist, as in the case of climate change.
gumps, have you seen the load of crap that an elephant can produce?
In case you haven't, here is some food for thought (yes maybe bad words)
GOP Elephant logic
I really don't know if the current extreme weather we're experiencing is due to global climate change or not. But I do know that local climate changes are due to urban sprawl. For example, I've lived in Arizona for 20 years and it has gotten increasingly hotter due to the heat island effect resulting from replacing vegetation with paved streets, concrete buildings, etc. I have seen monsoon storms approach Phoenix and break up when they hit the heat surrounding the city. This effect cannot be denied. But I also recognize that there is damn little we can do about it. There are remedial measures that can be taken to minimize the effect but the cost would be enormous. That's why I believe that it will take something drastic and out of our control to effect change - a war, or pandemic, to cull the herd.
Why only biology. Religious Right think they OWN life and death. Seems that in matters of chemistry, their beliefs are lacking credibility. Death ONLY in the service of LIFE. If I was an embrio, I'd be screaming "Let me live!" "Plant me somewhere so I can be part of LIFE!"
four seasons in a year which one are you b-----hing about?
Before you get too hopeful about Former-Governor Romney, read the other Article on how he is backing off his previous view on global warming.
The GOP--the party of my grandfathers--is turning into the Party of Willful Ignorance.
recent studies have shown warming periods preceeded increase in co2. Efforts by believers to cut back on co2 emissions can severely hurt our economy. One wag compared the efforts to applying a tourneqette to the throat to stop a nose bleed.
The debate over intelligent design vs. evolution depends of the meaning being used for evolution. It is when the evolutionist is discussing a blind accidental process based on natural selection that the debate becomes powerful. Other meanings are not controversial. It should be obvious that natural selection cannot occur during the development of first life as there is nothing to select from. Only when there is something alive can natural selection occur.
recent studies have shown warming periods preceeded increase in co2. Efforts by believers to cut back on co2 emissions can severely hurt our economy. One wag compared the efforts to applying a tourneqette to the throat to stop a nose bleed.
The debate over intelligent design vs. evolution depends of the meaning being used for evolution. It is when the evolutionist is discussing a blind accidental process based on natural selection that the debate becomes powerful. Other meanings are not controversial. It should be obvious that natural selection cannot occur during the development of first life as there is nothing to select from. Only when there is something alive can natural selection occur.
Well the way it looks we are all going to fry someday. Glad I won't be around for that.