From his Parade Magazine interview:
In 1988, you supported Al Gore’s presidential campaign. Why?
In that group, he was by far the most conservative Democrat. But between Ronald Reagan and seeing what the Democrat Party was becoming, I came to the conclusion in 1989 that I needed to become a Republican.
Have you seen the film An Inconvenient Truth?
No, ma’am.
Have you read the book?
No. I generally don’t watch or read a lot of fiction.
Many believe global warming caused the wildfires in your state. What do you think?
Historically in Texas, we’ve always had substantial periods of drought. World temperatures have also been changing for millennia. I truly believe the science is not settled on the issue of man-made global warming.
I find it interesting that you went to college to be a veterinarian.
And organic chemistry made a pilot out of me. [laughs] After 16 hours of organic chemistry, they pointed out to me that I probably didn’t want to be a veterinarian.
So would it be fair to say that you and science don’t get along so well?
No. After I graduated college, I had a year of the most technical aerodynamics and physics that you need to be an air force pilot. They weren’t cream-puff studies. I have a pretty good handle on science from that perspective.
So, will anyone ever ask about President Obama’s science grades? (And no, I don’t mean his social-science grades.)
It says something about the Texas curriculum that 16 hours of organic chemistry failed to acquaint Perry with CO2.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight. Absorption spectrum of CO2 => We must immediately hand absolute power to Al Gore.
The rest of us will pass.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wouldn't expect the subject of CO2 to come up very often in an organic chemistry class.
I wouldn't expect the subject of CO2 absorbtion spectrum and how it might impact the climate to ever come up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have a PhD in organic chemistry, and yes I know about CO2. One thing I know is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would be expected to increase global temperatures by about 1 deg C, provided everything else remains constant.
Of course, nothing else remains constant. The whole dispute between warming catastrophists and sceptics concerns whether the feedback from increasing CO2 is positive or negative. The catastrophists rely on computer models which purport to show positive feedback; however, direct evidence to show positive feedback does not exist.
Conversely, recent evidence published by Spencer & Braswell demonstrates that most of the 14 models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do a poor job of reproducing earth's temperature changes occurring with El Nino events; and even the best 2 or 3 models do not match the actual temperature profile.
Other recent evidence supports proposals that solar cycle-related changes increase cloud formation which cools the planet. This mechanism relates historical climate change to solar cycles, and may explain the coincidence of the Little Ice Age in the 17th century to the Maunder solar minimum.
So someone who really respects science ought properly to be sceptical about the relative importance and magnitude of CO2 changes in both past and future climate change.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewhat are the science grdes of this journalist?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThese answers are great. I sure hope this Rick Perry starts showing through more. I hate to say it, but sometimes the Bad Lip Reading clip is no less coherent than the real thing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLord, I get the itchies when a liberal arts (no moving parts) person starts talking about science. He couldn't handle organic chemistry so he's scientifically illiterate? I couldn't handle chemistry in general, that's why I got two degrees in electrical engineering. I guess science and I don't get along either.
I bet the reporter couldn't count to twenty with her shoes on.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseConversely, let's all remember that the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is the Rick Perry I like. Bold and direct, who doesn't suffer fools lightly and doesn't buy into all the bullsh*t that the media dishes out.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm an engineer myself and I also hated chemistry. I'll take a hard physics scientist over a natural one any day of the week,
Greg, you ask exactly the right question: what science or math course did our Community Organizer in Chief ever take, and how well did he do? For that matter, what were his grades in whatever subject he majored in? What about law school? I suspect it wasn't modesty which impelled him to keep his grades secret.
Rick Perry did at least graduate with a BS in animal science, so he has a far stronger science background than most politicians, including the blessed Al Gore (journalism major).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEloris, is that an Aggie joke, or are you just an alumnus?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI love it! This makes me like Perry again. Obama majored in cream puff studies. Actually a lot of people with degrees in cream puff studies tend to make judgements of others for not being scientific. I recently read an NPR article that criticized Perry and claimed that politicians need to understand "science". That is such a general statement. No one person will ever understand "science" as it is a vast and infinite field of studies. A person could spend years studying one area and still have very little knowledge of other areas. I find it more "scientific" to remain skeptical of things that one does not know enough to accept without just having blind faith. A cream puff major who claims that anthropogenic global warming is incontrovertably settled and redistributing wealth to their cronies is the solution is the one who is really lacking in scientific and economic aptitude.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am a graduate of Texas A&M, class of 1982, Chemical Engineering. I give Perry a pass on most issues as he is an Aggie also. No Pre-Vet major takes 16 hours of organic chemistry. He may have taken 16 hours of inorganic and organic chemistry. I was born in Houston and live there still. It saddens me that I can't vote for a fellow Texan and Aggie because of such obvious stretching of the truth. My hope is for a brokered Rebublican convention, where Paul Ryan is the nominee. We need a candidate that is able to articulate their views and debate them with Obama. Newt is the only candidate that is able to do this, unfortunately he has so much personal failings that he will not be the nominee. I was ready to support Perry, but each day I am disappointed as him as a candidate and an Aggie. He will not be receiving my vote.
The question no one ever answers is not whether global warming is man made or not, but whether the economic costs are worth the price to mitigate the problem. I think the debate should be about the cost benefit ratio and whether global warming is an actual problem.
Many voters may think Perry is speaking for them, but his stretching of the truth about his education is one reason many Texans are not very supportive of his candidacy. He can lie about small things, then he can also lie about larger items. I was taught that an Aggie does not lie cheat or steal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI hate "gotcha" journalism. I'm sure this Parade Magazine interviewer thought she was ever so clever trapping Perry in Perry Mason-like fashion. I thought Perry handled the questions very well though I don't plan to support him unless he ends up being the (R) candidate. Why would a journalist think it her job to trick or trap an interview subject. This borders on "have you stopped beating your wife?"
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse