“You repute the National Academy of Science’s findings that fossil fuels contribute to global warming,” a voter reminded Perry. “I’m wondering where you are getting your science, apart from Nobel laureates who are electrical engineers.”
Here is a video and transcript of Rick Perry's response:
There is a substantial group of scientists out there who are skeptical about the ‘incontrovertible’ statements that global warming is due mainly to man’s involvement. What is true is that our temperatures have gone up and down for millennium.
And the issue is this – should American jeopardize its economy with a cap and trade type of legislation and base it on science that is still not settled.
Now I know there are a lot of scientists out there who say, “Oh, yes it is.” But when you have Nobel laureates who stand up along with other scientists and say, “You know, let’s not rush into this.” Because the fact is, China is going to be out there not involved in any agreement at all. India’s involved in no agreement at all from the standpoint of limiting those CO2 greenhouse gases. And we live in a big ball. And that emissions are going to impact the world.
The issue is, are we as an America going to jeopardize the future of this country by putting into place a program that there are still enough skeptics in my book to stand with them and say, “You know what, I don’t believe that manmade global warming is settled in science enough for us to justify a economic impact on this country that could be devastating to the future.”
The question was a follow up to a similar one posed by a voter at Perry’s first Town Hall Meeting in New Hampshire, held in Derry on Friday. Perry mentioned, but did not identify by name, a Nobel laureate who supposedly shares his skepticism on climate. L.A. Times reporter Paul West writes that the Nobel prize winner in question is Ivar Giaver, who won the award in 1973 for his work on superconductors.
A simple equation based on the physical phenomena involved, with inputs of only sunspot number and ppmv CO2, calculates the average global temperatures (agt) since 1895 with 88.4% accuracy (87.9% if CO2 is assumed to have no influence). The equation, links to the source data, an eye-opening graph of the results and how they are derived are in the pdfs at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true (see especially the pdfs made public on 4/10/10, 3/10/11 and 9/22/11).
ReplyDeleteThe future average global temperature trend that this equation calculates is down. The huge effective thermal capacitance of the oceans (about 100 times everything else) will cause the decline to be only about 0.13°C per decade. The decline may be as much as 0.22°C per decade if the sun goes really quiet.
This trend is corroborated by the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising agt. From 2001 through August, 2011 the atmospheric CO2 increased by 23.1% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature has not increased. The 23.1% CO2 increase is the significant measurement, not the comparatively brief time period.