Rick Perry Happily Grabs the Anti-Science Brass Ring


Congratulations to tonight’s GOP debate hosts at MSNBC for asking Rick Perry to explain his distrust of scientists regarding human-induced climate change—and then asking a follow-up. Too bad Perry didn’t really answer either query.

First, Perry was asked whether he thinks climate change is happening. He responded with the old trope that the “science isn’t settled” on climate change. The models could be wrong, he said, and he asserted that we shouldn’t make political decisions based on what could be flawed science. And even if a lot of scientists (actually, 97 percent of them, to be exact) agree that the science is settled, that’s not enough according to Perry. “Galileo got out-voted for a spell,” he said.

But then he was asked to name a scientist that he “finds compelling” on the subject of climate change. One scientist. Any scientist! But Perry declined to name a single one. Instead, he pivoted. “Let me tell you what I find compelling,” Perry said. “What we’ve done in the state of Texas.”

Immediately before that exchange, the moderators quoted John Huntsman’s allegation that his fellow candidates in the GOP contest are “anti-science.” Huntsman, though, declined to name names. Instead, he stuck to the broad criticism of Republicans who make “comments that don’t reflect the reality of the situation.” Perry did Huntsman the favor of proving his point.

More MotherJones reporting on Climate Desk

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.