You should have read:

“You see, the reason I am criticizing your dismissal of *Paisley’s* article is because I find these claims quite interesting…” (not Carter’s article)

From what I can see, Paisley simply summarized the content of Redondi’s book.

===============
Margaret,

You’re welcome! :-) It sounds like a very good read, indeed. If only I had a little bit more free time…

I’m not sure what gave you the impression that I was dismissing Carter’s article, since I mostly agreed with him. But, Paisley’s outside views struck me as relevant, since much of the debate over Galileo affair strikes me as springing from an inability to get clear on the difference between politics and religion, which Paisley isn’t exactly a poster child for.

When asked to name some of the scientists who question the idea that global warming in caused by fossil fuel pollution, he was unable to do so.

He goes even further in his book by claiming that the science behind anthropogenic global warming is a “contrived phony mess.”

Perry is receiving millions from Big Oil and has clearly been drinking the Exxon/Koch brothers-funded Kool Aid.

It’s frightening that a potential leader of the most powerful country in the world could be so gullible (or could it be cynical?). In the Galileo metaphor, he is certainly not Galileo who for all his shortcomings was an evidence-based scientist moved by truth and reality to take a position of conflict against those moved by superstition and authoritarianism.

This issue alone proves that Perry is not fit to lead what is still a first world country. Future global dominance will depend in large part on our technology and education. The race to clean, green, cheap energy is on. If we don’t invest in scientific education, research, and development, China and possibly a host of other countries will leave us in the dust. This is a shame because we used to lead the world educationally, technologically, and morally.

The problem is I don’t think Perry would object to, “there is a general case that the planet has grown warmer over the last few decades.” However, we like things short and simple. So, “global warming” in most political speech Left and Right has come to mean, “anthropological global warming that can be halted by various means including immediate reduction of carbon based fuel use and a general anti-industrial revolution policy in Western States.” If Perry meant the former, then yes, he has some explaining to do. If he meant the latter, well, he’s on fairly solid ground. Since the latter is the common usage, I’d propose he is on solid ground.