Glenn deftly copied and cropped two sentences by Perry, not even having sufficient integrity to insert quote marks or ellipsis, in order to make it look like he was stating “facts” when he was simply giving his opinion.

He gave Perry 4 Pinocchios(whopper) for being wrong about the following “facts”.
———-
“1. A substantial number of scientists have manipulated data so they will have dollars rolling into their projects.

2. Almost weekly or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.

How true is this?”
———
After clicking the WaPo link to the National Journal, here is what I found Perry actually said.
———
“I do believe that the issue of global warming has been politicized,” Perry answered. “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. I think we’re seeing it almost weekly or even daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change. Yes, our climates change. They’ve been changing ever since the earth was formed.”

Pegging the global cost of implementing “anti-carbon programs” in the billions or trillions of dollars, Perry said, “I don’t think from my perspective that I want America to be engaged in spending that much money on [what is] still a scientific theory that has not been proven, and from my perspective, is more and more being put into question.”
———
Perry’s only assertions of fact are the last two sentences in the first graph and I agree with both of them.

Yet another demonstration of journalistic bias.
There is little need to wonder why people put little confidence in the accuracy of what journalists write when people like Glenn Kessler are on the job.

I truly wish the candidacies of more pro-science Republicans, such as Jon Huntsman, could gain some traction but that just doesn’t seem to be likely in the current political climate. You could argue that Romney is reasonably pro-science, at least compared to all of the other Republican candidates other than Huntsman, but he seems to be polling well in spite of that, not because of it.

Also he’s slowly turning into the bad guy from the mask: cheezburger(dot)com/View/5101180928

“What level of ignorance is considered sufficient to disqualify a candidate for public office? ”

From the evidence I have seen, having enough ignorance seems to be the the minimum threshold to qualify for running. Smart people are not looking to have that kind of public colonoscopy.

“Where do we draw the line?”

At the legal specification of qualifications for President as outlined in the Constitution.

Look at the bright side. Perry will give you lots of ammunition to use against him.

I predict that no opponent in the primaries or, if he should win the nomination, the general election will call him on it in a debate or stump speech. It’s too “inside baseball” for most people and will sound like nit picking, even if it indicates that Perry’s relationship with reality might be best described as “friends with benefits.”

Just like the FOIA requests to the CRU.

Why should he make the data available to you, when you’re only going to try to find something wrong with it?