Regarding the Lieberman-Warner Debate, Rep. Rohrabacher: “Do you really think the world is filled with morons?”

From the Congressional Record, this speech was given on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. It is worth reading and posting elsewhere.

Lieberman-Warner Debate: Congressman Rohrabacher’s Floor Speech on Global Warming

http://rohrabacher.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=91424

MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING

House of Representatives – May 14, 2008

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Space). Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is recognized for 60 minutes.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I preface my remarks with a personal statement that, while I am opposed to the advocates of man-made global warming theories, I am committed to a clean and healthy environment, to purifying our air, our water, and our soil; all of this for the sake of the people of this planet, including my three children, Anika, Tristan and Christian. I do this not because of some paranoid theory that humans are changing the climate of the world, but instead, I am very concerned about the health of the people of the world and, thus, committed to clean air, clean soil, and clean water.

Thus, we have, today, to take a look at the issues of global warming and pollution that confront our society because there are enormous implications to this whole discussion of what has been called “man-made global warming.”

Only 18 months ago the refrain “Case closed: Global warming is real,” was repeated as if the mantra from some religious zealots. It was pounded into the public consciousness over the airwaves, in print, and even at congressional hearings, “Case closed.” Well, this was obviously a brazen attempt to end open discussion and to silence differing views by dismissing the need for seriously contrary arguments and seriously listening to both sides of an argument. And rather than hearing both sides of the argument, this was an attempt to dismiss arguments even though the person making the arguments might have a very impressive credential or might be a very educated scientist or someone else who should be listened to.

And yes, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of prominent scientists and meteorologists, the heads of science departments at major universities, and others, who are highly critical of the man-made global warming theory. There is Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has been adamant in his opposition, as has a Bjarne Andresen of the University of Copenhagen, Adreas Prokoph, a professor of earth sciences at the University of Ottawa, Dr. William Gray, a famous hurricane expert and former President of the American Meteorological Association, and Dr. Kevin Trenberth, the head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center of Atmospheric Research. All of these are respected scholars, all skeptical of the unwarranted alarmism that we are being pressured to accept.

But their views and those of so many more prominent scholars and scientists don’t matter. The debate is over. Al Gore has his Nobel Prize, and the film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” its Academy Award. So shut up and get your mind in lockstep with the politically correct prevailing wisdom, or at least what the media tells us is the prevailing wisdom. And no questions, please, the case is closed. We heard that dozens and dozens of times.

So what is this theory that now is so accepted that no more debate is needed or even tolerated? The man-made global warming theory may be presented as scientific truism, but it is not. It is a disturbing theory that the Earth began a warming cycle 150 years ago that differed greatly from all the other warming and cooling cycles in the Earth’s past. This warming cycle of 150 years ago, we keep being told, is tied directly to mankind’s use of fossil fuels, basically oil and coal, which, of course, oil and coal and these fuels, these so-called fossil fuels, have powered our industries and made modern civilization possible.

Fossil fuels, we are told, puts an ever-increasing so-called level of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and the most prevalent of these gases, of course, being carbon dioxide, CO2. This increase in CO2 causes the warming that we are supposedly experiencing today. This man-made warming cycle, according to the theory, is rapidly approaching a tipping point when the world’s temperatures will abruptly jump and accelerate with dire and perhaps apocalyptic consequences for the entire planet.

For skeptics of this hypothesis, the consequence of accepting this theory, the consequences are far more dire than any of the consequences we’re supposed to be suffering out of a predicted rise in temperature. And by the way, that rise in temperature, of course, isn’t really happening, which we will discuss a little bit later.

If one accepts this as fact rather than theory, this idea that man-made global warming is overwhelming our planet, then one would be expected to also accept controls, regulations, taxation, international planning and enforcement, mandated lifestyle changes, lowering expectations, limiting consumer choice, as well as

personal and family sacrifices that are all going to be necessary for us to save the planet from–well, from us.

It really takes a lot to frighten people into accepting such personally restrictive mandates that would result from implementing a global warming-based agenda. People’s lives will change if we decide to implement a global warming-based agenda. Yes, people’s lives will change, but not for the better if we have to end, for example, discount airline tickets and cheap travel.

Most people who listen to the global warming advocates don’t understand that the global warming advocates believe that jet planes are some of the worst CO2 polluters, and thus they have to be restricted, according to the theory. So how many people really do want to end the cheap airline tickets that can be had over the Internet?

Obviously one of the goals will be to severely restrict the use of private automobiles. Sure. Now, we know that. The fact that the automobile has been targeted for the last 20 years certainly suggests that automobiles are on the hit list. But don’t worry, we may have to give up our automobiles, but the rich and the government officials will still have their private jets, their Suburbans, and even their limousines. But the rest of us, of course, will be relegated to public transportation. And we will have very limited travel rights unless we can, of course, afford the higher and higher prices.

Global warming predictions appear designed to strike fear into the heart of those malcontents who just won’t willingly accept the mandates in their lifestyle changes that are needed in order to save the planet. These people, of course, won’t accept things like higher food prices, which will come with an implementation of global warming mandates. And of course they certainly won’t accept less meat in their diet. That’s right, part of the manmade global warming theory and how we’re going to solve this is to wean mankind away from meat.

A 2006 report entitled “Livestock’s Long Shadow” to the United Nations mentions livestock emissions and grazing, and it places the blame for global warming squarely on the hind parts of cows. Livestock, the report claims, accounts for 18 percent of the gases that supposedly cause the global warming of our climate. Cows are greenhouse-emitting machines. Fuel for fertilizer and meat production and transportation, as well as clearing the fields for grazing, produce 9 percent of the global CO2 emissions, according to the report. And also, cows produce ammonia, causing acid rain, of course.

Now, if that’s not bad enough, all of these numbers are projected in this report to double by the year 2050. Well, not only are we then going to have to cut personal transportation, which will keep us at home, but when we stay at home, we can’t even have a bbq. And heck, they won’t even let us have a hamburger.

I would like to point out that before the introduction of cattle, millions upon millions of buffalo dominated the Great Plains of America. They were so thick you could not see where the herd started and where it ended. I can only assume that the anti-meat, manmade global warming crowd must believe that buffalo farts have more socially redeeming value than the same flatulence emitted by cattle. Yes, this is absurd, but the deeper one looks into this global warming juggernaut, the weirder this movement becomes and the more denial is evident.

Ten years ago, for example, the alarmists predicted that by now we would be clearly plagued by surging temperatures. In testimony before Congress 20 years ago, now, says James Hansen, a man who has repeatedly challenged people who simply want to make sure that his views are balanced off at NASA, but NASA’s James Hansen 20 years ago predicted CO2 would shoot up and global temperatures would shoot up by more than one-third of a degree Celsius during the 1990s.

So a rise in temperature was predicted, and it would lead to what? Rising sea levels. In the end, we’ll have rising sea levels, perhaps even cities under water, droughts and famines, and of course an increase in tropical diseases. Yes, tropical diseases. Sometimes it’s difficult for me to hear it when certain environmentalists use that as an example, considering the fact that tropical diseases, namely malaria, has killed millions of children in the Third World because the environmentalists have been successful in banning DDT. But that’s another issue.

But the point is there are serious consequences, perhaps unintended consequences to following nonsensical extremism in the arena of the environment.

So were the predictions of global heating correct? Forget “case closed.” The question needs to be answered. Were all of these predictions correct? Mr. Hansen said it would rise by a third of a degree just a little over a decade ago. And the answer is that the predictions of a decade ago have turned out to be dramatically wrong. Temperatures during that decade rose only one-third of the jump predicted by Hansen, a modest 0.11, one-third of what he had predicted.

Furthermore, numerous and powerful hurricanes that were forecast by the National Hurricane Center, for example, at NOAA and others, well, by now we haven’t seen such a trend, and by now we were led to believe there would be a drought and a melting of the ice caps would be clearly upon us. My beautiful Sierra Nevada Mountains in California were due to heat up, dry up, brown up, and burn, burn, burn. Yep, during the entire Clinton administration, we heard these predictions over and over again. During the Clinton administration, we saw scientists produce study after study predicting the horrific impact of the unstoppable onslaught of man-made global warming, which we were led to believe would be overwhelming us right now. Right now. Of course, if there was even a hint that the conclusion of their research wouldn’t back up the theory of man-made global warming, these scientists wouldn’t have seen one red cent from the Federal research pool during the Clinton administration.

In a September, 2005, article from Discovery Magazine, Dr. William Gray, now an emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University and a former president of the American Meteorological Association, was asked if funding problems that he was experiencing and has been experiencing could be traced to his skepticism of man-made global warming. His response: “I had NOAA money for 30 years, and then when the Clinton administration came in and Gore started directing some of the environmental stuff, I was cut off. I couldn’t get any money from NOAA. They turned down 13 straight proposals from me.” This man is one of the most prominent hurricane experts in the world, cut off during the Clinton-Gore administration because he had been skeptical of global warming.

In fact, Al Gore’s first act as Vice President was to insist that William Harper be fired as the Chief Scientist at the Department of Energy. Now, why was that? Well, that’s because William Harper had uttered words indicating that he was open minded to the issue of global warming. So off with his head. They didn’t want someone who was open minded. They wanted someone who was going to provide grants based on people who would verify this man-made global warming theory. Now, that was 1993 when Mr. Harper was relieved, the first year of the Clinton-Gore administration. So for over a decade, all we got was a drumbeat of one-sided research, setting the stage for the false claim that there is a scientific consensus about whether or not man-made global warming is real.

Unfortunately, for all those scientists who went along with the scheme, now, over a decade later, there is a big problem. Contrary to what all those scientists living on their Federal research grants predicted, the world hasn’t been getting warmer. In fact, for the last 7 years, there has been no warming at all, which has been verified even by, for example, Michel Jarraud of the World Meteorological Organization. He’s their Secretary General. He reluctantly admitted that global temperatures have not risen since 1998, according to a BBC article. Global snowfall is at record levels and there are fewer, not more, hurricanes.

Furthermore, there is some melting in the Arctic. We all know that there is some melting in the Arctic because we hear about it over and over again. In fact, NBC did some special on the melting of the Arctic and how bad it is and showed the pictures of penguins sitting on a diminishing piece of ice in the Arctic. Except there was a problem with that story. You see, penguins don’t live in the Arctic; they live in the Antarctic. There are no penguins in the Arctic. So NBC had it wrong. Somebody must have told them that the penguins from the Arctic were being victimized by global warming. In fact, in the Antarctic, where the penguins are, there is a buildup of ice. It is getting cooler. And in the Arctic, of course, we do recognize there has been a warming in the Arctic, likely due to ocean currents that have changed in the last few years and not due to CO2 that comes from somebody’s SUV.

After hearing about the extinction of the polar bear, which has been drummed into our heads, we now hear that–and by the way, just today the polar bear was put on an endangered species list. But are the polar bears really disappearing? We now hear from Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Department of the Environment under the Canadian territory of Nunavut and other experts, I might add, who suggest, yes, all but one or two species of the polar bears are flourishing. Yes, of the twenty-odd species, there are perhaps one or two that are suffering and not doing well, but all the rest of the species of polar bear are expanding. In fact, we don’t have a situation with fewer polar bears; we’ve got more polar bears. Yet our government is putting the polar bear on an endangered species list, saying that if the ice cap melts, the polar bears will all be going away because their habitat has been destroyed.

Unfortunately, the debate on this case is not closed. So explaining emerging obvious differences between the reality and the theory needs to be addressed by the people who have been advocating global warming. The case is not closed. The gnomes of climate theory now have to come up with explanations for us of why it was predicted that the weather would be this way at this time and it is not. Why is it that basically we’ve had stable weather, if not a little cooler weather, for the last 8 years?

The first attempt to basically cover their tracks about this noticeable dichotomy in what they predicted and what was happening happened a few years ago, and it went very slowly but very cleverly. The words “climate change” have now replaced the words “global warming.” Get that? Every time you hear it now, half the time they are going to be using the words “climate change” where those very same people were so adamant about “global warming” only 4 or 5 years ago. So no matter what happens now, now that they’ve changed it to “climate change” rather than global warming, whatever happens to the weather pattern, whether it’s hotter or cooler, it can be presented as further verification of human-caused change. If you just had “human-caused warming,” it would have to be at least warming for them to actually have any verification of what they were trying to say. But right now by using “climate change,” they can bolster their right to be taken seriously upon recommending policies, even though no matter what direction the climate goes, it is justified by how they are labeling themselves.

I’m sorry, fellows. Do you really think the world is filled with morons? When it comes to bait and switch, used car salesmen are paragons of virtue compared to this global warming crowd. Excuse me. It’s not the “global warming” crowd now; it’s the “climate change” crowd. Of course, they don’t want any of us to own automobiles; so

what the heck. They can act like used car salesmen because there will be more jobs for them as being advocates in the climate change arena.

We just need to ask ourselves, if a salesman gives a strong pitch and claims something that is later found to be wrong, totally wrong, when does one stop trusting that salesman? Then if he starts playing word games, changing the actual words that he’s using about the same product rather than just admitting an error, isn’t it reasonable to stop trusting him?

Yes, Al Gore and company, we have noticed that you are now saying “climate change” rather than “global warming.” I know that people tried to slip it in, but we have noticed, and there is something behind this that the American people should take note of. Why has that changed? Well, that’s because the world has not been getting warmer in these last 7 years, as they predicted it would be.

So instead of word games, what these advocates need to explain is what is happening in the real world today and why it doesn’t match what they said was going to happen based on their “case closed, man-made global warming is real.” They must realize that someone is bound to notice that last winter was unusually cold and that chilly weather seems to be the trend. It actually snowed in Denver just less than a month ago, and people have commented on the chilliness of the weather this year.

So now we see a beehive of activity going on. Those federally funded scientists are trying to save some modicum of credibility by adjusting their computers and coming up with some explanations that keep man-made global warming as a theory but explains away the current dichotomy between what they said would happen and what is actually happening. Of course, computer models were used to justify their hysteria and their hysteric warming predictions to begin with. So now the computer’s information input is readjusted and we can see all these things coming out of it.

Well, there’s a lot of questions that need to be answered and a lot of things that were told to us that obviously are not true and are not consistent with what’s been going on and what we see happening around us today.

And why is this of such concern to us? Why are we concerned that global warming as a theory has been presented and that it’s false, and why should we be so concerned that it’s being accepted? What could be the negative results of just accepting it from some people who might be very sincere, very sincere and concerned about the planet?

Well, what happens in such cases as this is that we have situations that occur and people then actually come to the point where they are focused on aspects of what’s going on in the world that will not make it better but instead have terrible consequences in and of themselves.

For example, a deadly cyclone just brought death and destruction to Burma, and it was a horrible thing. Burma is a country that is run by a vicious dictatorship, and after the cyclone went through Burma, the dictatorship wouldn’t even permit our supplies to be given to those people of Burma. Well, Al Gore is so committed to this idea of global warming, which, of course, most people call “climate change,” that when commenting on Burma, instead of talking about the monstrous nature of the Burmese regime, instead he had to say, “The trend toward more category five storms–the larger ones and the trend toward stronger and more destructive storms appears to be linked to global warming and specifically to the impact of global warming on higher ocean temperatures in the top couple of hundred feet of the ocean, which drives convection energy and moisture into these storms and makes them more powerful.”

What should Al Gore’s reaction have been? Well, what it should have been was “The Burmese regime is despicable. The Burmese people are suffering. They are dying by the hundreds of thousands. It is despicable for this dictatorship not to permit our aid in.” But instead that was ignored, and what Al Gore did focus on “This is a chance for me to explain global warming,” as the quote I just gave suggested.

Well, the Burmese cyclone hit Burma. If you take a look at what Al Gore’s words were, he is trying to say that it is because of the warming of the water. I have in front of me, which I will submit as part of the Record, a satellite image of ocean temperatures taken by NOAA on May 5 which suggests the ocean in the area of the Burmese cyclone is one of the coldest water areas on Earth.

So what the heck is Mr. Gore talking about? What is all this mumbo jumbo? Again, he is warning about global warming because he is grasping at an attempt to try to verify in some way his predictions that have been all wrong for the last 5 years.

Dr. William Gray, for example, as I mentioned, the former chairman of the American Meteorological Association, a pre-eminent hurricane expert, has noted “there is no reliable data available to indicate increased hurricane frequency or intensity in any of the globe’s seven tropical cyclone basins.” So hurricanes and cyclones are not a product of global warming. Dr. Gray, I think, has more credentials than Mr. Gore. But most convincingly, the most convincing part of this is that no matter what Al Gore says about the warming of this water, that is not what we are hearing from other sources.

I will now submit for the Record indications that actually the water temperature is not warming and is expected to cool, especially in the northern areas of the world.

So what is really important here is that we take a look and we see that the world is not warming and that those people who have been advocating this are grasping to try to find a way out of the fact that they are telling us that we need to adopt the policies that they want for our country, yet their predictions on the weather were wrong.

What is happening is, and the articles that I will submit for the Record show, is that some of the organizations that were predicting that we would be in global warming now are telling us that, yes, there will be global warming. We are not giving it up. But it is going to be 10 to 15 years from now and not in the last 10 years, as was predicted.

In fact, as I said, we actually have this article that suggests that the sea around Europe and North America will cool slightly during the next decade, and the Pacific will be about the same. And the article suggests that it will be a “10-year time-out for global warming.” This is based on studies that were conducted by organizations that only a few years ago were predicting that global warming would be so evident to us today. Well, they have to say something I guess.

To understand all of this nonsense, you have to go back and look at the basic assumptions that are being used by global warming alarmists. They believe that excessive amounts of manmade CO2 are being deposited into the air which causes a greenhouse effect that warms the atmosphere. They call this the “carbon footprint.” That is what we are led to look for. We don’t want to look in Burma for this vicious dictatorship causing the death of hundreds of thousands of people because of the repression. They won’t even let our supplies in. We have to blame it on global warming causing a cyclone which hit Burma. No. I don’t think so. But carbon footprinting is now what we should look at.

The global warming analysts want us to judge everything by its carbon footprint. What that means is how much CO2 is being released because of that activity, because they believe it is CO2 that causes the planet to warm.

This concept, just like these other extrapolations that we get from computers, is wrong. It is dead wrong. A rise in CO2 comes after global temperature increases, not before. This has been observed in ice cores by prominent scientists, yet ignored by those screaming their warnings at us. That’s right. Ice cores indicate that there have been periods, many periods, of warming and cooling in the history of the world. But the warming that has happened preceded the increase in the level of CO2 in the world. That is why we have warming. That is why we can’t say that if we control CO2 that it is going to prevent the climate from warming.

Obviously, if the CO2 increase comes as a result of the warming, by changing that, the warming is still going to be with us. Well, that is getting things to the core. And I don’t mean a pun by that in terms of the ice core, but the fact is that this evidence is confirmed by ice cores.

So take note that the very argument upon which global warming is built has been proven to be false and that manmade global warming advocates will not address that issue. I have been in hearing after hearing. I have been involved with debates on this thing. When you tell them “no,” and you name several scientists, and I will be happy to do that for the Record, who are indicating that the CO2 increases come after the warming of the planet, well, that issue just isn’t addressed.

After all, the case is closed. We don’t need to discuss any of those type of details. To cite one example of experts’ findings on this, by the way, is Tom Scheffelin of the California Air Resources Board who stated on November 5, 2007, that “CO2 levels track temperature changes between 300 to 1,000 years after the temperature has changed. CO2 has no direct role in global warming; rather, it responds to biological activity, which responds to climate changes.”

The fact is that the global warming community is jumping through hoops and bending over backwards struggling to find one little glint of new information to cover their arrogant attempt to stampede humankind into draconian policies and to cut off the debate and dismiss the debate without addressing the issues. The government-financed propaganda campaign to convince us that manmade global warming has been and continues to be a major threat, this propaganda is a cacophony of gibberish presented as a scientific explanation.

Go back and look at what Mr. Gore’s words were about that cyclone. That same sort of putting together of pseudoscience wording in order to impress people is seen time and again. There are facts now evident, of course, that this can’t be ignored. And Mr. Gore’s mumbo jumbo notwithstanding, the predictions have been wrong. And the CO2 premise is wrong. The methodology that has been used has been wrong. The observations have been wrong. And the attempt to shut up those people who disagree has been wrong.

I remember Al Gore labeling me a Stalinist because when I chaired the subcommittee on Research and Science Education, I insisted that both sides be presented. There was a study on research and the environment, a subcommittee of the Science Committee. And I insisted when I was chairman of the committee that expert witnesses on both sides be present at hearings and that they address each other’s contentions. Well, to him, that is Stalinism. Well, I would suggest that the propaganda campaign of the manmade global warming alarmists has far more in common with Stalinism than does insisting that both sides of an argument be heard.

One has to really believe that he or she has a corner on the truth to make such a complaint as the one that he was making against me. He must feel really safe in saying that he knows the truth and that is in order to justify not having both sides of an argument presented at a hearing. Of course, Mr. Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth” by its own title suggests that it should be taken as the truth. And I won’t go into the numerous debatable points and outright errors that are presented in the film. Something far worse has recently emerged concerning the fundamental veracity and truthfulness of Vice President Gore’s film.

In the film, there are numerous film segments of climate and environmental incidents to add credibility to the alleged scientific points that were being documented in the film. However, what we see is not necessarily what we are getting. The audience is being given questionable information and questionable views because what they are seeing is not necessarily a documentary view but, instead it is a special effects creation in an attempt to convince the viewers that they are watching an actual occurrence of something.

Specifically, let me note that the film portrays a huge cracking and breaking away of a large portion of the polar ice cap. I have not seen the film, but I am told the scene is awesome and somewhat overwhelming, leaving the audience feeling that they are witnessing a massive occurrence, and this massive occurrence, of course, Mr. Gore conveniently ties to human activity, the human activity he wants to regulate and of course the human activity that he will profit from if we have this carbon credit scheme instituted by the various governments of the world.

Unfortunately, that view of the breakaway of the ice there in the Arctic is a total fake. It is not National Geographic footage of a huge breaking away of a portion of the ice cap. It is not firsthand, grand photographic evidence of the ice breaking. Instead, what the audience is looking at is an example of special effects. It was not the ice cap that was being looked at. It was Styrofoam. That’s right. Styrofoam.

And the real sin of all of this was not only the sin of presenting Styrofoam and trying to trick people into thinking they are watching something real, the ice breaking away, but that we haven’t heard about it. I have only seen this in one or two publications. We haven’t heard about it.

If such a trick and attempt to deceive was done by a conservative, I could tell you that that conservative would be tarred and feathered in the media. In fact, if there is anything wrong, I am sure that one or two points that I have in this speech are debatable, and I am sure that those will be looked at with a microscope. And if I am wrong, even a little bit, they will try to use that to just say “don’t listen to anything he says.” But Mr. Gore can present the breaking away of Styrofoam and present it to us as if it is really happening. And he doesn’t even apologize or comment on it when it is found out. Al Gore has no comment on this deception.

Maybe it is inconvenient for him to comment because, yes, it might hurt his credibility. And after all, the world is getting warmer in these last 7 years, which is just the opposite of what he predicted. And of course, maybe his predictions were based on a Styrofoam computer model. But we will go into that later.

Well, the first time I met President Gore was during my first term in Congress back in 1989 and 1990. Al Gore then was a United States Senator. And he marched into the Science Committee room followed by a platoon of cameras and reporters. He sat in front of the Science Committee, and he demanded that President Bush, that is George W.’s father, declare an ozone emergency. And he waved in his hand a report of evidence that an ozone hole was opening up over the Northeast United States.

A few days later, the report touted by the Senator was found to have been based on faulty data, data collected by one so-called researcher flying a single-engine Piper Cub with limited technology and not much expertise. Senator Gore was demanding emergency shutdowns of factories and manufacturing plants in the Northeast. It would have had dire consequences for the American economy and for those people who worked in those plants. But they be damned, because we are out to save the planet.

Now does anyone here see any type of a pattern here, the ozone hole that wasn’t there and then we are going to have this drastic action in order to save the planet? The scare tactics, the Chicken Little-ism and all the rest of these types of things that are trying to create hysteria, this isn’t a new tactic.

Let’s look at some of the past examples of the nonsense being portrayed as science.

Cranberries, yes, cranberries, shield your children from Ocean Spray. That’s right, the cranberry industry suffered a loss of nearly $20 million back in 1957 when it was determined that perhaps cranberries, there was something wrong with the cranberries. In fact, later on it was admitted to be just a mistake.

But the cranberry industry went to hell for 2 or 3 years. But if you are not growing cranberries, what do you care about cranberry farmers? No, you care about people. Many peoples’ lives were destroyed because over a 2- or 3-year period, cranberries were basically labeled as something that they should not have been labeled, and it was a catastrophe for them, just like perhaps those people that worked in factories that would have been closed up had we taken that ozone scare seriously.

Then there was the scare over cyclamate. Cyclamate was used in everyday items like soda, jams, ice cream. It was a sweetening element, it’s very low in calories, that industry, it was a very fine product and generated an enormous profit. In the early 1970s, the FDA banned cyclamates. I remember very well.

People spent billions of dollars building this industry. It was a great industry, but it was labeled as a cancer hazard after someone, some kind of a researcher, force-fed rats the equivalent of 350 cans of soda a day. By giving these rats the equivalent of 350 soda cans a day, 8 out of 240 got sick.

Well, even that was a faulty test, and eventually the truth prevailed and cyclamates were labeled okay, they were given an okay. That was after about 10 years. Canada, by the way, never banned cyclamates, but in order to protect us and save us, and it was a terrible situation, yes, the cyclamate industry never recovered.

The damage, however, was done. This episode has had serious consequences, because when the cyclamates were banned, that led to the introduction of what, high fructose corn syrup, so, yes, and with all of the obesity and problems that come with high fructose corn syrup. That first got its hold in the food business at a time when cyclamates were thought to be the answer, but they were banned.

So we have had examples of this over and over again, another American industry that was decimated by a rotten theory that had hazardous consequences for implementing.

The next example of fear mongering, of pseudoscience, happened in 1989. February 26, 1989, that evening thousands of Americans tuned into “60 Minutes” and heard Ed Bradley say the most potent cancer-causing agent in our food supply is a substance sprayed on apples to keep them on the trees longer and make them look better. That’s the conclusion of a number of scientific experts. And who is at risk? Children who may someday develop cancer.

That one story, by the way, snowballed into a media blitz, a feeding frenzy, Meryl Streep testified before Congress, spouting off, again, pseudoscientific nonsense. Parents tossed apples out the window, schools removed applesauce from the cafeteria and, of course, replaced that with much safer nutritious substances like ice cream and pudding.

Of course, there was only one problem, the Alar didn’t cause cancer, the apples definitely didn’t and even the Alar didn’t. The study was based on bad science, and 20,000 apple growers in the United States suffered major financial harm.

Okay, so by now such alarmism has become a political tool that scares people to try to get them to do things. That’s what we are facing with global warming, excuse me, climate change.

The Three Mile Island incident is another example of this. You remember Three Mile Island, a near disaster in Pennsylvania which, basically, coupled with the movie “The China Syndrome” led to a total halt in the development of nuclear energy as a means for producing energy in the United States.

The Jane Fonda movie, “The China Syndrome,” coupled with a mishap at a nuclear power plant, that was, I might add, a mishap that no one suffered any health consequences, no one died, no one was hurt. Yet it was presented to the public as this catastrophe, and that led to a shutdown of the efforts of building any new nuclear power plants.

Ironically, of course, nuclear power is the most effective means of producing power with no carbon footprint. Again, it was a total con job on the nuclear energy industry.

What about the ozone hole over the Antarctic? We are told that it would grow and grow for decades, and it was totally out of control.

Well, Boyce Rensberger, Director of the Knight Fellowship of Massachusetts Institute of Technology says that ozone depletion is a cyclical event, expanding and contracting throughout the eons of history. Here is a scientist from MIT telling us that the current ozone depression has been simply part of a reoccurring cycle, not as a result of the use of chlorofluorocarbons, meaning your aerosol cans.

So, what we have got is a situation where at a gigantic shift of expense, of shifting away from aerosol, we have basically accomplished nothing because the ozone hole opens and closes on its own. I might add, we know now, of course, there have been many cycles of warming and cooling, and is this a natural thing? Well, if you consider the sun being natural, yes.

Instead of saying that CO2 that’s coming out of the use of fossil fuels is causing our climate to change now, as compared to all the other times it changed in the past, maybe these people should look at the sun, and maybe there are natural cycles where you have sunspots and it causes warming and cooling on the Earth.

Could that be an explanation? Well, let’s think about it. Otherwise, how do we explain the fact that on Jupiter and Mars we have cooling and warming cycles that seem to be matching some of the cycles here on Earth. Well, maybe there are some SUVs up there on Mars.

Well, the last example, one of the last examples, of course, that I have in my memory of people trying to be frightened into supporting policy with this kind of alarmism has been acid rain. The acid rain was supposed to decimate our forests, destroy our fresh water bodies and roads, our buildings and sidewalks, and, what happened? That was just an onslaught that was going on, I worked for Ronald Reagan at the time, he was just beaten without mercy for his unwillingness to take costly action aimed at thwarting acid rain. He insisted on waiting for an in-depth study to be completed.

While he waited, of course, he was vilified as if he doesn’t care about the environment, he doesn’t really care about whether or not our environment is being destroyed by acid rain which is being caused by us. Well, a 10-year study was going on, Reagan knew about it. He waited, as he well should have, and there was a study by the Nation Acid Precipitation Assessment Project and was submitted to Congress in the 1990s. It minimized the human impact on the acidity on the water and especially the rain in America’s northeast. The issue died quickly after that report, and it just went away.

After all of the intense attacks on Ronald Reagan, once that report was in, it just sort of went away. Well, one reason it went away, maybe there was another alarmist scheme to go to.

Yes, there was, one was emerging about this time, and it was on the cover of Time Magazine 30 years ago.

This was probably the most pitiful of all of these alarmist attempts. It was, three decades ago, the scientists were warning us about global cooling. We were told early that we were on the edge of another ice age.

Well, unfortunately, that one went away very quickly because the temperatures immediately didn’t do what they said it was going to do, and the temperatures actually did not go down dramatically or freeze. It did get a little bit warmer during those days. It was one of those warming cycles, it went up for a few years and it went down.

It was getting warmer, so even as those predictions of frozen gloom and doom, they just changed the words, those same people were making the predictions of frozen gloom and doom now were sort of talking about global warming gloom and doom. You guessed it, so global cooling became global warming almost overnight. Now, after global warming, climate change comes almost overnight.

So the scare tactics are nothing new. It is tied to a tried-and-true method of how to try to manipulate people to accept things they wouldn’t otherwise accept. Unfortunately, there are long-term negative consequences that will be very clear to our future generations. Of course, they are being lied to all the time.

I often asked students from my district, who are here visiting in Washington, whether they believe the air in southern California is better now or worse now than when I went to high school in southern California 40 years ago. A huge percentage, maybe 80 percent of these students, believe that the air quality of 40 years ago was dramatically better than today. Of course, that’s not just a lie, that’s a big lie.

This generation has every reason to be optimistic about the future, and they are being lied to, being told that they are poisoned, and things are getting worse and worse. In fact, man-made global warming is going to devastate the whole planet any way. No, these kids now, when I tell them that, no, when I went to high school, the air pollution in southern California was much worse than it is today, they are incredulous.

What is all this lying about? Why are all these children being lied to? Why are we all being lied to?

I remember as a college student, the first Earth Day–I am quoting someone here–“I remember as a college student at the first Earth Day being told that it was a certainty that by the year 2000, the world would be starving and out of energy,” writes Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at University of Alabama.

Dr. Christy goes on to say “Similar pronouncements today about catastrophes due to human-induced climate change sound all too familiar and all too exaggerated to me as someone who actually produces and analyzes climate information.”

So, we are told that polar bears are dying, but they aren’t. As we have known that we have all of these other predictions, we are told that the polar ice caps are melting, but now we know that the polar ice caps are melting yes, only in the Arctic, but in the Antarctic, ice is actually growing.

Hurricane Katrina, we were told would only be the first of many horrendous hurricanes to hit the United States in the next few years but, of course, no hurricane equal or close to has been on the horizon. In fact, a hurricane that was just as strong as Katrina hit the United States 100 years earlier, long before this effective “global warming.” So when you look at facts like this, an honest debate is long overdue but yet we see an attempt to shut down an honest debate.

I will submit an advertisement, the Hill newspaper from the Environmental Defense Action Fund, and it says “What’s next? The Bond-Voinovich Cigarettes Aren’t Addictive Act?” What they are saying, it’s a cute way of saying, anybody who questions global warning, it is the equivalent of saying that cigarettes aren’t addictive. Well, that’s a great way to dismiss someone’s arguments without addressing them. It says here, “Some senators,” this is in the add, “are asking you to ignore. . . an international scientific consensus.”

Well, let’s put it this way, we hear that, there is a consensus over and over again. There is no consensus. The world is not getting warmer, and I would submit a list of 400 members of the scientific community who do not agree with a man-made global warming theory and, I might add, I quoted numerous very prestigious members of the scientific community already in this speech. So what we have is alarmism at its worst, and the consequences will be very, very severe if we let these people get away with this.

Now, what we have done is we have, again, permitted people to make their case without having to defend their case. This is never more evident than in the dealings with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is the United Nations panel.

I will submit several statements that indicate that the IPCC was wrong in its approach, in its entire methodology in trying to determine whether or not global warming, whether there is global warming and whether or not it is caused by man-made activity.

So with this said, we need to look and say, What is the negative impact of all of this lack of truthful information? What could possibly happen? If someone says well, aren’t we all against pollution? So what if someone is making a claim that global warming exists and it is caused by humankind and in reality it is just the pollution that we are both trying to get it at. Well, that just doesn’t work.

The fact is if we accept this theory of man-made global warming, we will be focusing our activities on trying to eliminate CO2 rather than eliminate toxic substances from our air. If I am concerned about my children, my three triplets, Christian, Anika and Tristan, I am concerned about their health, that is something that I think I share with every parent. Their health is not in any way threatened by CO2. CO2 is nontoxic. It is threatened by NOX and other toxin materials that come out of engines in cars and other sources. So if we only focus on CO2, we will end up focusing on the wrong target.

What we need to do is make sure that we develop clean energy sources, not because of global warming but because of the health of our children. And also, we need to be independent of foreign sources. The fact is that foreign sources of oil, because we are not developing our own oil resources as a result of the dynamics created by the global warming juggernaut that we have been experiencing, the fact is that we have not drilled for our own oil. We have not focused on real alternatives to energy like nuclear energy. The fact is that we need to make sure right now that we do our very best not to be captured by this, what I consider to be one of the greatest hoaxes that I have seen in my lifetime, but instead focus our efforts on accomplishing something that is real and positive for the people of the world and the people of the United States of America. We should be drilling for oil so that the terrorists overseas are denied the revenue when we are forced to buy oil from countries that are allied with these terrorists.

We need to make sure that we develop better engines, and make sure that those engines are not putting pollutants into the air and forget about the CO2, go to the pollutants.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I will submit these articles for the Record.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate_change, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

145 Responses to Regarding the Lieberman-Warner Debate, Rep. Rohrabacher: “Do you really think the world is filled with morons?”

  1. Hans says:

    Hello Again ;)

    Well as far as I am concerned, I have no problem with this bill being defeated. May have been “good” for the environment, but it also a half trillion dollar “welfare package” for the Nuclear Industry.

    And I have some market based solutions, no need to claim “enviro wacko” legislation to stop something that “does not exist.” ;)

  2. M. Jeff says:

    “And also, cows produce ammonia, causing acid rain, of course.”

    He meant to refer to the dreaded alkaline rain?

  3. Russ says:

    I really wish that I lived in this guys district so I could vote for him.

  4. Bill says:

    Well Senator, much as I hate to be this negative, but yes, I think the world IS filled with morons. Today i have an exceedingly low opinion of the world’s collective intelligence.

  5. Joe S says:

    I sure am glad we have Representative Rohrabacher in Washington. Got to find a video of this speech.

  6. crosspatch says:

    By definition 50% of the population is below the median intelligence level and all it takes to get elected is 50% + 1 vote.

    Anyway, it is comforting to hear someone stand up and inform the Emperor of his state of dress.

  7. Echo3Skywalker says:

    I feel relieved to know that there are at least some people in control of our Great Nation that have the endangered species Common sense living within them. I am becoming increasingly fed up with the “greenies” as I believe many Americans are. One can only hope that their agenda does not become our agenda, for we all will truly suffer the consequences, and our freedoms will become severely limited. We are the last place left in this world where our freedom is well protected, and the greenies/communists/environmentalists have been trying for 50 years now to erradicate that protection. Sadly, it seems more Americans are falling into their ideology… :( I hope that Americans will stand up against this tyranny and prevail against this new RED threat, which is really what it is underneath it all. Perhaps McCarthy has been viewed in negative light by history, but I wish someone like him was here today defending our freedoms through hearings that beared the weight of those of the 1950’s.

  8. tarpon says:

    As too the moron angle, Yeah I think people like Sen Boxer, who is a very elegant scientific thinker for a 68 year old, I think she thinks we are all morons.

    Pay higher taxes so government can pretend to control the weather. How cool is that. How many will buy the hoax?

    The global warming tax bill is slated to cost about $7 trillion in new taxes. And what is the new tax money to be spent on? Shhh, don’t tell anyone. As they found out in other country’s who have done the cap and trade scam, that’s the real inconvenient truth.

    And BTW, how much will paying all these new taxes effect the Earth’s warming?

  9. Ed Reid says:

    Perspective is a wonderful thing. For example, if global average temperature increases have been CO2-driven for the past 150 years, then stopping CO2-driven temperature increases would logically require that CO2 emissions be reduced to the level of 150 years ago. That would require global reductions well beyond the reductions proposed for the US by Lieberman-Warner. The reductions would probably need to be ~95% globally.

    My point is not to suggest that the US embark upon another “Manhattan Project”-scale effort to reduce carbon emissions. Rather, I suggest that if the AGW “acclaimers” believe that such a project is necessary, they are long overdue providing a unique, well defined long term goal they believe needs to be achieved and a long term plan consistent with achieving that goal.

  10. masstexodus says:

    Awesome speech. If you liked it why not send to 2-3 or 5 or 10 friends so they can get a bracing dose of some common sense.

  11. Jeff Alberts says:

    Well Senator, much as I hate to be this negative, but yes, I think the world IS filled with morons. Today i have an exceedingly low opinion of the world’s collective intelligence.

    That’s pretty much been my mantra for a long time.

  12. AEGeneral says:

    Got to find a video of this speech. – Joe S

    I bet C-SPAN will air it.

    Well, not only are we then going to have to cut personal transportation, which will keep us at home, but when we stay at home, we can’t even have a bbq. And heck, they won’t even let us have a hamburger.

    If they have their way, by 2050 we’ll all be living below the streets eating ratburgers with Denis Leary and Sylvester Stallone.

    Great speech. This has been long overdue.

  13. Novoburgo says:

    It’s a great feeling to know that there are still some sane politicians out there!!

  14. poetSam says:

    If the world isn’t filled with morons then the government school system has failed at its task. Oh well, the best laid plans…

  15. sammy k says:

    amen senator!!! mr watts, reading between the lines, your voice is being heard where it counts…thank you and carryon with the good work!!!

  16. Stan Needham says:

    Unfortunately, as Congressman Rohrabacher (sorry, it’s Congressman, not Senator) notes, when he mentions having to reeducate his own children about the Polar Bears, the American public education system has been indoctrinating the nation’s children for over 2 decades to believe things that aren’t true. And, unfortunately, not all of them have parents who have the expertise or who will take the time to give them the facts. I seen a time in the not-too-distant future when the only recourse will be massive civil disobedience.

  17. Pingback: Global Warming Today: Moron’s Complete Moron’s » Pirate’s Cove — Give No Quarter!

  18. Bill says:

    AEGeneral,

    “If they have their way, by 2050 we’ll all be living below the streets eating ratburgers with Denis Leary and Sylvester Stallone.”

    That would be RAW Ratburgers. To meet Obama’s stated goal for CO2 reduction to 80% of 1990 levls by 2050, the US would have to reduce per capita CO2 emissions to less than 2.5 tons/capita (assuming a population of 430 million is projections are correct). Since the Indians and first Colonists produced more CO2 than that we would have to reduce ourselves to the Stone Age sans fires. It will be interesting to see how we manage to feed ourselves. I guess that would make Ted Turners prediction accurate though. Global Warming would reduce the corp yield to the point that we’d become cannibals, or rather our policy to combat Global Warming would.

  19. DR says:

    Excuse me, but Kevin Trenberth is a skeptic? I don’t think soooo.

    REPLY: He’s on record on both sides of the issue, depending on what the topic is.

  20. retired engineer says:

    1. The world IS filled with morons. That should be obvious.
    2. L-W may go down to defeat, but like Jason or Freddy, it will return
    3. Hydrogen and stupidity, not necessarily in that order.
    4. This guy doesn’t plan on being reelected.
    (making sense is a sure path to defeat. see #1 above)

    Hate to disagree with the Rev., but I don’t think logic, reason, and common sense will prevail. Not until things get much, much worse.

  21. Brute says:

    I wish this guy would run for President. Finally, some sense.

    I’ve written this before but it bears repeating; send this and other relevant information to your friends, family, coworkers and anyone with an E-mail address. Send them the type of information presented on this site and other rational sites over and over again. God knows they won’t hear it from the media.

    Mr. Watts,

    Thank you very much for providing this island of reason and sensibility.

  22. Robinson says:

    A very impressive speech but it will only have been heard by the already converted. Thanks for posting this up anyway; the next time I encounter a Warmist, I can send them the URL ;).

  23. SlicerDicer says:

    I have to say I am a registered Democrat. I believe we need to make changes and all that yada yada.. However I agree with this guy to a huge degree… I do hope Obama gets in and changes things however.. I do hope that he sees that things are not warming but cooling and makes people take preparations.

  24. David S says:

    Newsflash!
    Hell freezes Over- DC politician speaks the truth!
    Hooray for Representative Rohrabacher! He showed that the disaster claims made in the past by the warmers have not come to pass. Reality was different than their predictions. Now I’m just waiting for the warmers to say they’re going ahead with their plans anyway and to heck with this reality monkey business.

  25. David S says:

    As to the moron comment; the world may not be completely full of them but there sure is an abundance of them, especially in Washington DC.

  26. Mike Bentley says:

    CALIFORNIA REPRESENTATIVE!?! Should be here in Colorado. We have too many urban cowboys here – need your help!

    Seriously, well argued, and I hope you caused some minds to question. For Pete’s sake please talk to McCain. He’s loosing his soldier mind.

    I wish I could vote for you…

    Thanks – and if a speechwriter did that – thank them!

  27. Joe S says:

    @ Mike Bentley – “For Pete’s sake please talk to McCain. He’s loosing his soldier mind.”

    Mike, to me, McCain is just plain ‘ol hardheaded. The kind of guy that once he gets something in his head, it’s there forevermore.

    He’s the same hardheaded guy the didn’t break under the torture in Viet Nam.

  28. Richard deSousa says:

    Don’t count on Obama being a sceptic. He’s firmly entrenched on the side of the AGW crowd.

  29. James says:

    The world is full of morons …

    Using some AGW style “statistics” I know of an excellent test to work out just how moronic people are:

    Think of just how stupid the average person is … and then realise that 50% of the population are stupider than him! :)

    Excellent speech though – and here I was being brought up in Europe thinking that all Americans and especially the politicians were dumb red-necks. Guess it isn’t just the kids that need re-educating! :)

  30. deadwood says:

    Wow, what a speech! I think he covered just about everything there is to say on the topic. Loved the barbs thrown at Gore, especially the bit about using the VP office to stiffle balance in the 1990’s. I’d love to see that trail of deceit explained in greater detail. Like who was appointed to what science body and when – and what wasn’t done by Bush to straightening it out when he came in.

  31. Robert Wood says:

    In 1990, I believe the population of the US was around 250 million.

    In 2050 it is projected to be 400-500 million; it is currently over 300 million.

    Thus the American economy will have to be less than 50% of the 1990 level, per capita. In other words, we must all become poorer. Hmmm, that doesn’t sound like a good election platform.

  32. Aviator says:

    You really need Rohrabacher and Inhofe running as Pres/Vice Pres down there in the lower piece of North America.

  33. Daniel L. Taylor says:

    CALIFORNIA REPRESENTATIVE!?!

    Yep! From my district in Orange County. Not all of California is insane :-)

  34. Evan Jones says:

    “Do you really think the world is filled with morons?”

    Biologically? No. Certainly not. Almost anyone can learn almost anything.

    Functionally, as a result of public education?

    Er, I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I refuse to answer that question.

  35. Jim says:

    SlicerDicer says: “I have to say I am a registered Democrat. I believe we need to make changes and all that yada yada.. However I agree with this guy to a huge degree… I do hope Obama gets in and changes things however.. I do hope that he sees that things are not warming but cooling and makes people take preparations.”
    Obama seeing that the earth is cooling and not warming is about as likely as him choosing the Louisianna Governor as his running mate. As for MAKING people take preparations, you can bet that he, if elected, and the democratics in congress will be trying to make people do a lot of things they don’t want to do.

  36. Pingback: U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher: Preach It, Brother! « A1A South

  37. Vic Sage says:

    Unfortunately, the only comments made by Rohrabacher that are being widely reported, involve torture and ladies undergarments.

    Selective reporting for the win.

  38. DAV says:

    Hear! Hear!

    And after all, the world is getting warmer in these last 7 years, which is just the opposite of what he predicted

    Surely he meant cooler. If professional speechwriters can get it wrong I don’t fee so bad now.

  39. Pingback: Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » A ClueClubbing™ Of Astronomical Proportions

  40. kim says:

    Whoa, he rares back and roars.
    ====================

  41. Linda Mae Schmaelzle says:

    What a wonderful speech. It is so sad that most of our politicians just follow the crowd without looking into the facts behind the theories they support. Why hasn’t Rep. Rohrabacher appeared on Charlie Rose? Other shows? He needs a good PR agent to get him out into the public. The mainstream media certainly won’t give him air time. Good for you, Rep. Rohrabacher.

  42. kum dollison says:

    Served him well in Vietnam; could ruin us, today.

  43. lavin says:

    ROHRABACHER for president!!!!!!

  44. Mike Bentley says:

    Thanks for the comments…

    Yea, this changed my view of some folks out on the Island (California). I haven’t been tortured, but have seen some combat (Viet Nam). A smart person in combat is constantly looking at the situation to assess judgments. McCain should be able to do the same. The fact he “stood up” for the men under him despite physical pain is a view to his character. I’d rather try to change his mind than the other two. He’d tell you what he thought and then follow through. The others? I’m not so sure.

  45. KuhnKat says:

    SlicerDicer,

    use the word hope about 150,000,000 more times and you will be exactly where you were when you started, except you will probably be hoarse.

    When are you guys going to start DOING something about your hopes??

    When are you going to ask Sen. Obama why you can’t do something except HOPE??

    Hope is really pitiful. You sit there, keep your mouth shut, and go and do what they tell you. While doing this you HOPE!!!

    Hope is what you do when you CAN’T or WON’T do anything for yourself!!

    Do you REALLY HOPE POLITICIANS can do your thinking for you??

  46. Steve Stip says:

    some other viewpoints on Mr McCain:

    http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/

    McCain at best is a lesser of two evils.

    I’ll be writing in Ron Paul’s name if I have to dodge tornadoes on the way to the polls. If enough people do this, he can’t be ignored next time.

  47. Jeff C. says:

    Yep, Dana Rohrabacher is a good man. He is my Congressman, I just voted for him in the primary election on Tuesday in fact. Before some of you start thinking that Californians are rational, keep in mind that he represents Orange County and Palos Verdes (my town) two of the saner parts of the state. I’m afraid the majority of the rest of CA is on the same wavelength as Boxer and Shwarzeneggar and will sit by idly as job after job is driven from the state.

  48. Joe S says:

    No thanks on that anti-McCain site.

  49. Rich Trzupek says:

    As a fellow scientist who has been writing on the same issue for quite some time, I just want to say “great job” for all your efforts. Keep getting the word out.

  50. Ric Werme says:

    Evan Jones (18:08:12) :

    ” “Do you really think the world is filled with morons?”

    Functionally, as a result of public education?”

    Most public school teachers got their degree at state universities where they were taught be government employees and are not government employees teaching our children. Sometimes I’m amazed that anyone from the public school system takes the risk of starting a small business. The rest seem to learn that government is good for them.

  51. sod says:

    Rep Rohrabacher is a very reasonable man with a very respectable opinion on many subject. apart from being a climate “sceptic”, he also is a guantanamo “sceptic”!

    http://www.veracifier.com/episode/TPM_20080605

  52. Flowers4Stalin says:

    Rohrabacher and Inhofe are certainly rare sites today: politicians with common sense and an understanding of reality. However, they only constitute two people of high political stature against the dangerous and more widespread AGW religion in politics. Pierre Gosselin is right: no matter how hard we try, “draconian policies” will be implimented some time in the next two years. The questions are how long they will last and how bad they will be before rebellion inevitably occurs (at least in Germany like he says, but the U.S. will probably get worse too as it is with gas and food prices). The possibilities, of course, are very broad.

  53. Exton says:

    Hans (13:10:40) : You said “but it also a half trillion dollar “welfare package” for the Nuclear Industry.” Don’t you realize that to push socialism you have to create enemies? Business are not evil that they do not get welfare. Marxists will say that tax breaks for companies are “corporate welfare.” WHAT BS. Look at oil. Exxon pays more in taxes in one month that Google does in a year. Yet give them a tax break and stupid senators yell “Corporate Welfare.” The rest of the world is going Nuclear and we are not. The liberals will argue both sides of any statement to push their agenda. Big Government is EVIL, not business.

  54. Exton says:

    SlicerDicer (16:20:24) Haven’t you noticed that Obama never states what change he wants to make? SLIDIE, what makes you think that his change will be positive? Obama is a MARXIST. Who hates freedom. If you want to experience an Obama presidency, move to Cuba. For that is Obama goal to give us a strong central government that dictates everything. You will loose ALL your freedoms, and will live under tyranny . Why do you hate America so much that you would give away what makes it great?

  55. Stef says:

    So, how long before someone points out that 15 years ago Rohrabacher had lunch with the brother-in-law of the second cousin of a guy who lives opposite some guy who’s nephew once dated a girl who was an intern at Exxon for 6 months, PROVING that Rohrabacher is in the pocket of Big Oil?

  56. Gary Plyler says:

    Dear Mr. Watts,

    Thankyou for posting Congressman Rohrabacher’s floor speech on global warming. Could you please inform him of the scientific blasphemy going on at NASA GISS concerning the re-writing of the measured temperature record using fabricated biases. The type of data manipulation being used by Hansen, the father of the completely discredited “Hockey Stick” graph, to hide the global cooling from 1945 to 1975 is beyond the pale.

    And to think, the mainstream AGW adherents in the Meteorological Society want to pull the accreditation credentials of weather forcasters who question AGW. What about scientists like Hansen that change historical data?

    REPLY: Mann was the father of the hockey stick. I’ll see what I can do.

  57. MattN says:

    Dude he did not just say “buffalo farts” did he? I’d vote for him simply for that alone.

    AGW=McCarthyism for the 21st Century. Mr. Rohrabacher, are you now or have you ever been a warming denier…?

  58. swampie says:

    Ric, teachers are well aware of the fact that they are out earned by people in almost every vocational field and so are hardly going to be advising students on the joys of government employment.

    The biggest problem that I can see with education are the number of parents that believe that education should rest solely on the teachers and, when the teachers attempt to actually teach (for example, by keeping Johnny off a field trip or a sports team when he’s failing a class so that he can bring his grade up to passing after failing to do *any* school or homework), the parent(s) have a screaming fit, cursing the administrators, teachers, clerical staff, janitors, and everybody else that may be in the vicinity.

    Ric, you have no idea what teachers/administrators put up with every single day. A recent example in this area was when a parent left her small children at an elementary school without completing their registration, did not return to get them until 2 hours after the school had closed, then had a screaming fit threatening to come back with a gun and kill everybody at the school because the school people had called child protective services to take custody of the kids as the school employees couldn’t very well take the children home like stray kittens or leave them unattended at the school. And of course the mother of the abusive/crazy parent blamed the school officials to the news programs. I’d like to say that it was an unusual occurrence, but it wasn’t.

    Sorry for the off topic, Anthony. I’ve spent the last year in a high school on a one year project working with data on low level readers and have wondered why the teachers would choose to work in such a thankless, low-paying field where their pay raises fail to keep up with the cost of living, many have to work second jobs delivering pizza, waiting tables, or cleaning houses in order to make the house payment or apartment rent, and buying a daily school lunch (at $2.75 per day) is not a luxury that they can afford. Then a student hugs me, tells me how much they will miss me, and I realize why they do it.

  59. Peter says:

    He meant polar bear populations, not species. I hope he did…

  60. Zeke says:

    Wait, since when does Kevin Trenberth disagree with the general IPCC position? The last time he testified before congress, he was rather blunt:

    “Following a detailed diagnosis of the vital signs of the planet Earth, it has become evident that theplanet is running a “fever” and the prognosis is that it is apt to get much worse. “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and it is “very likely” due to human activities.”
    http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/hearings/2007/full/08feb/trenberth_testimony.pdf

    Rohrabacher needs to recheck his skeptics list…

  61. timprosser says:

    Rohrbacher’s inflammatory language detracts from his point. This pep rally in the comments does not encourage me, either. I watched the video of him calling the interrogation techniques used in Guantanamo “pranks”, and he says a lot of things that just don’t make sense. Trying to insist that environmentally-concerned people are going to force anyone to stop driving cars, for example, is just crazy, inflammatory rhetoric and BS. It will be cost that forces people to stop driving cars, if anything, but with people like Rohrbacher in government that will be entirely up to Exxon and the like. Is that what you want? This guy does NOT belong in public office.

  62. swampie says:

    So, Tim, are you saying that the government is more qualified to set the price of oil or any other item produced by private companies than the companies themselves?

    What a wonderful idea! I’d really like the government to step in an regulate the price of vehicles. I don’t see why I should have to pay more for a BMW than a Kia.

  63. Rob says:

    Being from CT Lieberman and Dodd are my Senators. I have written to them regarding the Cap & Trade Bill and their responses never address the substantive issues of the bill. Rohrabacher has it right, most of our elected officials think the public are morons and global warming is a perfect opportunity to take massive amounts of money out of our pockets, and, at the same time, advancing their social agenda and taking away more of our freedoms.

  64. Leon Brozyna says:

    It’s a pity there aren’t many more Representatives and Senators as this distinguished gentleman, who has managed to cover so many of the junk science sins of the past few decades in this brief floor speech. He would understand why I believe that William D. Ruckelshaus ought to be brought up on charges of Generational Global Genocide for the consequences felt by the populace after he banned the use of DDT in the U.S. and effectively banned DDT on a worldwide basis.

    While this is an excellent speech, given the context in which it was presented, it misses a key point. That is that the environmental movement does not want a world in which man lives in harmony with nature. They do not want man to clean up the environment. They want a pristine world that is free from the effects of mankind. What they really want is the death of mankind. And given the way third-rate political hacks such as Pelosi, Boxer, Obama, & McCain are proceeding, such a fate will not be long in coming.

  65. citizenwells says:

    It is not so much the world being filled with morons as it is a combination
    of a poorly educated populace (in the truest sense of being truth seekers), and a “Big Brother” press that tells the poorly educated populace what to think. The MSM is the manifestation of “Big Brother” from 1984, by George Orwell. Orwell experienced the big lies of the Nazi regime. Orwell published 1984 in 1948, just after World War II. The policy of the Nazi regime was, If you are going to tell a lie, tell a big lie and repeat it until it becomes reality.
    Global warming and the 2008 election are straight from 1984.
    Citizen Wells

  66. leebert says:

    tarpon:
    > As too the moron angle, Yeah I think people like
    > Sen Boxer, who is a very elegant scientific thinker
    > for a 68 year old, I think she thinks we are all
    > morons.

    Sen. Barbara Boxer? The one that let slip the word “socialize” when she was interrogating oil co. execs, threatening to take over the industry?

    Ideologues can be well-spoken, even convincing. Government is a necessary evil, but when they want to introduce unnecessary – even counterproductive – levels of government, and use convincing arguments to support the power play, they’re dangerous, b/c ultimately all the regulator power of the government has to be enforced.

    If gov’t is a necessary evil, then when it’s not necessary, it’s just plain evil.

  67. Dave says:

    Trying to insist that environmentally-concerned people are going to force anyone to stop driving cars, for example, is just crazy, inflammatory rhetoric and BS

    We’ll they do call us “Deniers”, “Flat Earthers”, “Right Whingers”, “Shill’s for Big Oil”, and so on and so forth.

    “This guy does NOT belong in public office” and Al Gore does?

    “with people like Rohrbacher in government that will be entirely”…actually people like Rohrbacher keep the likes of Al Gore, Jim Hansen, from completely destroying our way of life with their hair-brained scheme.

    Environmentally-concerned people? give me a break, Man-made global warmers are frightened little people cowering in the corner, afraid of their own shadow because of the likes of Al Gore and his “The world has a fever mantra”.

  68. kim says:

    timprosser is not a connoisseur of hyperbole, I’d reckon. The mega in megaphone means BIG and this is mega news of mega importance. What is meshuginnah is the continued branding of Carbon Dioxide as the bogeyman. These alarmistas need to be confronted about why they intend to grind the poor of the earth, for nothing.

    The world is cooling, folks. For how long even I don’t know.
    =========================

  69. leebert says:

    timprosser:

    Do you know what the profit margin is for Exxon/Mobil? 10 percent. That’s not considered a “growth” industry. Google has a far bigger profit margin (and Al Gore has a big stake in it as well….). That’s just enough for continued exploration. Where does all that money go? Into reinvestment, into mutual funds made up of millions of IRAs.

    Do you know what the biggest sources of oil spills are in the Gulf of Mexico? Spontaneous geological venting from oil formations!

    Barbara Boxer threatened to nationalize the oil companies. What would happen to the environmental accountability that we get with the separation of government and industry? It never works to have gov’t running industry, the pollution gets worse b/c of governmental fiscal pressures from politicians taking too much money out of the industrial accounts.

  70. Jeff Alberts says:

    Trying to insist that environmentally-concerned people are going to force anyone to stop driving cars, for example, is just crazy, inflammatory rhetoric and BS.

    Actually the people in charge of many of these environmental groups want more than that. They want nothing less than the de-industrialization of the west. They’ve said so, plainly. And one of those is Maurice Strong, high up in the IPCC. So tell me there is no agenda.

  71. leebert says:

    Zeke:

    > Wait, since when does Kevin Trenberth disagree
    > with the general IPCC position? The last time
    > he testified before congress, he was rather blunt:

    That was early 2007. Last February when confronted with the Argo data that showed far lower ocean heat content than has been expected quickly surmised that the extra heat has been radiated back into space. Either way, his reaction was brief but spoke volumes: James Hansen’s oft-cited “heat bucket” and “smoking gun” of ocean heat had been overblown, the upshot being that there’d be no backlash of latent ocean heat feedback “in the pipeline.”

    The upshot is there’s will be no “tipping point” of irreversible global warming.

    See my blog re: V. Ramanathan’s discovery on tropospheric brown clouds causing a net *HEATING* effect WORLDWIDE. Same problem, real field data are OVERTURNING the hypothesis of DANGEROUS climate change.

    http://www.scientificblogging.com/blog/258

  72. leebert says:

    Dave:

    These pusillanimous greenies are the types that are mindful to dutifully move to the safest room in their house. The same types that were against the occupation of Afghanistan (it’s a police matter), etc.

    They live in a happy dream world of ideals and wishes b/c they are sheltered and dependent upon an industrial system that gives them the opportunity to be happy and untroubled by the real world. Activists have found them their easiest demographic… if it isn’t the bizarre purist mosh of PETA, then it’s other green tropes, like the anti-logging groups who call for fire suppression (instead of periodic burns) that leads to bigger fires and beetle infestations.

    People are very vulnerable to being lead by very convincing arguments repeated over and over again, esp. if they are given a dialectic “other” in the form of an enemy: Oil companies, the Iraq Occupation, etc. This leads to unintentional obsequity to the loudest and most ambitious zealots foisting a false dialectic upon the unsuspecting in the effort to galvanize and erect a willing polity.

    It’s all about power in the end. What’s notable are the moderates of principle like Patrick Moore, Richard Lindzen and many others. These are the neo-rationalists that we need to encourage.

  73. Russ R. says:

    As long as someone is willing to stand up and shine the spotlight of truth on this abomination, it will not prevail.
    Everyone that understands the science, knows that CO2 and other man-made GHGs do not have the ability to cause the planet any great distress. It is the water vapor positive-feedback loop, that is the tool they are using to create a “virtual-crisis”.
    The science on this is so weak that they have to hide behind the name calling and intimidation tactics.
    If the science changes, I will be the first to admit I was wrong. If we keep the discussion alive, the truth will eventually come out.

  74. keith wooster says:

    It appears that Senator Inhofe and Congressman Rohrabacher’s staff do not know about the surfacestations.org volunteer work and “How not to measure temperature Part #.” Surely some Senate, House , GAO, or CBO staffer has picked up on the US HCN database record contamination.

    Anthony, now is your time.

  75. Joe S says:

    “Sen. Barbara Boxer? The one that let slip the word “socialize” when she was interrogating oil co. execs, threatening to take over the industry?”

    leebert, that was Maxine Waters, huh? I loved that piece of video.

  76. Joe S says:

    Maxine Waters warns Big Oil the government will run “all of your companies”…

  77. SunSword says:

    > Sen. Barbara Boxer? The one that let slip the word “socialize” when she was
    > interrogating oil co. execs, threatening to take over the industry?

    No, that was Maxine Walters.

  78. Peter says:

    “Mann was the father of the hockey stick.”

    Do you know who the mother was?

    …sorry, couldn’t resist ;-)

  79. Peter says:

    “Trying to insist that environmentally-concerned people are going to force anyone to stop driving cars, for example, is just crazy, inflammatory rhetoric and BS.”

    Spend a little time on my side of the ‘pond’ and you’ll soon see that that’s exactly what they’re trying to do

  80. Steve Keohane says:

    Anthony, Thanks for the great post. timprosser, You say “Trying to insist that environmentally-concerned people are going to force anyone to stop driving cars, for example, is just crazy, inflammatory rhetoric and BS. It will be cost that forces people to stop driving cars,” Put it together; They are forcing the issue by making it too costly to live outside the stone-age.

  81. Pierre Gosselin says:

    Rohrabacher for Prez!

  82. Dave says:

    It’s all about power in the end. What’s notable are the moderates of principle like Patrick Moore, Richard Lindzen and many others. These are the neo-rationalists that we need to encourage

    Ladies and Gentlemen….the defense rests.

    Amen, leebert.

  83. Pierre Gosselin says:

    Peter (09:14:11) :
    Seeing how we’re the ones who got screwed, the answer is obvious.

  84. Pingback: Destruction of the US Economy Stopped - For Now » Pursuing Holiness

  85. haysayso says:

    Anyone who claims to be an expert on this issue is a moron! Call me in 1000 years, when there’s a more accurate collection of evidence.

  86. batguano101 says:

    Nuclear Energy puts mega buck plants in the same few hands that have mismanaged Energy, with a strangle hold on entire nations (e.g. Latin and Caribbean nations held hostage by power companies).

    I am from the oil patch: don’t lay BS on me about oil. The greatest profits of mankind’s history of commerce are being made now by oil companies and producers.

    Exploration, drilling and refining have been my family work going back to the Humble field. It has been good to us. But the days of spudding in on a hand shake are long gone, the oil men long gone for the most part, and what has taken over are shysters and crooks.

    You best begin to do some homework on how to power the planet and do so where it is not controlled by a few if you want a decent life for yourself and your children.

  87. MDM says:

    The NBC arctic penguin sighting mentioned by Mr. Rohrabacher is easily explained by climate science: it was a mirage caused by the Arctic being teleconnected to the Antarctic. The same phenomenon is responsible for sightings of penguins apparently waddling on open Arctic ocean (see NBC’s report on the “Jesus” penguins).

  88. @ M Jeff,

    Yes, I think that’s what he’s referring to. And this knocked my socks off: “Their health is not in any way threatened by CO2. CO2 is nontoxic.” Right, but it’s what CO2 does when it’s released into the atmosphere that’s the problem! So frustrating. And to see my CARTOONS click on my name link.

  89. chunque says:

    Yes. Yes I do. And here is the proof that the world is full of morons:

    http://www.stuffwhitedbagslike.wordpress.com

    After reading this blog all our representatives in Congress will be thrown out on their ears and replaced.

  90. Uncle Sam says:

    This man should run for Governor, as our state is a giant joke.

  91. This was a good article! I agree with Rohrabacher when I state that we must make this world a safer place for our children and we must always adhere to what is in the best health and environmntal interests of our country, HOWEVER, we must not let the pundits and hidden agendas characterize our fear of how we approach such a task!

    To Exton (23:05:32)

    I hear people ask a lot now…”What type of change will Obama bring? He’s not specific!” All I have to ask is, do people read anymore!? Is it so much to visit his website or search on the Internet to find out exactly how he will achieve his objectives? Is it so much to research various articles concerning the issues he wishes to address and couple the status of those current state of affairs and issues along with his plans, policies and solutions? I don’t mean this just for Obama but for McCain, Barr or Nader! Obviously, due to the nature of the article and the subsequent comments, I think its safe to say I won’t be seeing any Nader votes here. But my ultimate point is to be like Rohrabacher and Research!

  92. James Serra says:

    I’m tired of these ignorant, fat, greedy, evil politicians like Al Gore who try to enforce their stupid views as correct, scientific information on a public that isn’t as stupid as they are. Are these corrupt politicians ready to give up their millions, mansions, SUVs, limos, jets, and anything else for the sake of their cause!? You know the answer. I just hope the American people will not tolerate tyrants and oppressors in US governments.

  93. James Serra says:

    This “climate change” fallacy is another lie propagandized by people who want to promote an agenda. Just like the lie of “Evolution” which is talked about over and over again to ensure the listeners that somehow it must be true. No matter how long and hard one wants to promote a lie, it is still a lie! There is NO substantial truth, evidence, fact, or possibility that evolution can occur. So, now we are supposed to swallow this global warming theory. What did our “ape” relatives do over billions of years ago when they were eating meat and passing gas? Now all of a sudden in the 20th and 21st centuries we have global-warming. Please! Is there any sign of intelligence amongst these so-called scientists, politicians, and environmental activists? Maybe they haven’t evolved into a complete state of superiority yet or they are evolving in the opposite direction.

  94. James Serra says:

    Why aren’t the environmental activists over in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, China, Canada, or other parts of the world where oil drilling is happening? Why is America prevented from drilling for oil? Maybe, we need to investigate those activists and politicians who are profiting from foreign oil.

  95. Jeff Alberts says:

    This “climate change” fallacy is another lie propagandized by people who want to promote an agenda. Just like the lie of “Evolution” which is talked about over and over again to ensure the listeners that somehow it must be true.

    Well, James, there is a very big difference. No one is trying to use Evolution to control the masses and de-industrialize the world.

    Despite what you may think, there is nothing but evidence in favor of evolution. What’s your hypotheses on the origin of species?

  96. People do not want to hear it. Even my grandchildrens eyes glaze over when being told about the global warming myth. They seem to just take on faith that if it’s on TV it has to be a fact. I’am a high school drop out but somehow even I can see that global warming is an agenda for the people who hate people especially Americans

  97. Hans says:

    wow! JS just stroked his own “monkey” here, 3 posts in a row.

    oh btw, that is about all that happens on this site, is the same people stroking each other’s “monkeys” time and time again.

    maybe that is why the “ice caps” are growing…

    keep it up, as you might just bring back the ice age.

  98. Dani says:

    Although I believe CO2 emissions may have some relevance to climate change, I am much more concerned about the health of our environment and people. I suggest that if limiting the use of things that will take up a lot of energy and pollute our environment will make the world healthier than it is our responsibility to clean up after ourselves and make sacrifices for a healthier world. Also, we only have so much oil, and oil is what powers our economy. When you get right down to it, it’s oil. And it’s not something we have an unlimited supply of. Imagine how the world could be if everyone was more conscious!

  99. John Leonard says:

    Climate science is very boring. This site, and Rohrabacher’s rant are very entertaining (well, to some people, anyway). I’ll take the boring stuff, thank you.

  100. Pingback: FreedomSight » Blog Archive » Rohrabacher’s Floor Speech on Global Warming

  101. nutzoid says:

    Steve Stip??
    Paul belongs in a rubber room NOT in oval office! For G-Ds sake wake up and smell the horses__t

  102. Pingback: Still on the Endangered Species List: Critical Thinking in America « The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker

  103. batguano101 says:

    If I a congressman got up an said

    the world is flat,

    the Fed is good for the nation,

    or torture is peachy,

    would you give him this much attention.

  104. Ted says:

    Wow!! I loved it. What really shocks me is he is a Californian reprersentative. No offense implied to the people of California.

  105. nainnarart says:

    There are morons at the top and morons at the bottom. All of them blame the others. Everyone is saying “you are a moron”.
    Well then, 300 millions people can’t be wrong, …I am a moron!

  106. poetSam says:

    I don’t mind morons
    perhaps I are one.
    But it really is no fun
    when my life
    they try to run.

  107. poetSam says:

    “Paul belongs in a rubber room NOT in oval office! For G-Ds sake wake up and smell the horses__t” nutzoid

    nutzoid,

    Please send me some links making your point.

    this is no flame or burn
    i just to learn

  108. The irony is … the expense of complying with the agenda of the Climate Change Cult may lead to a reduction of attention towards other, REAL environmental issues.

    It is our prosperity gives us the “luxury” of directing resources to protect the environment. You impair that, by inhibiting the time-management flexibility and freedom-of-movement that are facilitated by our present transportation and utility infrastructures, and you might just find that the environment ends up worse off for it … not better.

    When your economic situation makes you wonder where your next meal is coming from, you are more likely to fillet Willy than to free him.

  109. David S says:

    Nutzoid This isn’t a political forum so I suppose it isn’t right to discuss candidates too much here but your comment on Ron Paul is one I could not let ride.

    When a president is sworn in, he takes an oath to do his job and to preserve, protect and defend the constitution to the best of his ability. That’s all the oath says. It doesn’t say he should create socialist programs here and it doesn’t say he should attempt to create democracy in other countries at the point of a gun. I can assure you that Ron Paul is by far the most dedicated supporter of the constitution.

    In November you will have a choice between one candidate who will take us further down the path to socialism and another candidate who is an avid supporter or gunboat diplomacy. Or you could write-in a candidate who will actually uphold his oath to support the constitution.

  110. Jerry says:

    A theory is a theory. Global warming may be a theory, but religion is a theory too; could Rohrabachere get re-elected saying it though. Come on get some gonads my man. If his is going to take on theories, discuss religion as the theory it is.

  111. Jeff Alberts says:

    Religion a theory? Don’t think so, since it’s not falsifiable. What would be the scientific basis for a religion theory?

  112. Joshua says:

    It doesn’t happen often these days, but man am I happy I voted for this guy. He’s up for election this November and I’ll be voting for him again too! I might even do some campaigning for him after reading this.

  113. Steve Stip says:

    “What would be the scientific basis for a religion theory?” Jeff Alberts

    probability theory

  114. Jeff Alberts says:

    And what would you calculate the probability of there currently being or ever having existed a deity?

  115. Steve Stip says:

    Jeff,

    Two non-theists argue in a book called “Rare Earth” that based on probability theory that earth may be the only planet in the universe capable of supporting (intelligent?) life . I have not read that book, I only mention it because they have no pro-God ax to grind. But in other books, the odds are beyond 10 to the 50th power even accounting for a 15 billion year old universe. I am not competent to discuss this but the best site I know of is http://www.reasons.org. It is headed by a Canadian astrophysicist named Dr. Hugh Ross.

  116. Jeff Alberts says:

    Life on any given planet isn’t the subject, whether all-powerful deities have ever or currently do exist is the issue.

    I personally believe there are most likely many other planets on which life has arisen. As to intelligent life, I’m not even sure there’s any here, much less anywhere else.

  117. Pingback: Global Warming "Case Is Closed"? - Ford Mustang Forums

  118. Pingback: Timothy Birdnow » A World of Morons? Climate Change and Snake Oil

  119. Steve Stip says:

    Jeff,

    If it is extremely improbable that life or even our solar system arose by chance then what is the logical alternative?

  120. poetSam says:

    “Earth in the Balance”?
    That brings a smile,
    on one side earth,
    on the other side Al.

    “Earth in the Balance”?
    Don’t make me laugh!
    If he wants to cap something
    how ’bout his gas?

  121. Alex Broderick says:

    Global Warming or Climate Change is the new socialist movement. WATCH OUT PEOPLE. Thanks to Rep Rohrabacher for bringing this up on the House floor. GOOD GOING SIR.

  122. UNCLE RICH says:

    Cleaner industry, of course. No industry, of course not.

    In a sea of politicians, a statesman.

  123. Obomination 08 says:

    “I am from the oil patch: don’t lay BS on me about oil. The greatest profits of mankind’s history of commerce are being made now by oil companies and producers.

    That’s funny, I come from the software industry, and I’ll bet you Mircosoft’s profits from selling copies of its operating systems exceed any profits ever made by selling a barrel of oil.

  124. Charles Kenwood says:

    20 years ago most scientist were saying we were going into a new ice age. Scientist are to dependent on grant money and have come up with nothing but tripe. And because of it there has nothing useful come out of science or medical that really help mankind!

  125. David O'Connor says:

    Why aren’t Republicans like Rohrabacher getting John McCaine to shut up on “Climate Change” and “Global Warning” and focus on the issues that are going to get him elected even though as President he will lose on all environmental issues that hurt us in terms of increased taxes, loss of liberties and energy independence.

  126. Pingback: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher Tells It Straight On Global Warming… « The Disgruntled American

  127. Jerry Nettles says:

    Thank God! There is at least one Republican left who has intelligence AND a backbone.

  128. lanceallott says:

    I can see it now, a global carbon footprint tax. Soon, all of us will have to pay to breathe and fart!! thanks Al..

  129. lib says:

    i am a communist – i am ignorant – i am naive – i am dangerous – i hate america – i love goverment – i am a loser – i am a lib!!!1

  130. kat says:

    Wow that was an amazing bill. Too bad it got rejected. Sadly, I do have to say that the world is filled with morons who believe whatever they are told by the media and the wonderous Al Gore.
    I finally got some hope that not everyone is a gobal warming activist/believer.

  131. DR says:

    Hey Responders…
    Does anyone know of a good country to flee to?
    Our polititians, our schools, our scientists, the press, and the sheople are all morons. Common Sense has fled our nation.
    Maybe China or Russia?
    Seems like our former enemies have a more clear vision of the future than the USA does…
    Makes me long for the ‘good old days’ of the cold war…when the USA made sense…
    I’m serious…any ideas?

  132. stan the man says:

    the liberals dont want to hear the truth because they cant handle the truth..just look at the milankovitch cycles but they wont. they have an agenda its called socialism..they want to dictate what you do, where you go, what you eat, what you drink, what you do with your time, what you drive,how you heat your home, what doctor you see, most of all WHAT YA THINK…

  133. Crucible says:

    It seems clear to me that there are too many politicians out there that are power hungry and are trying to use and feed this to the gullible portion of our population and win the presidency or whatever they want. I find it totally pathetic and utterly despicable, but then again that seems to be the definition of the word politician these days. when they come to me with proof that is more than a couple hundred years old or a car that gets 100 miles to the gal then we’ll discuss the possibility of global warming.

  134. samuel mallett says:

    All of the b.s. that the libs have been commenting about man causing global warming has not taken into consideration the amount of volcanic vents that are at the bottom of the ocean. The Discovery program stated in a program that there are 1,100 to 1,400 active vents at the bottom of the ocean. Do you think this just might be the source of our seas warming.

  135. killerville says:

    Whoa!
    Congressman Chicken Little has jumped to a conclusion and whipped all you animals into a frenzy of false security based on what is, at best, dubious claims. This unscrupulous man is using opposition to a terrifying truth to manipulate your fears of the coming apocalypse into an anti-environmentalist tirade.
    Well, while you are all singing his praises, keep in mind that this huxter is the same man who heaped praise on the Taliban (going so far as to fight along side them during a “vacation” to Afghanistan) and defends Jack Abramoff with his every breath.
    As an influence peddler of the highest order, he knows that we are scared of climitization, and offers a position that is comforting to those of you who are so hopelessly inured to the status-quo that the idea of change, even for the greater good, is more terrifying than the prospect of a Nevada coast-line or an eternal winter.
    Oh, and by-the-bye, all of this MORON business is hurtful and counterproductive, and I know that deep down you’re all just posturing. Certainly you must realize that the same minds that created and improve(d) space exploration, earthquake architecture, Doppler radar technology, and Cellular communication aren’t suddenly morons when they tell you something that you would rather not hear.
    Think of climate study in terms of volcanology. The geologist can’t tell you the exact date of an eruption, but he certainly knows when one’s a-comin…
    Don’t be that guy standing in the streets of Pompeii asking everyone to remain calm despite the fact that its raining ashes.
    End diatribe now.

  136. killerville says:

    Obomination 08

    Exxon maked corporate history by booking $11.7 billion in quarterly profit; It earned $1,300 a second in 2007.

    Microsoft didn’t even come close.

  137. jeeztheadmin says:

    Do you drive? Do you fly on airplanes, take buses, trains?

    Why should oil companies fund research to potentially put themselves out of business? Because they make money? Because they are inherently evil? Because of some social responsibility? I question the existence of any valid, ethically consistent, objective reason for the sentiment which is shared by many. I believe it is simply an emotional reaction. The oil companies are the new Jews, the modern Money Changers, who people like you believe, have made their profit through deception and criminal behavior and must be punished.

    The simple reason for the sentiment is jealousy, the more complex one Utopianism.

  138. killerville says:

    Jeez,

    Excuse me for focusing on just one statement in your post, but, you listed social responsibility w/ the rest of your rhetorical question fragments.

    Correct me if Im wrong, but Im taking that as you saying that social responsibility is NOT a valid reason for big oil to fund global energy research.

    If that is, in fact, your intended meaning, than I have quite a littany of responses, but I would like to give you the chance to clarify or confirm.

  139. Pingback: can anyone confirm this? - IH8MUD™ Forums

  140. Michael says:

    I lived through the global cooling scare of the 70’s…At that time, it wasn’t as big as this so-called; “global warming” issue is. That is because global cooling was predicted to hit a little ice age 10,000 years down the road. Where as this man-made global warming scare can happen in the next 25-50 years. There is such a thing as global warming as history bares this out, Greenland which was the name given it to by the Vikings who populated the land for a few hundred years as it was going through a warming period. Yes, no cars or factories, yet Greenland was warming. The climate changed, and began to get really cold, the last Viking left in 1401AD.

    The computer models do not fully understand the weather because it’s programmed by man who doesn’t fully understand the complexity of the weather. It’s predictions are suspect on how 3 percent of the Earth’s pollution made by man has such a considerable amount of impact on the weather. It was a La Nina year, where it was one of the snowiest and coldest winters of recent memory…And normally in a La Nina year, there are many more storms on land. History bares all this out, there is a pattern. None of which is connected with man-made pollution.

    I still think we should find a way to get off foreign oil and less intrusive means of generating power, but not because of a man-made global warming scare which really has no scientific basis.

  141. Pingback: Pachauri’s at it again - Shun meat, he says (but what about the buffalo?) « Watts Up With That?

  142. Peter Walstrom says:

    Rep. Rohrabacher:
    Re your floor speech: The “William Harper” fired by Clinton shortly after he got into office is actually William Happer. And yes, he was fired for being scientifically objective, opposing Gore, and wanting, among other things, rigorous scientific proof that UV-B was really increasing at ground level (checking with ground-based measurements, etc. ) rather than relying only on satellite data and computer models.
    He has been back at Princeton U since then and is doing first-rate cutting-edge research.
    Meanwhile, Gore’s front organization, wecansolveit.org, is telling us that in 10 years ALL of the US electricity supply can come from wind, solar, and geothermal. Only an ignorant child or a liberal would believe such BS.

  143. Hans says:

    “Only an ignorant child or a liberal would believe such BS.”

    only a conservative in bed with big oil would say such BS!

    I could connect to your house a system that is able to heat your hot water to 140-160 by the power of the sun alone, in almost any climate with average daylight hours. A small pump not requiring much electricity would drive the system. You could increase the collector area and tie it to a radiant heat system and heat your house.

    you could reasonably go with a PV system tied to the grid that could give you a Net Zero balance over the period of a one year.

    so who is the ignorant child or [fool] here?

  144. Hans says:

    oh and please don’t give me the BS that it is too expense and people could not afford it, as the reality of it is, that both a PV & Thermal system is an investment in the house. Unlike every other “investment” in the house (an extra bedroom, two extra bathrooms, a skylight, etc.) this is the only part of the investment that pays for itself and is not dependent upon property values going up. as gas, oil & electric rates increase, the payback period decreases. Show me a payback period on a house that can match what the payback period would be on a PV or Thermal as fuel prices continue to rise.

  145. Blunder guff says:

    When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That’s relativity

Comments are closed.