House Proceeding 03-18-09 on Mar 18th, 2009 :: 3:32:20 to 4:19:15
Total video length: 4 hours 20 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Views:1,256 Duration: 0:46:55 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

3:32:18 to 3:32:38( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: at this time, i would like to yield to my good friend, mr. rohrabacher, from california. mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much, and i will be amply filing on some of t you've made. i would just like to suggest that as a 20-year veteran of the science committee, this issue

3:32:20 to 4:19:15( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Dana Rohrabacher

3:32:39 to 3:32:59( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: has been bore me and we have been through many hearings and many actual examinations of ts particular issue. last week, president obama pledged that during his administration, "quote, that scientificata is never concealed and that we ke

3:33:00 to 3:33:22( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: scientific decisions based on facts and not ideology, end of this quote. viewing this commitment gives us some hope that president obama will break from the ranks of the lock-step conformity that is demanded of the politicized scientists concerning the issue of global warming.

3:33:23 to 3:33:43( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: perhaps now we can get on with discovering the truth through science, not chicken little science, but real science, and leave the political pressure out of it. unfortunately, up to today, politicians like vice president al gore, have done their best to silence the rational voices of

3:33:44 to 3:34:04( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: scientists who have been skeptical of mr. gore's agenda. let no one forget, vice president al gore, his first act as vice president that dr. william happener be fired as chief scientist from the department of energy. the doctor apparently had other

3:34:05 to 3:34:25( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: words indicating that he was open-minded to the issue of global warming, so off with his head, out the door. they wanted someone who was going to provide grants only to scientists who would verify this manmade global warming theory. the doctor was relieved in 1993, the first year of the clinton-gore administration.

3:34:26 to 3:34:47( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: so over a decade, all we have heard is a one-sided drum beat. dr. william atmospheric science at the colorado state university and a fellow of the american meteorological society verified this, quote, i had noaa money for 30 years and when the

3:34:48 to 3:35:09( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: clinton administration came in and gore started directing some of that environmental stuff, i was cut off. i couldn't get any money from noaa. they turned me down 13 straight proposals, end of quote. this man is one of the most prominent hurricane experts in the world who before received grants for study and in

3:35:10 to 3:35:30( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: scient clinton-gore, is turned down 13 straight times. this gross intimidation of other scientists was done to lay the foundation, because if it can happen to this prominent scientist, it was going to happen to them, but it was done to lay down a foundation for a radical agenda that would change

3:35:31 to 3:35:52( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: our life. the firsthandpicked scientist had, first of all, he had to have a hand picked scientist create fear that the planet was in jeopardy and then these scientists had to lie about everybody agreeing to that type

3:35:53 to 3:36:14( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: of prediction. unfortunately, for all those scientists who went along with this scheme now over a decade later, there is a big problem. the claim that the science is clearer and there is a consensus that humans are directly responsible for global warming

3:36:15 to 3:36:37( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: is now clearly wrong as it is dishonest. why is it clearly wrong? because it has not been getting warmer for the last eight years and it's harder for everybody to ignore that fact, especially as more and more scientists are stepping up and pointing it out. it's not getting any warmer. in fact, it hasn't been getting

3:36:38 to 3:36:59( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: warmer for eight years. in january, a u.s. senate minority report stated, over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged claims made by the united nations intergovernmental panel on climate change and former vice president as well as disagreeing with former vice

3:37:00 to 3:37:21( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: president al gore. the scientists being referred to me from a wide range of disciplines, several are nobel prize winners and many of them work at the respected scientific institutions in the world. they disagree with the theory and calling into question this man made global theory claim. last year, the oregon institute

3:37:22 to 3:37:45( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: of science and medicine released the names of some 31,478 scientists who signed a petion rejecting the claims of human-caused global warming. of those 31,000, 9,029 have p.h.d.'s and many of them work

3:37:46 to 3:38:06( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: in meteorology, atmospheric and environmental and geo physical studies as well as astronomical studies and the biological fields that directly relate to the climate change controversy. . so there is no consensus. thousands of scientists disagree

3:38:07 to 3:38:28( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: with what's been foisted upon us. yet we are bombarded by radical environmentalists and the media hype be a common refrain -- case closed, t real. it is repeated over and over again. case closed, global warming is real. well, it's repeated as if it was

3:38:29 to 3:38:49( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: a mantra by religious se lots. it was pounded into the public consciousness over the airwaves and in fingerprint and even in congressional hearings. case closed. well this was obviously a brazen attempt to end open discussion and to silence differing views,

3:38:50 to 3:39:10( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: dismissing the need to explore legitimate, contrary arguments on both sides of the issue. again, there are hundreds of prominent scientists and meteorologists and heads of science departments at major universities, nobel prize winners and others who are ?? highly skeptical and highly critical of this manmade, global

3:39:11 to 3:39:32( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: warming theory. but case closed. we shouldn't listen to their arguments. there's dr. richard linzen of the massachusetts institute of technology. he has been an adamant -- he's been adamant in his oppositionening as his dr. william gray, who i mentioned a moment ago a world-renowned hurricane expert and fellow at

3:39:33 to 3:39:55( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: the american meteorological society he recently pointed out that the 15-year prediction by global warming activists that the earth would by now be suffering many more and many more severe hurricanes, that that prediction was dead wrong. that doesn't come from me, it comes from dr. william gray, one

3:39:56 to 3:40:17( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: of the most renowned hurricane experts in the world, who could not get a research grant during the clinton-gore administration. so let us note, not only is the planet not getting warmer, hurricanes are at a 30-year low. but these views and so many more prominent scholars and

3:40:18 to 3:40:38( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: scientists who also agree with these views, their views don't matter. the debate is over. al gore has his nobel prize and the film, "an inconvenient truth" as its academy award system of shut up and get your politically correct prevailing wisdom, or at least what the

3:40:39 to 3:40:59( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: media tells us is the prevailing no questions, please, the case is closed. we have heard this dozens and dozens of times. don't the people who are advocating global warming, who are honest people, doesn't that cause them reason to pause and think, why are people trying to shut down the discussion?

3:41:00 to 3:41:20( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: ok, the science has bn skewed by heavy-handed intervention in the awarding of research grants. that's clear now. evidenced by a propaganda barrage that would make george orrwell blush, thisropaganda barrage has been aimed at the

3:41:21 to 3:41:42( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: american people. so what is this theory that is now so accepted that grants were denied an debate is deliberately stifled. and that, again, a barrage of propaganda is aimed at the american people to get them just to accept it. the manmade global warming

3:41:43 to 3:42:03( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: theory is presented as scientific truism. so, let's see, is it really? it is, let's say, specifically, it is a disturbing theory that the earth began warming, a warming cycle, 15 this was a warming cycle that

3:42:04 to 3:42:26( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: differed greatly from all the other warming and cooling cycles that had gone on on this planet for the history, formy lena, for as long as the earth has a geogic history, there have been warmings and coolings. but this warming cycle of 150 years ago we keep being told, is not like all the other cycles.

3:42:27 to 3:42:47( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: this one is tied directly to man kind's use of fossil fuels. basically, coal and oil. these so-called fossil fuels that have powered our industries and made civilization possible are, we have been told, causing a global warming catastrophe. the weatr is changing.

3:42:48 to 3:43:08( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: it's getting hotter and hotr. after all, former vice president al gore now said that, and i quote, humanity is sitting on a time bomb. the vast majority of the world's scientists are right. we have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet's climate

3:43:09 to 3:43:29( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: system into a tailspain of epic destruction involving extreme welcome, floods, droughts, act democrat -- epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we've ever experienced a catastrophe of our own making, end quote. al said that, not acknowledging

3:43:30 to 3:43:52( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: made, the world temperature had already ceased to climb in the previous five years. but he should be excused because he was so sure, really sure, that global warming would come back and validate his warnings. why was he so sure? because fossil fuels, people

3:43:53 to 3:44:14( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: like al tell us, put an ever-increasing level of so-called greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and the most prevalent of which is carbon dioxide, co-2. this increase in co-2, we are told are now supposedly experiencing. of course we know that ended

3:44:15 to 3:44:36( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: eight years ago, but supposedly, we're still experiencing it. we'll ignore that it hasn't been getting war years. th according to the theory, is rapidly approaching tipping point. as we have just heard from al. when the world's temperature will abruptly jump and

3:44:37 to 3:44:57( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: accelerate with dire and perhaps apocalyptic consequences for the entire planet. if one accepts this as fact, then man-made global warming is overwhelming our planet, even as we speak. then we would be expected, if we believed that, that we'd be expected to accept controls,

3:44:58 to 3:45:20( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: regulation taxation, international planning and enforcement, mandated lifestyle changes, lower expectations, limits on consume well as personal and family sacrifices, all of this we would be expected to accept as necessary to save our plane from -- well, from us.

3:45:21 to 3:45:41( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: and what are the costs of these controls? according to wharton economic forecasting report, complying with the kyoto treaty alone woulreduce our country's national output by $300 billion annually and would result in the loss of $2.-- of 2.4 million jobs. the cap and trade legislation

3:45:42 to 3:46:02( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: being considered in washington would cost american industry $600 billion. this, of course, will simply be passed on to consumers in the price of the goods that we purchase. by the way, when president obama talked about there will be no new taxes for anyone with less

3:46:03 to 3:46:24( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: than a $250,000 annual income, did he include all this money that was going to be added to the price of the goods that we're paying by federal regulations that are trying to deal with global warming? wonder who is going to pay that $600 billion? is it just the people who make

3:46:25 to 3:46:46( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: over $250,000 a year? well, promise or no, this economically oppressive medicine will be shoved down our throats at a time of incredible hardship and economic chaos in our country. we can't afford to lose millions of jobs, to charge the american taxpayer billions more in the

3:46:47 to 3:47:09( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: price of the goods they buy which is little more than at -- than a thinly disguised tax is unconsciona we can't afford to increase electric costs as much as 129%, which is predicted. and significantly, they would like to raise the price of gasoline once more. they want it to stay at $4 a gallon.

3:47:10 to 3:47:31( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: it really takes a lot to frighten people into accepting such economically destructive and personally restrictive mandates that would result from the implementing of a global warming based agenda. that's why the debate has been stifled. case is closed. the phony claims of consensus. that's why they want proponents

3:47:32 to 3:47:52( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: of the theory -- that's why the proponents of this theory have been so heavy-handed, heavy-handed with the unbiased issueances of research grants. how else, except for dishonest tactics, can they frighten people to accept changes in their lives that they will be required to make by the

3:47:53 to 3:48:13( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: global warming community? these are not changes that are being made, changes for the they'd make them gladly and voluntarily. inexpensive air travel, for example. the global warming alarmists say jet aircraft should be

3:48:14 to 3:48:35( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: considered among the worst co-2 polluters. jet travel should be restricted. people are expected to give up the freedom to use cheap air a fares. how many people are aware of that? if the global warming fanatics have their way, there will be no more discounted airline tickets, which of course means fewer visits to see our loved ones, fewer visits to explore the world.

3:48:36 to 3:48:56( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: better known, however is the global warming movement's commitment to severely restrict the use of private automobiles. the rich wi still have their limos and private jets, carbon offsets will see to that. certainly al and the others, they will be let off the hook because of these carbon offset, which, of course, al will also

3:48:57 to 3:49:18( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: profit from by organizing them in the private sector. the rest of us will not be able to travel by plane and will be stuck sitting at home, or sitting next to a gang member on public transportation. if we are just staying at home, is that a better life? outlandish global warming

3:49:19 to 3:49:39( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: predictions, then, are designed to strike fear into the hearts of those malcontents who just won't be willing to accept giving up those low-priced airfares and will not accept government mandates in their life they just won't stay at home. those changes, ware told, are needed

3:49:40 to 3:50:01( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: well, people, if proponents have their way, are just going to have to accept things like higher food prices. andmportantly, less meat in their diet. that's right. they want to wean us away from meat. a 2006 report entitled livestock's long shadow to the

3:50:02 to 3:50:23( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: united nations mentions livestock emissions and grazing and at place -- and it places part of the blame for global warming squarely on the hind parts of cows. cows are to be added to the lift of greenhouse emitting mhines. so not only are we -- we're going to be forced to cut our

3:50:24 to 3:50:44( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: personal air travel and ground transportation, as i say, which keeps us at home, but then when we stay home we can't even have a barbecue and heck, they won't even let us have a hamburger. i point out that before the introduction of cattle to the united states, millions upon millions of buffalo dominated the great plains of america.

3:50:45 to 3:51:05( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: they were so thick you could not see where one herd began and where the other ended. one can only assume that the anti-meat, man ma-made global warming crowd must believe that buffalo farts had some redeeming value better than the flatulence of cattle.

3:51:06 to 3:51:27( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: understanding this dismonsy of the global warming fanatics, in my attempt to make light of the fact that cattle production is an evil part of our world, i suggested that perhaps dinosaur flatulence changed the climate in those days which may have ended the time of the dinosaurs.

3:51:28 to 3:51:48( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: well, it was widely reported that i was serious when i said that. anyone who could suggest that i was serious and not making light of the other person's and i say respectfully, making light of the other person's argument, anybody who reports that i was serious, that i really believed that dinosaurs were extinct

3:51:49 to 3:52:09( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: because of flatulence, is intentionally portraying something that they know not to be true or they're just ignorant. . we are not talking about ignorant people but people who are portraying things that they

3:52:10 to 3:52:30( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: know not to be true. we have fan at sism by those on the other side of the global warming debate. those who are blinded and to grasp a bit of honest and humor added to a debate and certainly unable to honestly

3:52:31 to 3:52:51( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: examine an opposing argumen but let's look at the proof these zealots th back up their claim and what they're presenting us. first, let's note that the baseline used to prove the

3:52:52 to 3:53:13( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: global warming is 1850. after hearing. 1850 by the way, is the year in which they judge whether the planet is getting warmer, cooler or what. 1850, by the way, also marks something else. it marks the end, bottom end, the final end of a 500-year

3:53:14 to 3:53:34( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: decline in the earth's temperatures, called the minnie ice age. yes, it was a down for about 500 years and it got down to about 1850 when it started trending up. 1850 is the baseline for judging warming of our planet. does that make any sense?

3:53:35 to 3:53:55( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: they are making comparisons against a temperature that was the bottom end of a 500-year decline in temperature. i pointed that out at numerous hearings and in numerous debates and the issue continues to be ignored. so, if anyone out there is listening and is

3:53:56 to 3:54:16( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: give us an answer. isn't 1850 a dishonest baseline to use? isn't the statistical base clrly flawed when you start at a low point? then there are the predictions that we've heard in testimony beforcongress 20 years ago, nasa's james hanson

3:54:17 to 3:54:37( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: predicted that cott would shoot up and global temperatures by 1/ of a degree and the trend would escalate. a rise in temperature was predicted and it would lead to what? rising sea levels, cities under water, droughts and famines and

3:54:38 to 3:54:58( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: increase in tropical diseases, yes, tropical diseases. sometimes it's difficult for me when radical environmentalists use that as an example, considering that tropical diseases, especially malaria, have killed millions of children in the third world because radical environmentalists have been successful in banning

3:54:59 to 3:55:19( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: d.d.t., but that is another issue. it has been a while since the apock libertyic predictions by the fanatics were made were these corrections correct? mr. han son said the temperatures would rise 1/3 of a

3:55:20 to 3:55:42( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: degree and the predictions were wrong. temperatures rose only 1/3, a modest increase to the point that it would alarm nobody and would be of little difference than any of the other man changes that we have seen on our planet over the planet's millions of years of history.

3:55:43 to 3:56:04( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: and again, over the past eight years, there hasn't even been a modest rise of temperature, again as differentiated from we shouldn't be surprised, climate modeling, which is the base is of all alarmist predictions is not an exact sc

3:56:05 to 3:56:26( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: no model has ever been accurate to the point that the alarmist would have us believe. this was clear when dr. called for an anti-global warming protest two weeks ago. the day the demonstrators arrived could insided with the

3:56:27 to 3:56:47( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: worst snowstorm in a year. predictions he was dead wrong. he was dead wrong to try to call global warming demonstration on the coldest day of the year because he didn't think it would be cold. forecast by the national

3:56:48 to 3:57:08( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: hurricane center from noaa and others. ok. that's what we're going to have. last decade, global warming people said we were going to have more and more hurricanes. it hasn't been getting warmer and mpt seen more hurricanes. it is at a 30-year low.

3:57:09 to 3:57:29( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: during the clinton administration, scientists produced studies predicting the horrific impact of the unstoppable onslaught of man made global warming, droughts, fires, mass extinctions, all of thisreport after report of what i call chicken little science.

3:57:30 to 3:57:51( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: we were led to believe this nightmare would be overwhelming us by no of course, there was even a hint -- of course, if there was even a hint that the conclusion wouldn't back up this global warming theory, the scientists who applied wouldn't have seen one red cent of federal research

3:57:52 to 3:58:12( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: money. and just recently, tom new some, meteorologist for the national atmospheric and oceanic institute, that is noaa, this gentleman now says that he has reviewed the evidence and totally changed his mind and now admits he was wrong about global

3:58:13 to 3:58:33( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: warming and the increase in hurricane activities. so here is a scientist with integrity. such scientific integrity did not alys rise to the occasion. contrary to all those scientists living on their research grants have predicted, the world hasn't been getting warmer and there

3:58:34 to 3:58:54( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: hasn't been global warming at all. record snowfalls are at record levels and there are fewer hurricanes and there is some melting in the artic. we all know that. we hear about it over and over again. nbc did a special on the melting of the arctic, showing penguins

3:58:55 to 3:59:16( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: on diminished pieces of ice in the arctic. penguins don't live in the arct somebody must have been told them that the penguins were being victimized by global warming.

3:59:17 to 3:59:37( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: where the penguins live there is a buildup of ice going on and getting colder. in the arctic we recognize there has been some rise in temperatures, that due, which many experts tell us, to ocean curren that have changed in the last few years, but emphatically, it is not due to

3:59:38 to 4:00:00( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: cott that comes from somebody's s.u.v. the arctic is returning to the temperature levels of the 1940's. and what about the disappearing polar bears? are the polar bears really disappearing? dr. mitchell taylor from the department of environmental studies under the canadian

4:00:01 to 4:00:22( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: territorial government -- a leading environmental univers and other experts suggest that all but two types of polar bears are flourishing. two types of polar bears, out of 13 different types of polar bears, two of those types are in decline. the rest of the polar bears, the population is expanding.

4:00:23 to 4:00:45( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: so there are more polar bears. let me say that, more polar bears, but here wer understanding there you are more polar bears in the world but polar bears are ing put on the endangerered species list with a caveat that they aren't endangered now, but with global warming, they are expected to

4:00:46 to 4:01:08( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: dwindle, never mind it wasn't the spot eight years ago. the debate on this case is not closed. so emerging obvious differences between reality and theory needs to be addressed by people who have been advocating the global warming theory. even without going outside and checking, it's easy to tell that

4:01:09 to 4:01:30( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: the predictions of manmade global warming were wrong. well, you don't have to check, how can you tell they were ong? they don't use the word global warming anymore. climate change have now replaced global warming. every time you hear the words climate change, it's evidence of

4:01:31 to 4:01:52( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: error that they were wrong to begin with or of deceit on the part of radical en-- environmentalists. climate changeas replaced global warming and whether it's hoteror cooler, it can be presented as further indication that humans have cau change that's taking place.

4:01:53 to 4:02:13( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: there have been changes in our weather forever. we have had ups and downs in trends and cycle if a salesman gives a strong pitch and makes claims about something that is later to be found out to be wrong, totally wrong, when do you stop trusting the salesman?

4:02:14 to 4:02:35( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: then if he starts playing word games and changing the actual words that he's using about the just admitting that he was wrong, he just changes the words that he's using, but talking about the same product, isn't it reasonable to stop trusting this person? yes, al gore and company, we

4:02:36 to 4:02:56( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: have noticed that you are now saying climate change rather than global warming. they tried to slip it in, but we have noticed. so why the alteration? why are they doing it? that's because the world has not been getting warmer these last eight years and everyone is beginning to notice it. we actually see activity because

4:02:57 to 4:03:17( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: of this. those federally funded scientists who were sucked into this are now trying to save themselves some modicum of credibility as more and more scientists speak up and publicly disassociate themselves of the

4:03:18 to 4:03:40( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: scientific claims of global warming that have been hoisted upon us. to understand this nonsense, you have to look back at the scientific assumptions that are being used by the demrarming alarmists. they claim that excessive amounts of co-2 are being depositted in the air which causes a greenhouse effect that warms the atmosphere.

4:03:41 to 4:04:03( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: this cause this mankind's carbon footprint. the demrarming analysts want us to judge everything by its carbon footprint. what that means is how much co-2 is being released as a result of that specific activity is a carbon footprint. they adamantly believe that it is co-2 that causes our planet

4:04:04 to 4:04:24( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: to warm and more co-2, the hotter it will get and the increasing co-2 problem, why is it increasing, according to these folks? that's due to us. and although mankind is responsible for significantly less than 10% of all co-2 in the earth's atmosphere, we are told

4:04:25 to 4:04:49( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: climate change is our o-2 into the atmosphere than all the people in the world? yes. but that's still our fault. can one use fire and throw just as much fire into the air? yes, but it's still our fault.

4:04:56 to 4:05:21( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: rotting and termites cause more co-2? yes, but again, it's our fault that co-2 is rising. this concept, just like their computers, is wrong, dead wrong. a russian scientist and arctic ice core researcher slammed the

4:05:25 to 4:05:45( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: u.n. ipcc, as, quote, that has been used to justify all this monstrous and very dangerous global warming agenda, well, this russian ice core researcher suggests, and i quote, it's the

4:05:46 to 4:06:08( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: biggest scientific fraud and the kyoto theoryists have put the cart before the horse, it is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and not the other way around. he pointed out a large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 u.n. conference in

4:06:09 to 4:06:29( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: madrid vanished without a trace. as a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased and the u.n. declared global warming to be a scientific fact. we found out that the level of co-2 had fluctuated greatly over the period, but at any given time increases in air

4:06:30 to 4:06:52( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: temperature proceed the higher concentrations of co-2. this is exactly opposite from what is the basis of the whole global warming argument. this is the challenge. many prominent scientists and the head of the russian academy of science, who i met with recently, are now confirming

4:06:53 to 4:07:13( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: that the rice rise in co-2 comes after temperature increases, not before. this has been observed in ice coerce, yet, this has been ignored again, ignored by those who are creaming screaming at us. please, give us an answer to this challenge. why ignore it.

4:07:14 to 4:07:34( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: when something that is so fundamental to the validity of the argument that's being presented to us when they just ignore challenges to the wording of their argument. if the increase in co-2 is not cau then -- co-2 is not the cause of

4:07:35 to 4:07:55( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: a warming cycle, the world may experience a warming cycle, but it is not the cause. . we have had many warming cycles in the past. but what scientists are telling us, we did not cause the warming cycles.

4:07:56 to 4:08:17( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: e scientist who first postulated the theory that co-2 was spiking the world's temperature has changed his mind. officially he says he was wrong he told al gore he was wrong. al gore won't listen. so what is the cause of the earth's warming and cooling cycles? if it's not co-2, if the global warming crowd refuses to deal

4:08:18 to 4:08:39( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: with that issue and look at that specifically and deal with that challenge, ok, well, i assume they're wrong, but what is it we really believe causes the changes that have gone on for millenums in the earth's temperature? it's called sunspots. solar activity.

4:08:40 to 4:09:01( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: that explains why one sees similar temperature cycles on mars and jupiter to the cycles on this planet. that's why icecaps on those planets, like on ours, expand and contract. it's the sun, stupid. so, take note that the very argument upon which global warming is built has proven

4:09:02 to 4:09:22( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: be false and that manmade global warming activists will not address this issue. the most -- this is the most supreme arrogance that i've witnessed in my 30 years in washington. after all, case is closed we don't need to discuss any more details. yet expert after expert keep pointing to the flaws in a their

4:09:23 to 4:09:44( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: central argument. and mr. gore's mumbo jumbo notwithstanding, the predictions have been wrong and the co-2 premise is wrong. the methodology that has been used has been wrong. the wrong. the attempt to shut up those people who disagree with them has been wrong. now i remember when i chaired

4:09:45 to 4:10:07( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: the subcommittee on research and science in the house, back when republicans controled this body. i insisted that both sides be present and expert witnesses be expected to address each other's points and contentions. this methodology led al gore to refer to me as a stalinnist. i would suggest that the

4:10:08 to 4:10:31( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: propaganda campaign of the manmade global warming alarmist has much more in common with stall inist than does insisting that both sides of an -- stalinism than does sinnisting that both sides of an issue. one must have a corner on the

4:10:32 to 4:10:54( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: truth if they can insist that stalinism is having both sides addressed. of course, al gore suggested by its title, "an inconvenient truth" that what he says should be take intoon truth. i won't go into the numerous debatable points in that film but there's something far worse in that film.

4:10:55 to 4:11:17( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: that pseudo scientific documentary, this what i call chicken little science, presented numerous film segments of climate and environmental incidents similar to what you'd see on namble geographic. this added to the credibility of the points being made. it portrays a dramatic cracking and breaking away of a huge portion of the polar icecap the

4:11:18 to 4:11:38( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: scene is awesome and somewhat overwhelming and leaves the audience with the feeling they've witnessed a massive historic occurrence. unfortunately, it's all a fake. this is not -- this is not grand firsthand photographic evidence. it's not "national geographic" footage of a huge breakaway of a

4:11:39 to 4:11:59( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: portion of the icecap. instead what the audience is looking at ia deceptive use of special effects. it's not the icecaps. styrofoam. that's right. styrofoam special effects trying to fool us into thinking we're observing an occurrence of nature.

4:12:00 to 4:12:20( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: doesn't styrofoam have oil-based product? isn't there a carbon foot fingerprint with styrofoam? mr. gore has not commented on the depiction. maybe it's inconvenient for him to comment because it may hurt his credibility. after all trk it's not getting warmer as he predicted, so maybe his theories based on styrofoam

4:12:21 to 4:12:41( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: are inaccurate as well. the first time i met al gore was in my first term in congress in 1989 and 1990. they was then the united states senator and he marched into the science room, followed by a platoon of cameras and reporters. he sat in front they have committee and demanding that presidenbush, george w.'s father, declare an ozone

4:12:42 to 4:13:03( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: emergency. he waved a report in his hand as evidence that there was an ozone hole opening up over the northeast of the united states. a few days later, the report was found to have been based on faulty data. data collected by one so-called researcher flying a single engine piper cub with limited

4:13:04 to 4:13:24( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: technology and no experience. the emergency declaration the senator called for would have had severe negative consequences on the people in the northeast part of the united states. does anyone detect a pattern here? such a scare tactic, as i say, chicken littlism, based on false information, isn't new. we have had many examples, not

4:13:25 to 4:13:46( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: just of al gore but others playing this sort of tactic to get their way. in 1957, the f.d.a. recalled three million pounds of cranberries, a few years later, the f.d.a. admitted it was a mistake. sorry. of course, there was a tremendous price to be paid. a large number of our farmers went out of business, went broke, because nobody had their

4:13:47 to 4:14:07( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: cranberries for thanksgiving or christmas. then, of course, there was the scare over psych la mate, used in everyday items like sew ka, -- soda, jams, ice cream. in the early 1970's, the f.d.a. banned psych la mates as a cancer hazard. come to find out, the rats in their study had been force fed

4:14:08 to 4:14:30( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: the egive lebt of 350 cans of soda a day and only eight of the 240 rats they crammed with all this soda, only, what was it, eight of those 240 actually got sick. it was a faulty test. eventually, years later, the truth prevaileand it was officially revealed psych la mate doesn't cause cancer.

4:14:31 to 4:14:51( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: canada never banned psych la mates. our northern buddies couldn't get themselves to force feed the rats. the f.d.a. did take it back and then it said -- it came up with the truth, finally, however, great damage was done. this episode had serious consequences. it was the psych la mate ban

4:14:52 to 4:15:12( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: that led to the introduction of high-fructose corn syrup with the obesity and health problems that have come with high fructose corn syrup. so, yes, another scare tactic, another american industry, psych la mates, decimated -- cyclamates, devastated. the next example of fear

4:15:13 to 4:15:35( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: mongering with pseudo science came in february of 1989 on the evening of february 26, americans tuned in to 60 minutes and heard bradley say, quote, the most potent cancer causing agent in our food supply is a substance sprayed on appl keep them on the tree he warned

4:15:36 to 4:15:58( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: that children were being put at risk by eating the apples. it climaxed with meryl streep's tell before congress. frantic parents tossed apples out, schools applauce from their cafeteria and replaced them with more safe, nutritious substances lik

4:15:59 to 4:16:19( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: ice cream and pudding. alar, which was on the apples, didn't cause cancer. a study later found out that that was wrong. 20,00 united states suffered enormous harm. of course, there was three-mile island, another situation where people were stampeded and what

4:16:20 to 4:16:40( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: we ended up with was hurt at three-mile island, but instead, what we did was, it created a political momentum that destroyed our ability to utilize nuclear energy in the united states. instead, now we are based -- s fuels. we are based on oil and other

4:16:41 to 4:17:05( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: fuels that we now have to buy from people overseas. jane fonda's movie "china syndrome" helped create the scare. it's had an enormously negative impact. ironically, today, radical environmentalists still make attempts to ex-tand, to stop the

4:17:06 to 4:17:27( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: producing electricity, even as we remain dependent on foreign oil and continue to use coal-fired plants. and we know about the ozone hole. in latin america. which was supposed to be around for decades. then mysteriously it naturally closed up after a few years. again, another cycle of nature.

4:17:28 to 4:17:48( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: presented to us as if there was some major problem with human activity. of course, what we've got is an example of, and we've already been presented this by m colleague, where people just a few years ago were talki about global cooling in the same way they now talk about global warming.

4:17:49 to 4:18:09( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: then there was, of course, acid rain. firm and instead of putting the contls on our economy to stop so-called acid rain, insiste on a long-term, stiningtisk research and that research came out, it verified that acid rain was not caused by people and it

4:18:10 to 4:18:31( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: was not the problem that was being portrayed to us. so we have seen these tactics over and over again. and so, what we should be doing when we hear people trying to scare us into accepting controls, accepting higher taxes, what we need to do is

4:18:32 to 4:18:55( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: make sure the science, their science is challenged anthat we do so with an open mind. our goal should not be to end global warmingecause it doesn't exist. we should be focusing on global pollution. not co-2, but the pollutants that will hurt our people. one of the great damages that the global warming people are doing to us today is focusing

4:18:56 to 4:19:16( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: our attention on co-2 when we should be focusing our attention on the other pollutants that threaten the heah of our people. we don't need to save the planet by utilizing certain energy. we need to save the human beings on this planet. and the co-2 focus of the global warming crowd is causing the great damage to the well-being