House Proceeding 06-09-09 on Jun 9th, 2009 :: 5:36:45 to 6:35:30
Total video length: 6 hours 35 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

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

Views:599 Duration: 0:58:45 Discussion

Previous speech:

5:36:41 to 5:37:01( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: i want to thank my colleagues, dr. roe, dr. fleming and my good friend from with that, we yield back the balance of our time. the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced

5:36:45 to 6:35:30( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Dana Rohrabacher

5:37:02 to 5:37:22( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: policy of january 6, chair reco mr. rohrabacher: i would like to address the house for one hour. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, for 60 minutes. mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much. a thought came across me about

5:37:23 to 5:37:45( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: two days ago. i was out on the water off of san clemente, california. i was sitting on my board and the pelicans were getting fish and the dolphins were swimming

5:37:46 to 5:38:09( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: by and i couldn't help but remember, many years ago when i was a young reporter, one of my first assignments to cover a speech given by jacques kousteau and i relished having gone out and interviewing him.

5:38:10 to 5:38:31( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: after the speech, i found that mr. cou kids there is no future in the ocean. he was saying there would be no life in the ocean. the ocean will be black, lifeless masses, black goo.

5:38:32 to 5:38:54( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: and i felt it was a bit pessimistic. and when i interviewed him afterwards, i turned on my tape recorder and introduced myself and he was ready for the interview and i said aren't there optimistic signs about the ocean that perhaps someday we will be able to farm them like shellfish and regular fish

5:38:55 to 5:39:15( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: perhaps, ranch them in the ocean? and that might be a great source of protein for the whole world that we would have it better under control. and he came up to me and all the students were watching and he put my face right up next to my nose and he said didn't you hear me?

5:39:16 to 5:39:36( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: the oceans will be dead in 10 years, black goo. black. dead. his nose was almost touching my nose. i could smell the garlic on his french breath and i can tell you it was an experience. and i thought about about that two days ago while i was surfing

5:39:37 to 5:39:57( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: and the fish were jumping and the dolphins were swimming and the pelicans were landing and picking up the fish in the water, the oceans totally alive and i'm totally alive and grateful to have the oceans we have.

5:39:58 to 5:40:18( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: obviously, mr. cousteau was wrong. i can't tell you he was lying, but he was dead wrong. . i try to see every student that comes from my district. i try to see them and talk to them, give them a chaps to ask me questions, but i always ask them a question, too. so my students from southern

5:40:19 to 5:40:39( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: california, young high school students, i always ask them, is the air in our congressional district, in our area of southern california, is it eaner or dirtier than it was 45 years ago when i went to high school in this very same area?

5:40:40 to 5:41:01( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: and almost 90% of the students adamantly insist that the air back then was so much cleaner. oh, you're so lucky to have lived in an age in southern california when the air was so clean. and now it's so dirty and all of us are destined to die and to be infected with this pollution in our lungs. well, the facts, that is dead

5:41:02 to 5:41:22( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: wrong as well. someone continues to misinform our young people, perhapsor political reasons, whatever, but the fact is, when i tell them that they are 180 degrees wrong, that in fact the air is so much cleaner now, that there's almost no comparison to what it was when i was a young person in high school, they are

5:41:23 to 5:41:43( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: incredulous. many of them don't believe me when i say that. but they know afterwards when they check up on it that they have been lied to. well, whatever the reason, whatever the motive behind this misinformation that's being provided to young people, whether it was jacques cousteau or whether it's the education

5:41:44 to 5:42:04( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: establishment or any of the other people we're talking about who have ties to the radical environmental movement, whatever reason they are misinforming our students, it's not just the students. it's our general population as well. for decades, phony, frightening predictions, false climate

5:42:05 to 5:42:27( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: assumptions and inaccurate information fed into computer climate models have been hoisted on the american people, including our young people, and people throughout the world. even worse, honest discussion on these issues of climate have been stifled and critics have been silenced in order to create

5:42:28 to 5:42:48( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: an illusion of a consensus that the climate is going hay wire and that we're in for a global warmg calamity. so why is this? why do we have this specter of man-made global warming being pour trade as a global calamity in the making?

5:42:49 to 5:43:10( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: well, the being used to stampede the public and, yes, stampede elected officials into accepting what appears to be the biggest power grab in history. one doesn't have to be a conspiracy nut to realize there are a significant number of people who really believe in

5:43:11 to 5:43:33( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: centralizing the power of government into the hands of elected and even unelected officials. central idsing that pure -- centralizing that power into washington and elsewhere. and these unelected officials who now will be given so much power are expected to be competent and expected to be well motivated and they are

5:43:34 to 5:43:55( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: expected to do things consistent with the goals of the values who of course, of the people who are pushing to centralize power in their hands. so, that we have a group of leftists who believe in centralizing power should not surprise anyone. but what do we have here? as the leftist politicos in this

5:43:56 to 5:44:18( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: country have been willing to go along and exaggerate and, yes, playing fast and loose with the facts in order to promote this notion of manmade global warming. but we didn't expect these people who have a motive of trying to centralize power or whatever the motive is of these

5:44:19 to 5:44:39( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: alarmists and the radical environmental movement, we didn't expect them to act any other way. but we need to ask ourselves, why did it take prominent members of the science community so long to step forward and to be counted in the face of this massive and heavy-handed campaign of deceit?

5:44:40 to 5:45:00( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: well, i traced the reluctance of our scientists totep up back to the abrupt dismissal of dr. william happener who is then the top scientist of the department of energy back in 1993. he was too professional, too objective for what vice

5:45:01 to 5:45:21( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: president gore had in mind. so, off with his head. immediately that was one of the first actions taken when the clinton administration took power. out the door with dr. happer. well, this man, this prominent and very well respected ph.d., his dismissal in that way was a message to the science

5:45:22 to 5:45:43( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: community. if you want a grant, you tow the line and what followed was, a one-sided drum beat, one-sided promotions, one-sided research grants and one-sided thinking. those were the order of the day for the eight years of the

5:45:44 to 5:46:06( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: clinton presidency. the media bies, which of course went along with that and played hand in glove, has never let up with that bias. we just had a major conference here in washington with hundreds of prominent individuals, many of whom were great scientists, ph.d.'s and heads of major

5:46:07 to 5:46:29( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: university science departments, yet that conference which was skeptical of global warming, of man made global warming, didn't get any pub blissity. very, very -- publicity. very, very few news articles came out of this. yet these were very prominent and important people. in this kind of repressive atmosphere where the press doesn't report that and that we

5:46:30 to 5:46:51( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: had years and years where people were not being able to get grants unless they toed the line that vice president gore wanted, in this repressive atmosphere, many leaders community just remained silent. they sort of became turtles. they tucked their heads in and figured they'd hunker down and live through it.

5:46:52 to 5:47:13( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: but that ignoring of the a camp of deceit that was utilizing the prestige of the science community has taken -- has taken its toll and it's taken a long time to get these scientists out of their shell and to step forward with integrity as is expected of men and women of science.

5:47:14 to 5:47:36( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: so here we are on the edge. laws, taxation, controls, regulation mandates are about to be enacted and we've had 15 years of stifled debate. even my g.o.p. colleagues are afraid to take on the phony science that is at the heart of the manmade global warming

5:47:37 to 5:47:57( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: propaganda juggernaut. and again these people in the g.o.p., they oppose this theory, but they just want to say that what is being proposed by the democrats will cost too much and will have too little impact on climate or temperature for us to justify this huge cost. well, they're right.

5:47:58 to 5:48:19( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: what's being proposed will have a huge cost and very little impact. but if indeed we are facing a global warming calamity that's being caused by human activity, the cost shouldn't matter. so i have to argue that principle and basic science is

5:48:20 to 5:48:41( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: the important element of the discussion of the manmade global warming theory and the laws and regulations and controls and taxation that we are now on the verge of passing here in washington, d.c. the bottom line is that science -- the science behind the

5:48:42 to 5:49:03( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: in congress and the draconian laws which will follow are based on faulty science, the science is wrong. what has been presented to us by vice president gore and the radical environmental community and liberal leftists who want to centralize power in government, that the facts that they

5:49:04 to 5:49:24( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: presented us have not been accurate, this is either -- this has either been an intent to deceive or perhaps just an -- a benevolent intent to save the world. so it's not just a cost analysis of current legislative proposals that show that the proposals claiming to thwart manmade

5:49:25 to 5:49:45( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: global warming would obliterate jobs. all these proposals, let's say, well, we're going to try to thwart global warming this way and that way with this regulation, this taxation, this requirement of cap and trade, we've had major economists, these things will destroy the american economy. but if they claim that it's

5:49:46 to 5:50:06( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: about saving the planet, people are going to listen to them. but it will destroy the economy and the irony of it, this will have nothing to do with saving the planet, but will in fact perhaps make the environment of our planet worse rather than better. that is why they have tried to

5:50:07 to 5:50:28( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: stifle the debate. the real scientific justification for their power grab is the -- is sciencend an honest discussion of that science will show that the science being presented to justify this power grab is at best inaccurate and at worst a total lie.

5:50:29 to 5:50:49( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: you've all heard it and everyone knows about this. i mean, people in washington, we don't need to be told that there's been an attempt to stifle debate. but the american people, i would ask that the american people think about what they have heard about the manmade global warming theory over these 15 years, but especially over these last four

5:50:50 to 5:51:12( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: years. how many have heard the words case closed? well, isn't it ironic that all of a sudden everybody started using the words case closed? what does that mean? that that means no more debate. the words case closed was a clumsy and i might add a

5:51:13 to 5:51:33( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: heavy-handed attempt to shut off chance to have an honest discussion of the issues, because as i said, the scientists in the eight years before hpped had been denied research grants unless they were wanting to toe the line on global warming. well how many of you heard case closed? we all have.

5:51:34 to 5:51:54( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: well, how many have heard that mr. gore speaks about global warming he never takes questions? hm. why would it be that someone who believes in something so adamantly refuses to debate the issue on tv, refuses to take questions? i have certainly a lot less invested in this issue than vice president gore.

5:51:55 to 5:52:18( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: i give speeches and always take questions. and i have certainly been willing to debate this issue in public and on television. so why do we hear the words case closed, stifling debate, and mr. gore, one of the prime advocates of this issue, not willing to take questions? why is it that

5:52:19 to 5:52:39( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: you know, ther about global -- manmade global warming, why is it that they complain like robert gray, former chairman of the american meteorological association, why do we hear from them that they were turned down for grant applications so many times? why do we hear that from a man

5:52:40 to 5:53:00( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: who mentioned that he had received 13 such research grants prior, prior to the clinton administration and then been totally cut off? isn't that say something when someone of that caliber, a ph.d., a president of the meteorological association,

5:53:01 to 5:53:22( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: can't get a grant to study the frequencies of hurricanes an even today this man points out, contradictory information. his view is, a man with decades of experience, and credentials, ph.d.'s and credentials in meteorology, says, no, global -- deciding that mankind's human actions are maersking more

5:53:23 to 5:53:43( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: hurricanes is false and there's no evidence of that. well, and then what else do we hear? we hear name calling. i was on a television show recently where they called me a tragulite. maybe that's the word. that i'm anti-science and that i'm bigoted in some way.

5:53:44 to 5:54:06( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: . i kept presenting evidence about global warming but all i got was name calling. case closed. and anybody who disagrees with us is a low-life who doesn't believe in science. can you imagine, moving forward on an honest discussion about

5:54:07 to 5:54:28( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: man-made global warming and being discussed and then after discussing four, five issues on science, not having those arguments answered and instead having my religion questioned. dismissing, rather than answering legitimate challenges

5:54:29 to 5:54:51( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: to the man-made global warming theory is par of the course. standard operating procedures. case closed. standard operating procedures. no questions. no grants for conceptics. these people have been trying their best to basically

5:54:52 to 5:55:12( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: steamroll over anyone who would get in their way without having the honest discussion. all of it is a herculean effort

5:55:13 to 5:55:33( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: not to discuss the basis of the man made global warming concept. why are they not discussin science? all is about is shutting down the science without combating the ideas. well, the reason why they have

5:55:34 to 5:55:54( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: tried so hard and have case closed and all of these things that i have just mentioned, it's because their basic theory, the science theory behind man-made global warming is wrong. it is dead wrong. and that's why they won't discuss it.

5:55:55 to 5:56:15( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: and if they won't discuss it, we can discuss it. and i would suggest that if there is anyone in this congress who would like to debate me on this issue for an hour sometime between now and the time this congress has to vote on cap and trade legislation, i will gladly meet them fo

5:56:16 to 5:56:38( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: discuss this issue. so, let's start discuss tonight and maybe someone from the other side will take that offer to debate this issue. if it's so important, let's have an open and honest discussion.

5:56:39 to 5:57:01( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: let's look at some of the real science-based discussions to an oncoming man-made global warming calament -- calamity. over the years in briefing after briefing on garm global warming.

5:57:02 to 5:57:22( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: i couldn't help but notice the charts that we have increased the temperature of the planet by one degree, i could not help but notice where they started, down here. and down there was 1850. 1850 is actually the line, the baseline that is used for

5:57:23 to 5:57:43( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: temperature comparisons by the global warming community, by the people who believe in man-made global warming. but 1850 has some significance. 1850, in those few years there, that was the end of the little ice age. that was the end of a 500-year

5:57:44 to 5:58:04( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: decline in world temperatures. ok. so why is it that people who want us to be concerned about a one-degree temperature increase are making the baseline of compison the bottom of a 500-year decline? well, if it's at the bottom of a

5:58:05 to 5:58:25( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: 500-year decline, if it's that low point they are comparing it to, what is the hysteria about if we are talking about one degree rise in temperature or even a two-degree rise in temperature? the fact is that we know there have been weather cycles and climate cycles throughout the history of the world.

5:58:26 to 5:58:48( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: they are now trying to use a low point of a cooling cycle to compare it to say we should be upset when there is a one-degree change. what about the other weather cycles? how can you use that as a baseline? number two, what about the other weather sigh calts? what about the weather cycle that went down 500 years?

5:58:49 to 5:59:13( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: over 1,000 years ago, the weather was very warm. it was a lot warmer than it is today, the one degrethat we have. the fact is there were big areas ofreenland that were green that had agriculture and a green part of that area. iceland was an area that had

5:59:14 to 5:59:35( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: plants and crops. people thought they were claiming that there were vines there. no. the temperature was different. it was warmer 1,000 years ago. so there have been numerous weather cycles that have had nothing to do with human activity, unless you believe that the vikings that there was

5:59:36 to 5:59:57( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: something they were doing that was changing the weather. and if there was a warming cycle -- and again, if we have had a warming cycle since that time, it has been one degree. but these past climate cycles, there is one thing we have to figure out. why is it then that we have had

5:59:58 to 6:00:18( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: these cycles? why is it then -- and why is this cycle claiming a one-degree rise in temperature from a 500-year low, why is this different? why are we trying to change the rules of the game and centralize power and look at this as some sort of cry cyst when it is

6:00:19 to 6:00:39( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: another cycle and what is causing the cycle then? it seems that cycles follow solar activity. the cycles we have had before mankind even emerged can betraysed back through ice cores to solar actvity.

6:00:40 to 6:01:00( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: now, we have seen it here on earth and we have seen it on other planets. when i was in debate the other night, a good friend went on how horrible it was, of course we are having man-made warming. looks like what is happening in

6:01:01 to 6:01:21( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: the arctic. the polar bears are being destroyed. that is not true. there is a polar beaexplosion in terms of their explosion. there are two types of polar bears that are losings and not able to keep up with the changes in climate. most polar bears are living better and the population is

6:01:22 to 6:01:42( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: going up. how ironic we end up putting them on an list when their numbers are increasing. something's going on in the arctic. and my friend and colleague is saying, how horrible it is and going into detail and t

6:01:43 to 6:02:05( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: people's hearts. i said this is caused by human activity and thus we have to have all these taxes and controls and things to save the planet from this? yes, that's what he's saying. well, i said e said to governor schwarzenegger, yes, the ice cap is retreating.

6:02:06 to 6:02:29( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: there's no doubt about that. but when i say that, i'm not talking about our ice cap. that's clear to us. but what about the ice cap on mars? there is an ice cap on mars. and it is retreating at exactly the same time that our ice cap is retreating. doesn't it indicate that it

6:02:30 to 6:02:52( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: might be the sun and not us driving s.u.v.'s or modern technology that's creating these many cycles we have had, including the one we are already in? yes, an ice cap is retreating on mars and on the world. is that a coincidence? well, let's have an answer to that.

6:02:53 to 6:03:15( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: so, we have polar ice caps melting on mars and it's not just a coincidence, i believe. so tell me why this doesn't indicate to us that what we're really talkic about -- talking about and what we are facing about is that it has to do with solar activity.

6:03:16 to 6:03:36( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: so -- remember, by the way, ice caps may have been melting in the arctic, but one thing people miss, the ice caps are not melting everywhere. just the northern ice cap.

6:03:37 to 6:03:57( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: in ant artica to the south, ice there is a polar bear population. the rest is expanding their population. and i understand now, the ice is beginning to return. the ice has been accumulating

6:03:58 to 6:04:22( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: there overall the years. it's if the whole world is increasing in temperature but don't talk about where the ice is accumulating. global warming has been focused on co-2. let's talk about the science of these issues.

6:04:23 to 6:04:46( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: co-2 is a miniscule part, a miniscule part of our atmosphere. if you ask the ordinary person, they will think it is 20%. it is actually .023. it's less than one quarter of 1% of the atmosphere is co-2.

6:04:47 to 6:05:08( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: and of that, at least 90% of the co-2 in the atmosphere is not traced to human activity. i have been in hearings where most people claim it's more like 5% in the atmosphere that is traced to human activity. and by the way, one huge volcano

6:05:09 to 6:05:29( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: or even massive fire like they have had in various countries would dwarf everything we are trying to do to reduce the amount of co-2. co-2 is not a significant part of the atmosphere. it's a miniscule -- it's like a thread being put across the line

6:05:30 to 6:05:50( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: on a football field and that's what y're anging by focusing not just on the co-2, which is .023% but of that, 90% of that is notanmade, it's by nature.

6:05:51 to 6:06:11( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: the most important discussion in terms of manmade co-2, it's a small contributor to a very tiny element in the atmosphere and suggesting that that is changing our climate is ludicrous.

6:06:12 to 6:06:34( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: in fact, it is warming and has released co-2 -- it is warming a little bit and has been over the years until recently. and er the years, there has been times when co-2 was going up dramatically and down dramatically, but had nothing to do with the climate of the planet.

6:06:35 to 6:06:55( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: for example, man made -- here's the basic question, another science challenge -- if manmade co-2 causes warming why as co-2 levels were rising dramatically in the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's and 1970's, if the co-2 was

6:06:56 to 6:07:16( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: rising in those decades, where was -- actually cooling of our climate in those decades? ok. let's hear the science. come on. i just had the science. i had five or six points. why is everyone afraid to take on these scientific answers?

6:07:17 to 6:07:38( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: if co-2 causes it to warm, well how come when we had massive increases in co-2, it got cooler and not warmer? the calculations on global warming have been based on audulent numbers. a recent study showed that over 80% of america's temperature and weather stations, which have

6:07:39 to 6:07:59( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: been the source of temperature readings that supposedly indicate a warming trend, supposedly, these very same monitoring facilities have been compromised and are faulty in the information they're providing. the numbers have been skewed. they are suspect because the

6:08:00 to 6:08:22( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: monitors that have been relied upon do not meet the basic scientific standards that are required of them for us to believe in the numbers that they're giving uts. compromised. the figures coming out of the equipment cannot be relied upon. and our system, with 80% of our monitors who do not meet the

6:08:23 to 6:08:44( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: standards that are necessary, the scientific standards for us to rely on their numbers, our system has been here aleded as the best in the world. sohink about that. what's going on in the rest of the world when we're talking about one little rise, one-degree rise in temperature since the end of the little ice

6:08:45 to 6:09:05( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: age, which was a 500-year low of temperature? so even that, we can't -- even with that one degree, we don't even know, because the monitors have been placed in faulty ways or have not been kept or maintained in the right way. and so, what we've had is a lot of people who have been making

6:09:06 to 6:09:29( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: predictions over the last 20 years, especially vice president gore, but in the science community, have been given these grants but only if they're going to come to the conclusion about global warming that we want you to, these science people and the political people who have got their own motive behind this

6:09:30 to 6:09:50( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: bulldozer approach and steamroller approach to accomplish what they are set to accomplish, those people have been telling us that we are facing a man-made global warming calamity and we were told if the temperates were to go up and up and reach a certain point and

6:09:51 to 6:10:12( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: reach a tiinpoint, it would jump up by a number of temperature points. it would be five or sixoints or whatever they were predicting, a huge jump in temperature at some point. well, that's not what's happened. i have heard that from 10 years, 10 years from the people who have been giving out the grants,

6:10:13 to 6:10:35( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: 10 years from the people who are shutting out any real debate, 10 years of don't ask any questions, case closed. . they've been warning us about man made global warming that's about to get out of hand but for over a decade it's not gotten any warmer.

6:10:36 to 6:10:58( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: yes, 11 years ago in 1998 it was a very hot year and that was the year since then, every year has been cooler, it has not gotten warmer since then, and they say, well, that was a very hot year. well, so was 1931, was a very hot year and it was followed by decades, i might add, of cooling.

6:10:59 to 6:11:19( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: so that doesn't mean anything that was just an anomaly that we had a hot year in 1998 because ever since then the temperature has in the been going up. the global warming alarmists' predictions were wrong. all right? come and debate that. there's a scientific challenge. i keep giving scientific challenges and what i get back

6:11:20 to 6:11:40( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: in this debate is, you're a bigot, you're anti-science, you're stupid, name calling, i mean, the people on the other side who always are willing to call people names rather than confront their arguments are very easy to spot. you look at, you just take a

6:11:41 to 6:12:03( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: said, who is offering an argument that needs to be discussed, who's calling names, they have been trying to shut down this debate by calling anybody who disagrees with them horrible person name -- personal names. well, let me repeat this one point. it is not gotten any warmer for over a decade. and we're still, it looks like,

6:12:04 to 6:12:26( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: even still getting cooler. that is totally contradictory to the predictions that were aggressively made to us as they only gave their grants to the people who would agree with that over the years. this is why global warming alarmists have now en masse changed the wording that they

6:12:27 to 6:12:47( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: use. they were wrong, so let's just change the way we talk about things. now it's climate change. ok, everybody think about it. all these same people were talking about global warming 20 years ago, spending billions of dollars on research that was bogus research, you know, it was

6:12:48 to 6:13:08( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: intended to come out with what they were buying from the scientists. they were telling us, it was going to get warmer and warmer. they kept using the word manmade global warming and now they he will call it climate change and all of a sudden they all changed. it all became climate change. well, every time you hear that word used by an environmental

6:13:09 to 6:13:29( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: radical, by one of these alarmists, it is an admission that they were wrong and that they refused to admit that they were wrong. refusing to admit you're wrong after you've beeno aggressive in promoting something is certainly not an honest debate

6:13:30 to 6:13:51( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: and an honest discussion. if i'm proven wrong on a point, i will apologize and change my position. i won't try to change my wording so it sounds like i was never wrong in the first place. these people were wrong, rememb climate change is used, remember these were the same people who were talking about global warmin both ways.

6:13:52 to 6:14:12( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: no matter if it gets warmer or colder, they want to blame it on human activity when in fact all the evidence suggests that cycles come from solar activity. expert after expert is now pointing to the flaws in the central argument and the other thing you hear is, of course, that all the scientists agree.

6:14:13 to 6:14:33( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: there's your other way of shutting down debate. all the scientists, all the prestigious ph.d.'s and sign tufts agree he. that is not true -- agree. that is not true. it hasn't been true for years. so, al gor

6:14:34 to 6:14:54( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: jumbo was wrong. all the scientists agreeing with him is wrong. the temperature predictions have been wrong. and the manmade co-2 premise is wrong. now we find out th the monitors used to collect the data were placed next to air conditioning exhaust vents which

6:14:55 to 6:15:15( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: made the temperature higher and in parking lots and on top of buildings and near other heat sources which of course made all of their statistics totally unreliable. we hear that. we also know the methodology of using computer models has been questionable from the very beginning.

6:15:16 to 6:15:36( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: we all know the saying, garbage in, garbage out. but no one was permitted to hear the questions, no one was permitted to ask follow-up questions as to -- no one has been permitted to totally understand the software that went into that questionable computer modeling. the observations have been

6:15:37 to 6:15:58( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: wrong. the attempt to stifle debate and shut up those people who disagree by calling them names, denying grants and making personal attacks has been wrong. thus i would suggest the biggest power grab in newer -- in our history is wrong and the public

6:16:03 to 6:16:23( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: should wake up, the public should understand that what we are seeing is a brazen grab that is wrong. so let's review the scientific challenges to manmade global warming theory, see if anybody ever bothers to come and try to have an argument about the science. the baseline comparison at the bottom -- is at the bottom of a 500-year decline in temperature. th determing whether a slight rise in temperature is

6:16:24 to 6:16:44( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: significant. the science measurements were partly or severely flawed by a monitoring system that did not have accurate information. past climate cycles were frequent, even before the emergence of man kind.

6:16:45 to 6:17:05( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: psych ams -- mankind. cycles like the reteating ice caps are similar to those on mars. increasing co-2 levels did not cause the warming -- did not cause warming which can be shown in the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's and 1970's where there was an increasing level of co-2 but yet

6:17:06 to 6:17:26( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: it was getting cooler. so let's have an honest debate. let's quit calling names, let's quit dismissing legitimate science-based questions. address the scientific issues being raised, rather than slogan earring about a consensus of ine civility scientists that does not exist.

6:17:27 to 6:17:47( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: again, the so-called consensus, case closed, that consensus does not exist. more and more thousands of scientists are signing on as skeptics to this manmade global warming theory. this leads to an important point that needs to be made. perhaps the biggest lie the

6:17:48 to 6:18:10( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: public must deal with is that all the prominent scientists in the world totally agree with the manmade global warming theory. that's probably the biggest lie as i'm mentioning. instead of answering scientific questions, alarmists have simply claimed all the scientists agree. i've been least a half a dozen times and every interview begins with, well, all the scientists agree

6:18:11 to 6:18:31( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: that manmade global warming is a reality, how you can disagree with all of them? it is just another tactic aimed at repressing an honest discussion of something that should be a scientific issue and discussed with all sincerity. i would now submit the names of

6:18:32 to 6:18:54( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: 10 prominent scientists, one of 10 of the thousands of scientists who have signed on to suggest that manmade global warmin all signtivities. these are the heads of science departments, the presidents of scientific and academic associations, people with doctorates in the areas of study and they are coming

6:18:55 to 6:19:16( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: forward at last to -- they're coming out of their shell at last after all of these years of intimidation. this is only a list of 10. but there are thousands more who are stepp honest skepticism, if not total rejection to the claim that human activity is creating a global warming climate catastrophe.

6:19:17 to 6:19:39( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: first one is dr. richard lindson, top scientist from the massachusetts institute of technology. dr. william gray, colorado state univeity. former president of american meteorological association. david -- dr. david know he will, former chairman of the nato -- former chairman and nato meteorology from canada. dr. gerard karam, university of

6:19:40 to 6:20:01( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: alaska and fairbanks. dr. yuri israel of the russian academy of sciences, a senior member of the senior academy of sciences who i met and spoke to and also a member of the ipcc, united nations report who now makes it very clear that he does not believ manmade global warming.

6:20:02 to 6:20:26( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: dr. ian pill in her of the university of melbourne. dr. diean douglas, climateogist. dr. harry listen, co-chairman of the ipcc, hydroogy and water reso dr. antonio zakiki, world federation of sciences.

6:20:27 to 6:20:47( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: dr. iber gyver. so, this idea that all the scientists are in lock step in favor of the theor global warming is a lie. not just a lie, a damnedble lie aimed at cutting out honest communication. and who's doing that? who's making this adamant statement that all the scientists are in agreement with

6:20:48 to 6:21:09( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: this? well, we've had people who say these things and have said things all along, there's the global warming alarmists now who are making these statements but let us just remember, these scarce have happened in the past. i remember when my mother wouldn't serve cranberries at anksgiving because they caused cancer.

6:21:10 to 6:21:31( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: i remember when professor meryl streep warned us of alar causing cancer which just about ruined the apple industry for two years, that also was wrong. we heard about other things causing cancer which caused the industry billions of dollars and disrupted very healthy patterns of nutrition that could have been based on psychly mates

6:21:32 to 6:21:53( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: rather than high fructose corn syrup. that, too, is wrong. we remember the nuclear power catastrophe at three-mile island when dr. jane fonda, that ph.d. genius, taught us that nuclear power was so dangerous, that what we have done instead of using nuclear power we've begun relying on overseas oil and gas

6:21:54 to 6:22:15( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: and burning coal. then remember the acid rain? that was a near high pitch. that's what we hear about global warming. ronald reagan stood up, put his hand and said, no, we are going to have a scientific research on this acid rain issue before we commit all sts of regulations and taxes that will destroy our

6:22:16 to 6:22:36( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: economy. luckily rage did that and when a $500 million study was complete, it verified the fact that acid rain was a minimal problem, not a major problem and minimal problem that didn't justify any of the draconian and raises in taxes and controls that were being suggested by those environmental alarmists.

6:22:37 to 6:22:57( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: then, of course, the granddaddy of them all was many of the same people are now talking about global warming, were then talking about global cooling back in the early 1970's. some of the very same people, yes, and what happened to global yeah, the trend started -- the cycle started going in another direction.

6:22:58 to 6:23:18( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: then it became, oh, my god, it's now it's back to global cooling. so it this all caused by us diving -- driving in s.u.v.'s? no. maybe it's caused by the sun, maybe there are natural reasons for the cycles of climate on this planet. the so-called experts were wrong when they told us about all of these things.

6:23:19 to 6:23:41( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: all of these were exaggerated problems, exaggerated threats to our well-being and the american people were deceived in many of these cases, whether it was about nuclear energy or whether it was about cranberries. and we had fanatics who were fast and loose with the truth and fast and loose with facts. well, that's exactly what's going on today.

6:23:42 to 6:24:03( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: to focus on co-2 as a primer and what the problem witthat? well, the problem is there are serious side effects when one gets you focused on something that's not true. like cranberries causing cancer. or nuclear energy being such a threat. you end up doing things that are actually harmful to you that you wouldn't do otherwise. when you have co-2 being called the primary pollutant for concern, are you doing a

6:24:04 to 6:24:26( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: horrendous disservice to the people of this country by focusing on co-2 which is t harmful to the human beings at all and in fact is a plant . co-2 doesn't harm human beings.

6:24:27 to 6:24:47( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: if we reduce co-2, we will be doing a disservice because we won't be concentrating on pollutants that are harmful. out of diesel trucks, the particulars that are very harmful to people. i have three children. i have three babies, i love

6:24:48 to 6:25:09( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: those babies and i do not want them to breathe in dirty air. d if we focus on co-2, we are doing a disservice to them and their generation and a disservice to the older people of this country who will also breathe in the dirty air an focusing on co-2 to save the planet, because what is

6:25:10 to 6:25:30( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: happening here, these people are out there to save the planet, but not out to save the people of this planet. one solution to a nonexistent threat, which also caused a huge destruction ofeople was, of course, the eliminating of

6:25:31 to 6:25:53( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: d.t. d.t., we were told was destructive to the environment, especially to bird egg shells. d.t. is banned. and what is the result of d.d.t. being banned? malaria where it was almost eliminated.

6:25:54 to 6:26:17( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: it made a comeback and millions of children have died because this nonsense. i can't tell you if pelican egg shells are a bit more fragile or less fragile because of d.d.t. i can tell you the tradeoff with millions of young children dying

6:26:18 to 6:26:38( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: in third-world countries -- unfortunately the people driving policy here and out to save our planet are not out to save our children or seniors or any other people on the planet. that is the same mindset that would damage our economy. in order to save our planet with no consideration to ordinary

6:26:39 to 6:27:00( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: people that would result from the draconian controls an taxation t here in washington right now as an answer to the global warming threat, the man-made global warming threat. now that it has been driven into the public csciousness, the alarmists have it right here in

6:27:01 to 6:27:23( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: washington. what should we expect unless the public changes its perception? there is a price to pay, just like the millions dying in africa of malaria. and there is a price to pay to listening to alarmists. excessive mandates are now being proposed in washington and they

6:27:24 to 6:27:44( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: will reduce our gross domestic product over $7 trillion, destroy nearly two million jobs by 2012 and raise electricity rates by 90% above inflation, in

6:27:45 to 6:28:05( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: occur $3,300 for every man, woman and child in america and help the chinese steal businesses from us. and even with this monstrous cost, here's back to the central point that republicans want to make, that cost isn't going to be worth what we're go

6:28:06 to 6:28:28( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: out of it. and co-2 isn't harmful to peop or this world. the real calamity will be the economy-killing taxes and regulations that are put in place to solve a nonexistent problem. that economic decline that we're talking about is round one.

6:28:29 to 6:28:49( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: round two is easy to predict. global and international bodies will be given by our own government and our own congress will be given the right and power to intervene in our lives to prevent man-made global warming. that's what it's all about.

6:28:50 to 6:29:10( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: globalism. if man makes it, man must be decontrolled. that is why it was important to steamroll over anybody who asks questions. they want nobody to ask questions about their theory about man-made global warming because they believe people need

6:29:11 to 6:29:31( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: to be controlled. that is part of their theory of government. it will make a whole new been the american government, the international mandates from unelectebodies that we will then pass on power and authority

6:29:32 to 6:29:52( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: to, which is supported by many of the people right congress. for example, you can face in the future -- we're going to face mandates and controls from the international scene. some of these would be, for example, mandated increases in parking fees.

6:29:53 to 6:30:15( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: did they tell you that now? all your local communities are going to have to raise the parking fees. and there will be jor impedements to the private use of automobiles. and they have frequent f miles and end that and because airplanes -- no one has been telling you this, because they

6:30:16 to 6:30:36( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: believe airplanes is the biggest co-2 foot threep print of all. your frequent flyer miles and discount tickets have got to go. and the elite will be able to fly in privatelanes getting donations from planting trees and thus they can fly in private

6:30:37 to 6:30:58( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: planes. but the rest of us can't see our sick relatives on a discounted tickets. no one has heard about this but we have heard about these type of controls that will be mandated on our own people, pe perhaps. what has been the view of local government will be transferred to higher authorities.

6:30:59 to 6:31:19( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: local government will be required to follow international guidelines, climate guidelines when it comes to building, zoning, even local planning. this is part of our liberty. where we live, what we eat, how we run our lives, this is what it's at stake.

6:31:20 to 6:31:40( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: this is a fight between the globalists and those people who do believe in liberty and justice. we call them patriots. we call them people around the world who do believe in these western values of dignity for the individual and freedom and justice. even our diet has been targeted

6:31:41 to 6:32:01( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: by those claiming that animal flat lens make meat the enemy of climate. we won't have bash be cues in our back yard even hamburgers. no one could ever go that far? what is going on here is laying

6:32:02 to 6:32:24( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: the foundation for a large -- for extensive controls that are now up to the individual or up to the local government being given to a central government. this, you should be. we have a movement of zealots who cannot admit they made a mistake and always attack the other person rather than having

6:32:25 to 6:32:47( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: an honest discussion, with coupled with self-serving intere they have joined in a political coalition that believes they have the right to run the economy, run business, run local schools and run our lives. they have been looking for an excuse to assume power. now the left has always wanted to have power. they believe that they can do

6:32:48 to 6:33:08( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: better and make humankind and make it a better world by having absolute power over the people that have choices in this world. they can threaten them in order to stampede them into a monstrously horrific policy and

6:33:09 to 6:33:29( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: that's what we are on the edge of here in washington. hundreds of billions, even trillions of dollars have been shoveled into the covers and no one knows where this money is going to. there have been looters from all over the world in our financial system who have benefited from that. the american people know that this congress was stampeded into

6:33:30 to 6:33:50( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: giving away trillions of dollars because we were told there was going to be an economic calamity. i'm proud i never got into that hysteria. that was the greatest ripoff. the stampede is designed to cover up the bringingest power grab and it, too, will be

6:33:51 to 6:34:11( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: costly. wake up, america. shouldn't be giving our power and our liberty, not to the central government in washington, d.c., certnly not to the united nations, ich is composed of countries who are governed by crooks and cooks and the united nations having the

6:34:12 to 6:34:33( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: power to set regulations in order to save the world from a climate sfroof, which itself would be a catastrophe to the freedom-loving people of the world. al gore must be a bit embarrassed now that he has to clues the word climate change

6:34:34 to 6:34:54( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: rather than global warming. it's an inconvenient truth for him. he must think we are stupid to think that we haven't noticed that is climate change and not global warming and there are a large number of scientists

6:34:55 to 6:35:15( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: that are opposing -- he must think we are stupid that these taxes and laws that are being proposed are things that we will frightened into submission. wake up, america. we need to save our country and future generations. and we need to save the world

6:35:16 to 6:35:30( Edit History Discussion )

Dana Rohrabacher: from this incredible power grab, the greatest power grab and worst power grab in the history. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time.