Jimmy rocks. Love him, Love his show.
Sorry Rohrabacher – it’s far from theory at this point. It was theory when you were still young and hungry (like the 70s) but it’s rock solid science now. The theory debates now are around whether or not it is so abrupt it will bring on near term human extinction.
And what I always wonder …. how does he decide which science to pick for what he believes?
The CO2 argument is still the easiest to debate but Alan Grayson’s response (plastic bag) is the best ever!
Nonetheless how about this:
Q: Any variety of of the question – “CO2 isn’t bad for us, it’s here on the planet! How can you claim CO2 is harmful?”
A: Best response – Yeah, the CO2 is here already but do you realize it’s here now in more parts per million than we’ve seen in the last 15,000,000 years? That’s measurable. And there is a delayed reaction between the climate we’re experience today and the ppm… so just wait until that 400+ ppm kicks in!
Lots of climate deniers will probably still be alive when that 402 ppm kicks in and may also be taking a beating from their grandchildren for their lack of action and role in denying when they could have been protecting their future. Money won’t fix Mother Nature.
So to deniers – look at a graph to grasp and stop looking like a fool. I have an interactive one for you right here: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
Been there since 2009….
More about Rohrabacher from wikipedia
Rohrabacher doubts that global warming is caused by humans. During a congressional hearing on climate change on February 8, 2007, Rohrabacher mused that previous warming cycles may have been caused by carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by “dinosaur flatulence.” He stated, “In fact, it is assumed at best to be unproven and at worst a liberal claptrap, trendy, but soon to go out of style in our new Congress.”
On May 25, 2011, Rohrabacher expressed further skepticism regarding the existence of man-made global warming. However, he suggested that if it is an issue, a possible solution could be clear-cutting rain forests, and possibly replanting. This was strongly criticized by scientists, including Oliver Phillips, a geography professor at the University of Leeds. They noted the consensus that intact forests act as net absorbers of carbon, reducing global warming. In response, Rohrabacher stated,
Once again those with a global agenda have created a straw man by misrepresenting the position of their critics. I do not believe that CO2 is a cause of global warming, nor have I ever advocated the reduction of CO2 through the clearing of rainforests or cutting down older trees to prevent global warming. But that is how my question to a witness during my subcommittee hearing on May 25th is being reported. I simply asked the witness, Dr. Todd Stern, who is a supporter of a global climate treaty that would dramatically hurt the standard of living for millions of human beings, if he was considering a policy that would address naturally emitted carbon dioxide, which makes up over 90% of emissions. To suggest that I’m advocating such a radical approach instead of simply questioning the policy is a total misrepresentation of my position.
But wait, here’s the actual quote of what he said:
“Is there some thought being given to subsidizing the clearing of rainforests in order for some countries to eliminate that production of greenhouse gases?” the California Republican asked Todd Stern, the top U.S. climate diplomat and lead witness at the hearing. “Or would people be supportive of cutting down older trees in order to plant younger trees as a means to prevent this disaster from happening?” Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2011/05/do-trees-cause-global-warming-055731#ixzz498KFmMQD