-
Inaccurate Conceptions
September 26, 2011 | 10 comments
-
Big Pharma and Obamacare
August 4, 2011 | 2 comments
-
Preventive Care, Obama-Style
August 1, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Grab Your Pitchforks
July 26, 2011 | 4 comments
-
DeMint on Rick Perry
July 19, 2011 | 16 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Did California congressman Dana Rohrabacher come out in support of leveling rainforests to stop global warming, as the New York Times and Politico suggested? Of course not.
Rohrabacher is far from a global warming alarmist, and certainly does not make a habit of proposing ways in which the government might act to reduce CO2 emissions. So it raised some eyebrows when this representative asked an Obama administration official if he was considering policies that used deforestation to eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere.
At a May 25th congressional hearing on UN climate change policy, hosted by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs’ subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (of which Rohrabacher is the chair), he was questioning Todd Stern, Special Envoy for Climate Change of the US Department of State, and, according to Politico, made this inquiry:
Is there some thought being given to subsidizing the clearing of rain forests in order for some countries to eliminate that production of greenhouse gases?…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?
What Rohrabacher was likely talking about here was removing old, decaying material from rainforests, (because it releases CO2 and other gases as it rots) and replacing it with new, live material (that would absorb CO2). This is not, however, how environmentalists painted his statements. Instead, they were eager to portray him as a right-wing nut job ready to take a chainsaw to the Amazon in the name of environmentalism.
Advocating such an absurd policy, however, is not at all what Rohrabacher was attempting to do. In a press release, he stated that he was “simply questioning the policy” and that to present his question as an endorsement of any kind would be a “total misrepresentation.”
Still, Rohrabacher’s question was unclear and confusing, and could have been presented far more effectively. Dr. Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute, who also testified at the hearing, offers a possible explanation for this: lack of preparedness.
“He wasn’t completely prepared; it came off badly,” Hayward stated. “Too many people in both parties think they can go to these hearings and just wing it.”
View all comments (6) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Lucia Rafanelli
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/06/15/rohrabachers-climate-question
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Happy Fourth
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
- Back in the Fray
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Rob Tamlin| 6.15.11 @ 8:46PM
People don't need to understand science to be on the right side of the global warming issue. If anything the more you've learned about science in public schools and universities the more likely you are to believe in global warming. Give us more politicians who are "ignorant" of science but have the common sense to stand against the absurd claims of the global warmists.
And don't give me any of this "anthropogenic" nonsense. If you say that there is global warming and only question whether it is "anthropogenic" you've bought into half the Big Lie! Sensors tend to be in cities and cities tend to get bigger and therefore tend to get warmer because there are more cars and factories and people! There was even an article recently saying that we're on the verge of a new ice age!
It's supposed to be summer but I've got a sweater on because it's COLD today. There's no global warming. It's a scam designed to separate fools from their money and destroy the economy.
THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING! Thankfully there are a few candidates like Palin who are willing to state the truth plainly and not try to appease the pseudo-scientific elites.
Mark | 6.24.11 @ 12:13PM
So the more people have learned from respected educational institutions, the more they understand the science. And the more credibility they place in science and the synthesis documents produced by National Academy of Science, IPCC, and virtually every major professional scientific organization such as American Geophysical Union. Sounds reasonable to me. We need more politicians who are willing to learn from the scientific community, and not come in with preconceived notions that scientists are elitists and conspiring to ruin our economy. They need to stand up to the industry-funded disinformation campaigns. The out-of-context half truths and sound bites. Time to put "conserve" back into conservatism.
"THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING." You're stuck on logical fallacy #1. Most denialists are well beyond that one, and it is readily proven false with verifiable data.
MikeN| 6.16.11 @ 10:25AM
Planting trees doesn't do much as the CO2 will be released when the tree dies. I guess if you turn it into furniture you save some of the CO2. Or perhaps you can plant redwoods.
Now is anything being done to reduce Chinese emissions? The scientists saw the power and insisted on an 80% cut, and now China's emissions are over 20% and still growing, while the West is under 50% and dropping. No solution being presented will stop global warming under the scientists' own models. Had they called for a 20% cut like with Kyoto, they had a chance.
paul nelson| 6.20.11 @ 8:56AM
Water vapor is somewhat more efficient as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Water vapor is present in the atmosphere at about 1% or roughly 10,000 ppm. Carbon dioxide is present at about 400 ppm. At most CO2 comprises about 4% of the greenhouse effect