Matthews debates global warming – calls congressman a “Troglydite”

This is perhaps the best debate ever, simply because Congressman Dana Rohrabaher wins.When presented with the evidence Congressman Jim Moran concedes the point. “OK, even if you are right we need green jobs.” Priceless. It starts with a typical Matthews insult. Also priceless.


5 replies
  1. Wyndeward
    Wyndeward says:

    "Green" jobs are a sump hole that gov't is going to poor endless amounts of money down, as if it were water.

    It takes more energy to make ethanol than it produces as energy.  Wind power requires a huge carbon-based back-up to protect the energy grid from the vagaries of the wind.  Even the loudest boosters of these boondoggles don't want them in their areas, lest they disrupt their view of the landscape or their "yachting lanes."

    The only reason these "green jobs" and "green projects" are remotely viable is the subsidy money gov't shovels on them, like so much all-natural fertilizer — without the monies taken from the tax-payer, these projects wouldn't rate a moment's thought.

    The faster they talk, the more their trying to flim-flam you.

  2. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Rohrabacher crushed Moran and Matthews (not that this is much of an achievement!).

    Luddite?  Troglodyte?  How about an enlightened opposition?  Real science is subject to continued debate, analysis, reanalysis, and confirmation by other scientists who may either agree or disagree.  The bias is irrelevant if the science is true.  Facts win out.  The enviroweenies lack the latter.

    Why is the "consensus" on AGW just so much horse squeeze?  Precisely because the proponents refuse to debate the theory and subject their data to scientific analysis.  Why does Nobel Laureate Al Gore steadfastly refuse to debate Lord Monckton about the validity of his cute little PowerPoint presentation (legally proven to be inaccurate)?  Why was contrary debate thrown out without debate or consideration?  Bottom line: political review (read it: expediency) is not scientific peer review.  Take it from one who knows: scientists follow the money to fund their labs.  If the politicians hold the pursestrings, then the scientists are smart enough to know that they have to say certain things in grant applications (and by extension, not say other things) in order to get their funding.  No funding, no lab.  Simple.  Politicians are trying to drive the science, when it should be the other way around. 

    For a quick read of a speech recently given by Monckton, see….    It is poetry in motion, and frankly, hilarious.  Not to mention the fact that it completely destroys troglodytes like Matthews and Moran.

  3. Lazybum
    Lazybum says:

    Luddite? Mathews appears to be the one that refuses to accept scientific fact. We need someone like Dana Rohrabaher to represent our little komune in Konnecticut.

    • Jim Macdonald
      Jim Macdonald says:

      I love it!    I also ran into a stone wall (closed mind) when I wrote a letter to Rick Green of the Hartford Courant in response to his column in tuesday morning criticizing Republican senator Barrasso of  Wyoming because he doesn't think there is any global warming and is trying to block legislation.  Icited the fact of 8 years of cooling with no rise since 1998,  contrary to what the models predicted.  I mentioned all the warming and cooling cycles of the past, before any input from man and that solar variations and ocean oscillations PDO (Pacific decadal oscillation) and AMO (Atlantic multidecadal oscillation)  were some of the likely causes. Any climate predictions must include these.

      If  they are not predictable, then the climate itself may defy prediction. Right now the sun is going into a quiet period (like the Maunder minimum quiet period that caused the little- ice age) and our cooling trend may continue. I could go on, but you get the picture.

         Rick Green's only resonse was that he did not believe my conclusions and would not debate with me.  Case closed. 

           Most of these people don't let the facts get in the way of what they believe.

  4. Eric
    Eric says:

    Chris Mathews has so marginalized himself… no credibility at all. Who really cares what he says. He's only got twenty or so viewers anyway!

Comments are closed.