Anti-science US Congressman on House science Committee!

Posted on July 10, 2014 | 33 Comments

This guy is spouting a  bunch of simple-minded anti-scientific rubbish. Not surprising in itself – he is actually opening a climate change denial conference in th US – one of the semi-annual get-togethers of climate change denialists organised by the Heartland Institute.

No – the surprise is that this guy, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), is a member of the House Science Committee, which oversees US federal policy on science and innovation.  The House Science Committee!

Bloody hell! How does that happen. Here is someone whose standard of scientific understanding is no higher than some of the anti-science blog commenters we get here – and they are on the US House Science Committee.

Thanks to: US Congressman Opens Climate Change Denial Conference with Rant Against Water Fluoridation.

This entry was posted in diversity, politics, SciBlogs, science, Science and Society and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

33 responses to “Anti-science US Congressman on House science Committee!”

  1. Cedric Katesby | July 11, 2014 at 3:21 am |

    I especially love the “I’m not saying it’s a conspiracy but (nudge, nudge, wink. wink)” angle.

    The ozone hole.
    Water fluoridation.
    Acid rain.
    Global cooling(???)
    I’m just surprised he didn’t include Evolution and DDT. It would have slotted right in.

    For those of you who are masochistic enough to listen to more of this special snowflake, here’s a video of him doing more of what he does best.

    Alley and Rohrabacher: Brain vs Blowhard

    Like

  2. AD | July 11, 2014 at 11:10 am |

    Thanks for posting. I have known about the ozone hole scam for some time now. Good to see someone in government who does too.

    Like

  3. Cedric Katesby | July 11, 2014 at 12:30 pm |

    I have known about the ozone hole scam for some time now.

    How did this “scam” work?
    Same way as the Evolution scam?

    Like

  4. Cedric Katesby | July 11, 2014 at 12:46 pm |

    Rohrabacher denies the existence of global warming outright and obviously, any link that humans might have to its cause. It should be pointed out that Rohrabacher consistently refers to “the theory of global warming”, using the same sort of ignorant sneer that one associates with proponents of so-called “Intelligent Design” when they refer to “the theory of evolution”. Of course, we have come to expect a misunderstanding of the scientific usage of theory from the magnates and minions of the small-minded, so this may come as no surprise. Here’s a typical example of some of the arguments that he presented:

    If global warming was true, the theory tells us that there should be an increase in both the frequency and severity of storms, yet New Orleans has not been hit with a hurricane as powerful (let alone more powerful) than Katrina in the following years. I’ll give you a moment to reread it because I understand that it is so monumentally stupid that you’d think only someone with a brain-ectomy might utter such drivel. The man has no concept of climate.
    Rohrabacher’s main thrust, though, seemed to be that any mention of climate change is a part of some manner of conspiracy. You know, caused by them. He never explains precisely who these folks might be or what their motivations are, but he is very clear that it is all about “social engineering”. Apparently, there are groups of nameless, faceless bureaucrats in the US government who are determined to prevent people from having fun and getting cheap airfares (this last bit was repeated several times). They do this through fear. (As a side note, it is interesting how he doesn’t talk much about the use of fear and homeland security.)
    (…)
    Rorhabacher went on to list other “unfounded” environmental and health scams. My favorite in this list is acid rain. According to this rock-with-lips, this intellectual giant among doorknobs, acid rain does not and did not exist. It was all part of this conspiracy. I’d like to take this overgrown twit up to the Adirondacks and show him the dead lakes caused by acid rain.
    (Link)

    Like

  5. AD | July 11, 2014 at 1:11 pm |

    Was there an evolution scam? How does that work? Was it like the paedophile ring in the UK?

    Like

  6. Cedric Katesby | July 11, 2014 at 1:32 pm |

    So many questions. Yet you don’t seem to be able to explain how this “scam” of yours worked. Funny how that happens.

    Like

  7. AD | July 11, 2014 at 1:41 pm |

    I thought the gentleman in the video explained it

    Like

  8. AD | July 11, 2014 at 1:48 pm |

    There is a good video of a lecture that Fred Singer did on the stratospheric ozone issue, somewhere

    Like

  9. Cedric Katesby | July 11, 2014 at 1:55 pm |

    I thought the gentleman in the video explained it.

    You “thought”?
    Oh, if only. You have nothing. Your mouth is writing checks that your brain can’t cash. Reality is not your friend.

    There is a good video of a lecture that Fred Singer.,

    No, there isn’t. Fred Singer is a joke.

    Like

  10. AD | July 11, 2014 at 2:02 pm |

    Here is Professor Singer

    and also
    Is The Ozone Layer Threatened? Sallie Baliunas

    They are both an hour long each.

    I’ll check back later when you have watched them both

    Like

  11. Richard Christie | July 11, 2014 at 3:24 pm |

    Fascinating, so where is Singer’s Nobel Prize?
    Have “they” been conspiring to bury his discoveries?
    (JAQ)

    Like

  12. Cedric Katesby | July 11, 2014 at 3:27 pm |

    A hour long each? Maybe you have time to waste but most people don’t.
    How did the ozone “scam” work, AD?
    Put up or shut up.

    Like

  13. AD | July 11, 2014 at 3:50 pm |

    You don’t have time to watch two hours of science?

    Like

  14. Cedric Katesby | July 11, 2014 at 3:59 pm |

    It’s not science. Fred Singer’s Nobel Prize is suspiciously absent. Smart people do not do what you are doing.
    How did the ozone “scam” work, AD?
    Put up or shut up.

    Like

  15. AD | July 11, 2014 at 4:03 pm |

    The only people who do science have Nobel Prizes?

    Like

  16. Cedric Katesby | July 11, 2014 at 4:16 pm |

    You don’t get this science thing. Your methodology is that of a crackpot. Any anti-vaccer or evolution denier or whatever could do what you are doing now. It’s not science. That’s why you get treated the same as the anti-flouride nutters and the chem trailers that show up here.
    Here’s a clue….

    Science Works! How the Scientific Peer Review Process works

    Like

  17. AD | July 11, 2014 at 4:25 pm |

    Oh I see, thanks

    I am a crackpot.

    Hmmm….

    Like

  18. AD | July 11, 2014 at 4:29 pm |

    Do crackpots post 2 hour lectures about atmospheric chemistry to the internet?

    You should watch the presentation. It is very interesting, I can assure you

    Like

  19. Cedric Katesby | July 11, 2014 at 4:38 pm |

    Do crackpots post 2 hour lectures about atmospheric chemistry to the internet?

    Yes.
    Welcome to the Internet.

    They also do the same for evolution, flouride, chemtrails, 9/11, HIV and the moon landings and a host of other, wierd and wonderful stuff.
    Anyone can post lectures of various lengths on the internet. It’s really easy and crackpots do it all the time.

    “You should watch the presentation. It is very interesting, I can assure you.”

    Yes. Yes, you should. Learn.

    Science Works! How the Scientific Peer Review Process work

    Like

  20. AD | July 11, 2014 at 4:41 pm |

    Crackpots are more likely to post the same video link twice in the same thread?

    Like

  21. Cedric Katesby | July 11, 2014 at 4:42 pm |

    So many questions. Yet you don’t seem to be able to explain how this “scam” of yours worked. Funny how that happens.

    Like

  22. Richard Christie | July 11, 2014 at 5:12 pm |

    The only people who do science have Nobel Prizes?

    Don’t be stupid.
    Those who turn successfully scientific understanding or consensus on its head or discover something new do.

    You know, like Singer does, but appallingly, his prize is being denied him by “they”.

    Like

  23. Cedric Katesby | July 11, 2014 at 5:23 pm |

    You know, like Singer does, but appallingly, his prize is being denied him by “they”.

    Terrible. Just terrible.
    Bill Kaysing is also denied a Nobel Prize. He also has his hour of fame on the Internet. Quite a few people seem to have known about the moon landing scam for some time now.

    Never Broadcast Bill Kaysing Interview

    Like

  24. AD | July 12, 2014 at 10:49 am |

    Can anyone tell me what the scientific “consensus” in the so called “ozone hole” actually was or is?

    Like

  25. Richard Christie | July 12, 2014 at 11:06 am |

    Can anyone tell me what the scientific “consensus” in the so called “ozone hole” actually was or is?

    Look it up and read it for yourself, start here

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/ozonelayer.html

    Try not to move your lips too much.

    Like

  26. AD | July 12, 2014 at 11:42 am |

    It’s all pretty vague and tenuous, as explained in the excellent video presentation by Prof Singer.

    There was some deal about patent expires that DuPont were keen on

    Like

  27. Cedric Katesby | July 12, 2014 at 2:38 pm |

    Can anyone tell me what the scientific “consensus” in the so called “ozone hole” actually was or is?

    If you don’t want to be treated like an idiot, then you should stop acting like idiots do. You are no different.

    “Can anyone tell me what the scientific “consensus” in the so called “Theory of Evolution” actually was or is?
    Can anyone tell me what the scientific “consensus” in the so called “moon landings” actually was or is?
    Can anyone tell me what the scientific “consensus” in the so called “Germ Theory” actually was or is?
    Can anyone tell me what the scientific “consensus” in the so called “water fluoridation” actually was or is?
    Can anyone tell me what the scientific “consensus” in the so called “vaccines” actually was or is?
    Can anyone tell me what the scientific “consensus” in the so called “smoking causes cancer” actually was or is?”

    (Someone posts a link to a mainstream, scientific source of information like NOAA or NASA or the NIH or the CSIRO etc)

    “Na-ah. I’ve got my stuff on the internet. Look, it’s a video.”

    Morons. They never learn.

    Like

  28. Cedric Katesby | July 12, 2014 at 2:42 pm |

    Oh look, the science behind water fluoridation has been overturned. Some tool posted a link to some blog. Gosh, that’s never happened before around here.

    “afamildura | July 12, 2014 at 12:17 pm |
    FYI Ken: http://afamildura.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/neurodevelopmental-toxicity-an-ongoing-discussion/“

    Like

  29. AD | July 12, 2014 at 4:55 pm |

    I wondered how long it would be before I got called a moron

    Like

  30. Richard Christie | July 12, 2014 at 8:41 pm |

    I wondered how long it would be before I got called a moron

    Are you keeping a running average time?

    Like

  31. Cedric Katesby | July 12, 2014 at 9:55 pm |

    It must happen to you a lot. You should lift your game. Let me help you with that.

    Science Works! How the Scientific Peer Review Process works

    Like

  32. AD | July 13, 2014 at 7:10 am |

    How the scientific peer review process works.
    Fascinating, let’s lost the same video 3 times in the same thread.

    3 times in the same thread.

    Idiot

    Like

  33. Cedric Katesby | July 13, 2014 at 7:43 pm |

    How the scientific peer review process works.
    Fascinating.

    Evidently not for you. You can’t apply yourself. It’s not enough to watch the video. You have to apply it. Follow the science.
    If you can’t do any better on the internet that the morons we get here all the time, then we get to call you a moron.
    Actions speak louder than words.
    Lift your game.

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.