Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) Rep Jim Moran (D-VA) Debate Global Warming

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
3,750
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on May 19, 2009

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Top Comments

  • Rohrabacher destroed them both. He brought up actual facts to support his view point and all they wanted to do was mock him

  • affected the climate change or not. This can be done while natural climate change occurs.

    The greenhouse effect is a proven fact, by science. How much human emitted gases affect the climate is debatable, but saying they have no effect is ridiculous. Perhaps it's smaller than what Gore and co. claimed, but we know from lab examples and Venus and other planets affected by greenhouse gases that they do cause warming. Hence the sensible thing to do is keep the emissions in check when we can.

see all

All Comments (31)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • This shit is a fucking joke

  • Dana needs to stop talking about things he doesn't understand.

  • You know, when copernicus proposed that the earth revolved around the sun, that wasn't a popular opinion then and the scientific consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth. Global Warming is bullshit and just an opportunity for Democrats to control and tax us more.

  • Green . land . Mars . Jupi . ter . Sun . solar . skeptic

    Must . debate

    Must . not . stop . debate

    More . debate

    Always . debate . obfuscate . mission . obfuscate

    I . am . Rohr-bot

  • My . name . is . Rohr-bot

    I . am . pro . grammed . to . spew . talking . points

    My . mission . is . to . confuse . obfuscate . confuse . obfuscate

  • Sorry, not sure if there's a name for that besides just changing the subject. There is definitely ad hominem implied though. "What, you don't believe in man-made global warming? You must also be a creationist. Therefore you are not credible for talking about science."

  • "Ad hominim" is not what I have in mind neither. The fallacy goes like "oh you don't believe in global warming? You must also deny evolution right?" I don't know the exact term for this fallacy. Close to "guilt by association" but not quite. Which, I don't want to start another debate, but I am also very skeptical about the theory of evolution.

  • Not sure, but "ad hominim" is when somebody attacks the character of the other rather than engage the arguments. There was definitely some of that of tha going on there.

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more