The Huffington Post reports:
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) told constituents over the weekend that climate change “is a total fraud” designed by liberals to create “global government.” Now Rohrabacher wants to have a public debate where he would presumably be expected to present facts that could help him prove this statement.
The GOP congressman and renowned climate science denier — and also a member of the House Science Committee — issued a challenge to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) over the weekend, after the Democrat suggested the current uncharacteristically extreme wildfire season warranted a serious discussion about how climate change is affecting the temperature and length of the state’s dry season.
“I challenge Barbara Boxer to a debate on climate change, on global warming,” Rohrabacher said, according to CBS Los Angeles. “I challenge her to defend her positions, and not just call a bunch of names, not just try to scare the public into accepting her expansion of government power over our lives.”
The California Republican also accused Boxer of taking advantage of the ongoing blazes to push an environmental agenda.
“I think this exemplifies the tactics — the scare tactics — of those who’ve been pushing this global warming fraud on us,” he said. “They’ll take something that is dramatic, like a fire, and try and use that; or a tornado, or a hurricane and say ‘see, people are being hurt.'”
A Boxer aide said the senator “stands by her statement” about severe wildfires being connected to climate change, but wouldn’t comment on the possibility of a debate with Rohrabacher.
“renowned climate science denier” If by “climate science” Huffpo means the politicized science of AGW, then that’s a positive statement.
Conservatives win arguments based on ideas but Rohrabacher already knows Boxer would try to win on the basis of name calling and lying. She has no facts to present that would win the argument.
The senator “stands by her statement”.
Goethe famously said “There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.” What he did NOT say is that there is a fundamental difference between ignorance and stupidity. The Ignoramus can be educated. To refuse to accept the truth when presented with it because it conflicts with a prior belief is stupidity.