Dana Rohrabacher, Climate Change Scientist!

By Steve Hynd

Just...wow. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) is a senior member on the House Committee on Science. During testimony from experts at a Conggessional hearing on Wednesday, he asked:

�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?� the congressman asked Mr. Stern, according to Politico.

�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?�

I can only imagine there were a few moments silence as the assembled experts did a "W..T..F..?"

Forestry experts were dumbfounded by Mr. Rohrabacher�s line of questioning, noting that the world�s forests currently absorb far more carbon dioxide than they emit � capturing roughly one-third of all man-made emissions and helping mitigate climate change.

We need better climate change politicians. With the experts agreeing that the world's climate has reached a new, more energetic, level - which causes more extreme weather events like droughts, floods and tornadoes - the best that the extreme right can come up with is to say they believe in climate change and would surely do something about it if they didn't have to listen to those shrill hippy scientists. But that's the neocons - the "true believer" GOP are still stuck making even dumber statements like Rohrabacher's.

Climate change is the big anvil-to-be around the GOP's neck. In decades to come, their denialism for so many years will wreck their claims to be the strong party on national security, as it becomes clearer that their intransigence (and being in hock to the energy lobby) for a decade in power left the US lagging behind others in facing up to the security challenges climate change entails.

I'm amazed that the neocons embraced denialism for so long, for the sake of party purity tests. The coming upheavals - food shortages, increased water competition and migrations for survival, engendering revolts and wars - would have been their very best reason to argue for an increase in funding to ensure a military with both COIN and conventional strength. They've blown it now, but I'm sure neolib interventionists will shortly take up the banner.

How do you have a debate on such matters, or in general on what needs or should be done to mitigate the massively destabilizing  effects of climate change, when one side of the political debate in the world's most powerful nation has its head up its collective ass? Depressing.