@DanaRohrabacher Your questions at today's Committee hearing show a stunning level of ignorance regarding climate and science in general.
@MFerrara37 be more specific or I will have to assume you are just a name caller who can make a tangible argument defending a real issue
-
-
@DanaRohrabacher 1. Your inability to understand that world climate varies across different regions.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@DanaRohrabacher 2. Your failure to grasp that climate change can result in wetter climates getting wetter as drier climates get drier. -
@MFerrara37 They call it Global Warming 4 a reason. Local stats generalized Guess that indicates a failure to grasp magnitude of atmosphere -
@DanaRohrabacher I am unclear what point you’re attempting to convey with this message, perhaps the end of your sentence that was truncated?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@DanaRohrabacher 3. I'm not calling names Congressman, just stating my disappointment in the scientific literacy of our elected officials. -
@MFerrara37 Assuming a high level of disagreement is a result of a low level of scientific literacy is a bit bold(or something similar) -
@DanaRohrabacher Your unsubstantiated "high level of disagreement" with 97% of experts in the field of climate science is more than bold. -
@MFerrara37 That means a large number of people, including GW advocates, know 97% figure is bogus & being used to silence debate -
@DanaRohrabacher The broad consensus of climate scientists is that the climate is changing & human actions play a role in that change.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@DanaRohrabacher 4. Thank you for taking the time to engage people directly via Twitter.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.