@DanaRohrabacher Your questions at today's Committee hearing show a stunning level of ignorance regarding climate and science in general.
-
-
Replying to @MFerrara37
@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 issue4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanaRohrabacher
@DanaRohrabacher 3. I'm not calling names Congressman, just stating my disappointment in the scientific literacy of our elected officials.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MFerrara37
@MFerrara37 Assuming a high level of disagreement is a result of a low level of scientific literacy is a bit bold(or something similar)2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanaRohrabacher
@DanaRohrabacher Your unsubstantiated "high level of disagreement" with 97% of experts in the field of climate science is more than bold.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MFerrara37
@MFerrara37 That means a large number of people, including GW advocates, know 97% figure is bogus & being used to silence debate5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanaRohrabacher
@DanaRohrabacher 1000s of peer reviewed studies reflect this position. I can direct you to them & a study that supports the 97% figure cited1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@MFerrara37 I have seen the report & know the process used...have you? How many peer review studies inaccurately predicted major tempt jump?
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.