…to deal with vital questions like this*:
Some Related Asymptotia Posts (not exhaustive):
Perhaps the key question to be asked is how much of Barton’s campaign funds come from Oil and Gas companies. Then we might get at something closer to the truth.
Of course, the important thing is who looks more impressive to a TV viewer who watches a 5 second clip with the sound off, while reaching for the bag of chips. I think in this real metric for success, it is clear that Barton won this mini-debate hands down.
Yes… especially since he was invoking hundreds of millions of years for the process, when everybody knows the earth is only about 4000 years old, right? Duh, Mr. Secretary! Obvious trip-up there…!!
I was mainly impressed by the title on the TV screen. See, with all the fancy science, he can’t even answer a simple question. Better leave the important decisions to the confident-looking ones.
Well let’s be fair, Representative Barton has been the Chairman of the Energy committee and is now the ranking member and he’s from Texas, he knows how the oil got there. It’s a leading question (softball at that) that, who knows, might be Barton trying to make a point to a new member on the committee. I mean, he’s admitting climate change for the existence of oil in Alaska. Check out his issues page (http://joebarton.house.gov/Issues.aspx?section=49), he’s pretty middle of the road.
Not all of the Republicans are Michelle Bachmann (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAaDVOd2sRQ)
Gosh, little miss red-book commie is defending Republicans.
From my point of view, it’s not really about Barton exactly… It is just more that it is such an odd situation, and one of those questions that gets asked and you’re not sure exactly what is behind the question and so you don’t know what level to answer it on…. you can hear this in his voice as he begins to answer, beginning with that sort of nervous laugh that betrays that uncertainty I referred to…
Thanks for the links!
what exactly was behind the question?
Wish I knew. Mystery to me. Maybe Rose has some thoughts?
I think it was an attempt by Barton to undercut the human driven climate change argument by implying that all the oil in the arctic being there is based on the fact that it was warmer there in the past. So the earth getting warmer is a “normal” occurence” and therefore lets not be too hard on my oil buddy friends in Texas who finance my campaign and want to keep making a living burning fossil fuels.
I guess you could call me a cynic.
Yes, that sounds right to me. Especially on a second listen. I think you’re right.
The House Energy Committee has a page
that has full video of the Q&A session of the panel Chu was testifying on. The committee is drafting up the American Clean Energy and Security Act, so they’re calling in the experts. Barton’s questions to the panel start around 5:50 of part 1.
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Powered by WordPress and K2
Entries Feed and Comments Feed
58 queries. 1.410 seconds.