Dana Rohrabacher

Department of Energy, et cetera, et cetera, has spent enormous sums of money on trying to prove that human beings are changing the climate. That has not helped weather forecasting.

To suggest that that would at the same time benefit weather forecasting stretches credibility because people were given grants specifically to prove that and other people were denied grants unless they were willing to prove that.

I happen to think that his project will inspire a lot of people.

There are other alternatives that are out there, and we do have a proven rocket system right now.

I think all of this adds up to, we are on the wrong course and we should just get away, cancel this project.

It seems to me that that should be a warning sign for all of us that this project is going to cost a lot more money.

Aren't there a lot of birds that are killed by these windmills as well?

I hope that while you are in your office that the Russian Academy of Sciences is someone that you would be conferring with.

This idea that we are now--every time a heavy storm comes through and we get it--you see it on TV for someone to suggest that this is something new, that it is wrong.

I heard a story about a week or so ago about the ship that they found in the Great Lakes, and it had disappeared, I think, in 1910.

I think one of the issues is we are pursuing an agenda that is really being detrimental in many cases to the consumers of this.

Do you use the term denier for those people who disagree with you on climate science, and do you think that term is appropriate in engaging in a civil discourse over a scientific issue?

But there are other people with credentials, like Richard Lindzen from MIT, who are very skeptical of some of the research that has been going on...

I mean it is surprising you don't have the answer on top of your head exactly what percentage of the CO2 that we are talking about with greenhouse effect here, what percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by human activity and what…

We have an important strategic choice. We have an important moral choice. And we should do the right thing.

What should we do once Assad falls? Also a vital question.

We should immediately impose new sanctions on Hezbollah, including broad travel sanctions, freezing accounts of Hezbollah-owned companies.

We should use standoff weaponry, such as the Tomahawk missile to disable Syrian airfields and render inoperable the Syrian air force and its resupply hubs that are now facilitating Assad's advance.

We should consider with our allies in NATO and in the Arab League the imposition of a no-fly zone.

The definition of insanity, doing the same thing and expecting different outcomes. This is insane.

I call it the 'hug A Nazi, make a liberal' theory.

So if we end up having more of our people investing in Vietnam, they have no protection, correct?

When you say that the rule of law is lacking, that means that you do not have an independent judiciary in Vietnam; is that correct?

We raise these issues not because only of our politics... but also because of the policy, because, first of all, we are committed to universal human rights standards.

We should make sure everything we do economically helps lead the people of Vietnam, empowering them, so perhaps they at long last can enjoy the freedom that they sacrificed for.