Global warming can’t be real, because it is written that only God can make the oceans rise and kill us

If you can believe it, that’s Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois addressing the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment a few days ago. It’s an incredible piece of footage. The Congressman actually argues that global warming can’t be real because, the Bible is clear – “The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.” Then, just in case that weren’t enough to sway you, the Congressman throws in some incontrovertible science. You see, he explains, if we put a cap on carbon dioxide emissions, the plants of earth will starve and die.

Good work, Illinois.

This entry was posted in Agriculture, Church and State, Environment, Global Warming, Politics, Religious Extremism and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

15 Comments

  1. Posted March 30, 2009 at 4:56 am | Permalink

    Wow…

    I felt like laughing but also angry at the same time. The woman in the background goes through the same emotions I think, especially with the “we’re all men of God” comment.

  2. Posted March 30, 2009 at 4:58 am | Permalink

    …”men of faith”, he said.

  3. Posted March 30, 2009 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    My stupid school computer won’t let me view the video (just as well, probably) but I can imagine what it’s like.

    Just try to picture what would happen if someone dared to suggest that, oh I don’t know, the Bible was probably mostly fiction or at the very least, written years after the events supposedly happened. If nothing else, Congress would rush around spouting off prayers or something, like they did when that guy in CA wanted “under God” removed from the Pledge.

  4. Paw
    Posted March 30, 2009 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    Yeah, what did plants do before there were tailpipe emissions?

  5. Posted March 30, 2009 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    This guy does not have his facts right. He mentions the Cambrian period in another interview. We all know the earth is only 6000 years old.

  6. Posted March 30, 2009 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    Paw, you are funny! You know he also stopped before the part where God was thinking:

    And the REASON I’m not going to have to destroy the place again is because you will get off your butts and change the way you’re doing business (because you believe in me!)

    Anyhow — Awk! Say, in times like this we need something heart warming and inspiring. Maybe you’ve seen this video before, but if you haven’t — its very cool — and its about hard times, & working together : for change from
    “playing for change”: “Stand By Me”
    http://vimeo. com/moogaloop. swf?clip_ id=2539741

  7. Ol' E Cross
    Posted March 30, 2009 at 10:41 pm | Permalink

    I’m a little behind in my commenting, but…

    It seems like the congressman has three points. Let’s pretend we’re fundamentalists and take them on face value. I have suggestions on how he can test them:

    1) God will never flood the entire earth again. Yes, that is what the Bible says. However, I don’t think global warming folk are suggesting that the entire earth will be flooded, just lots of coastal areas. The congressman seems to imply that God meant nothing will ever be flooded again. I suggest he demonstrate his faith by standing in faith on the spring banks of the Mississippi and refusing to move as the waters rise. (There’s an old joke to accompany that one, if anyone asks.)

    2) Plants love Co2. I don’t think anyone is denying that plants love Co2, but some are concerned about its impact on other life forms. Perhaps he could demonstrate his conviction of the benefits of Co2 by locking himself and a number of children in his district in a greenhouse, full of happy plants, along with a few running autos.

    3) God will end the earth. The theology of that is debated, but lets go along. I think we can all agree, based on science or theology, that someday the earth will cease to be hospitable to humans (as God’s wrath or the sun expands). The base of argument seems to be it’s all gonna go up in flames so why bother? I suggest the congressman show us the futility of protecting what is inevitably doomed by burning his home, all his possessions, and loved-ones whilst standing naked in front of his home. Really, what’s the point in putting make-up on pigs destined for slaughter?

    Those are just my humble suggestions of how a man of such deep religious conviction could demonstrate the true measure of his faith.

  8. Ape
    Posted March 31, 2009 at 8:56 am | Permalink

    Why should we punish criminals – won’t they be punished enough in hell?

  9. Posted March 31, 2009 at 9:15 am | Permalink

    Why should we do anything? Didn’t Palin say that we have nothing to worry about since Jesus took care of everything 2000 years ago? Basically, we just have to sit on our asses and wait to die.

  10. dragon
    Posted April 1, 2009 at 12:01 am | Permalink

    The best part of the video is watching the woman to right try to keep from laughing and the guy to the left giving his best “is this guy retarded?” look.
    Not shown, even crazier b.s.
    –At a congressional hearing last week, Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) argued that we could afford to keep increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, since dinosaurs got by just fine in a carbon-rich environment.

    “Today we have about 388 parts per million {of carbon dioxide} in the atmosphere,” Shimkus said. “I think in the age of the dinosaurs, when we had most flora and fauna, we were probably at 4,000 parts per million. There is a theological debate that this is a carbon-starved planet, not too much carbon.”

  11. Posted April 1, 2009 at 7:46 am | Permalink

    My biggest question is, if this is a House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment” meeting, why the hell didn’t they have a climatologist there? Do all meetings concerning science exclude scientists?

  12. Eric
    Posted February 28, 2011 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

    This statement is meant for all or most of you have commented on this subject. Before making fun of peoples statements it might bee a good idea to look at the context in which it was spoken. That applies to The comment dude made about Sarah Palin’s statement. Any moron who considers the context in which it was spoken would know she didn’t mean “we should sit on our asses”. The same applies to quoting the Bible out of context as so many do. When taken in context the Bible supports science.

    What gets me is when so called scientists make claims based on their theories that completely disregard proven laws of science. I won’t be real specific at this time but am fully willing to discuss this in detail in an open forum.

    I will say that some make statements hoping to prove God or the Bible to others and make fools of themselves by misquoting the Bible, taking it out of context, or not doing their research. I am a believer and have become one after looking into what the Bible actually says and comparing it with laws of science rather than depending on “scientific theories”. Oh how easily people can be misled. One thing the Bible does say is “that they should believe a lie”. If you read the whole passage in context you can see how people can be fooled into believing anything in the name of science. Most people never take the trouble to check it out. In Acts 17: 10-11 the Bible its self tells us to check things out to see if they are so. Makes sense to me.

    All I am trying to say here is don’t take anybodies statements as fact including mine. Check their claims and mine out and if they hold water. See if it fits with historical documents and laws of science at the very least.

    Here is an example and there are plenty more. Take the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the law of increased entropy to be exact. In a nutshell it states that all matter when left to its own will move from a state of order to disorder. Kind of goes against the theory of the evolution of life. Well maybe we should just ignore laws of science like the law of gravity for example. Anyone want to argue against the law of gravity?

    I know this may appear to be off subject but look at it in the context of some of the statements that were made on this forum.

  13. Glen S.
    Posted February 28, 2011 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

    @ Eric.

    It took you 23 months to come up with that?

  14. dragon
    Posted February 28, 2011 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

    A Liberty University Graduate, a “monkey”, and a wristwatch walk into a bar…

  15. Edward
    Posted March 1, 2011 at 10:06 am | Permalink

    You had me at “so called scientist”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Connect

BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Jodi Lynn