Republican Candidate For Energy Committee Says God Won't Allow Global Warming - America Dumbed Down!

[Peter Lemkin]

‘The Planet won’t be Destroyed by Global Warming because God Promised Noah,’ says GOP Politician Bidding to Chair U.S. Energy Committee
10th November 2010

By Daily Mail Foreign Service
November 10, 2010

Quizzed: Illinois Republican Representative John Shimkus answers questions for reporters after appearing before the House ethics committee

A Republican congressman hoping to chair the powerful House Energy Committee refers to the Bible and God on the issue of global warming.

Representative John Shimkus insists we shouldn’t concerned about the planet being destroyed because God promised Noah it wouldn’t happen again after the great flood. Speaking before a House Energy Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing in March, 2009, Shimkus quoted Chapter 8, Verse 22 of the Book of Genesis.

He said: ‘As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, will never cease.’
The Illinois Republican continued: ‘I believe that is the infallible word of God, and that’s the way it is going to be for his creation. 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.”

He added: ‘Today we have about 388 parts per million in the atmosphere. I think in the age of dinosaurs, when we had the 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. And the cost of a cap-and-trade on the poor is now being discovered.’

The Republican is a vocal opponent to President Obama’s American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 – the so-called ‘cap-and-trade’ Bill, aimed at limiting carbon emissions.

The Bill passed the House of Representatives last year, but has yet to pass the Senate.

Reference point: Mr Shimkus is a member of the Lutheran Church and believes the Bible is the actual word of God

Shimkus, who has served on the committee since 1997, will likely be competing against Texas Representative Joe Barton and Michigan Congressman Fred Upton for the leadership.

In a letter to fellow Republican Congressmembers, Shimkus says: ‘I believe I have the credentials within the Commitee to bring fairness, without protests from the other side of the aisle, in its operation.’

He adds that ‘now is not the time to moderate or compromise on our most deeply held values’.

It is not the first time Shimkus has sparked surprise. In May 2007, he compared the Iraq war to a baseball game between his ‘beloved’ St Louis Cardinals and the ‘much despised’ Chicago Cubs.

He also hit the headlines in 2009 when he walked out as President Obama delivered a speech to a joint session of the House and the Senate.

The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to give it its full title, is one of the oldest standing committees of the United States House of Representatives having been established in 1795.

It takes a central role in formulating U.S. policy on climate change and global warming.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z14uuA3vta

[Magda Hassan]

This is the problem with the US. If they had instituted a universal health system this man would be able to get the help and medication he clearly needs. And a free universal education system would also go along way. There is actually more than one book y'all know?

[Peter Lemkin]

Maybe this should be moved to the humor section.....or we should have a ''don't Cry For Me, America' section...... It sickens me. About 25% of Americans think this way and a greater % in power. World's leading Nation - leading us all on this Planet to destruction due to stupidity and destructive/primitive/know-nothing beliefs. The beliefs of uneducated [formally] indigenous peoples are infinitely more intelligent and learned than this cretin.

[David Guyatt]

What an apparent loon.

That he is taken seriously by millions says a great deal.

But quite apart from the above, the Earth may well endure. The question everyone continues to ask, however, is will mankind survive on it?

These are two entirely different questions.

A suspicious person might well ask if his unusual "do nothing" views are funded by the oil lobby and big energy business anyway.

[Carsten Wiethoff]

In the past the earth has gone through numerous warm and cold periods without any human intervention and there is absolutely no reason to think that this will somehow stop. Whether or not the current warming is humanely induced and can be humanely stopped is open for debate. CO2 levels may be a meaningful indicator, like ocean temperatures and ice thickness, but I seriously doubt that human control of CO2 emission is a meaningful lever of control for the climate. Other, natural sources, are just so much bigger. But I admit I am no expert in this area.
The problems I foresee are more the social and economic type of coastal areas becoming flooded, some areas becoming uninhabitable while others becoming actually inhabitable. Maybe I should invest in real estate on Greenland.

[Peter Lemkin]

In the past the earth has gone through numerous warm and cold periods without any human intervention and there is absolutely no reason to think that this will somehow stop. Whether or not the current warming is humanely induced and can be humanely stopped is open for debate. CO2 levels may be a meaningful indicator, like ocean temperatures and ice thickness, but I seriously doubt that human control of CO2 emission is a meaningful lever of control for the climate. Other, natural sources, are just so much bigger. But I admit I am no expert in this area.
The problems I foresee are more the social and economic type of coastal areas becoming flooded, some areas becoming uninhabitable while others becoming actually inhabitable. Maybe I should invest in real estate on Greenland.

I am an expert in the field. This is what I have my graduate degree in and teach at university. This current climate change is entirely anthropogenic....sorry. Further, it is the greatest threat to very rapid extinction of us and most living things [say 25-75 years for great suffering/disease/displacement/wars/daeath to be felt by most - the poor first] and may have reached the tipping point - after which almost nothing could stop it. I could, but won't, deluge you with technical proofs. It is the energy companies keeping doubt alive.....don't buy it.

[Carsten Wiethoff]

Thanks, Peter.
Do you think or know, if it would be a good idea to filter the CO2 out of the atmosphere and deposit it underground, as has been proposed by some? What is your opinion on nuclear power, climate-wise? The large uprisings in Germany recently against nuclear transports were mainly caused by Merkel's decision to increase the runtime of reactors by 10-15 years. Was that counter-productive?
What about bio-fuel? I read studies that the CO2 emissions of that are actually higher than fossile fuel, if you take deforestation into account. It also reduces the area available for food production and so tends to raise food prices.
What are good ideas for the future and what are bad ones?

[Peter Lemkin]

Thanks, Peter.
Do you think or know, if it would be a good idea to filter the CO2 out of the atmosphere and deposit it underground, as has been proposed by some?

It is a fair idea, but a horrible subsitute for not putting it in the air/oceans in the first place. First the technology doesn't exist and will not in time, IMO. Second, it is like giving a patient a poison, but feeling fine about it, because you have them on dialysis removing the poison. Third, the CO2 is going into the oceans and changing pH there and what can and can not live / balance of organisms, etc. I think it would take covering the landscape with machines we don't yet have even an idea for and no money for - the answer is to stop putting the CO2 into the air. What extra is there, yes, might have to be removed in such a way in the future - at great cost and unknown engineering advances. Only laboratory methods exist now.

What is your opinion on nuclear power, climate-wise? The large uprisings in Germany recently against nuclear transports were mainly caused by Merkel's decision to increase the runtime of reactors by 10-15 years. Was that counter-productive?

The big lie is that Nuclear is not producing CO2 - this is a big lie. CO2 is generated in mining the fuel, refining the fuel, moving the fuel, storing the waste [which has its own eternal problems - totally unsolved]. Chernobyl was the warning - if Three Mile Island didn't catch one's attention.

What about bio-fuel? I read studies that the CO2 emissions of that are actually higher than fossile fuel, if you take deforestation into account. It also reduces the area available for food production and so tends to raise food prices.

Totally negative concept. Does nothing about putting CO2 in air and oceans and steals food/land and money from the poor in the third world and enriches the rich in the first.

What are good ideas for the future and what are bad ones?

Jensen's idea of dismantling civilization - at least a large part of it - especially the 'over-developed' world that uses too much energy and generates too much waste - while stealing resources and wealth from poor and developing nations; population control [ethically and fairly]; stopping the corporations from running and ruining the world - the energy ones even more so on this point. Living closer to the land, self-sustainable in smaller communities. Totally new paradigms that will shock most in the 'developed world' and cities to their very core - more like moving to where the native peoples are or were; using only a few of the technological advances that don't destroy - sustainability and respect for Nature - long ago lost :motz:

[Peter Lemkin]

duplicate removed