“The earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth,” he said. “This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.”
“I believe that’s the infallible word of God, and that’s the way it’s going to be for his creation,” he said.
This is Republican John Simkus of Illinois, vying for control of the House Energy and Commerce committee, which has significant influence on federal energy policy and climate change regulation and legislation.
Earlier, Mr. Shimkus referenced what he called a theological debate over whether the Earth was a “carbon-starved planet.”
“If we decrease the use of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere?” he asked a committee witness. “We could be doing just the opposite of what the people who want to save the world are saying.”
How can you possibly overcome such an insane level of stupidity? Seriously.
4 comments:
It's not really that hard to get "it's" vs. "its" right.
I always try "You don't write "her's," do you?"
Actually, some people do now.
As to religion, it can be understood as a poeticization of ethics. There's probably a reading of his earth ending that would make an ethical parable of it.
That's true of global warming as well, by the way.
Derrida has the end of the world as standing for the overturning of everything when you meet another; and language being the point of all those unsealed seals and so forth. It's a rehearsal of the place of language.
Warmenists rehearse the place of peer review, but are actually not universally kind to langauge.
So anyway don't be too quick to dismiss as stupidity what has wide appeal. Look for reasons.
Just as I look for reasons for global warmenists.
Don't cute pet low-end stalkers take medicine for their ADHD? Are they foolish enough to increase their dosage by a similar amount as in their unhinged rants here? No? Why not?
chuckle
And they wonder why society doesn't validate their paranoid conspiracy theories...
Nonetheless, David, there's no need to presume that rationality will win out, especially if you've read Vonnegut...
Best,
D
"This earth will not be destroyed by a flood," sayeth the Senator.
The planet is safe for aeons to come. Human civilization is what's at risk. Even that will not be destroyed by a flood of water, certainly; but perhaps by a flood of stupidity.
Yea, verily, we are in deep Shimkus.
SBVOR:
> It's ridiculous to believe that
> if atmospheric CO2 got to 0.079%
> of the atmosphere, the
> results would be catastrophic!
Why?
We know already that about a pre-anthropogenic 280 ppm CO2 warms the atmosphere about 15-20 F.
So why shouldn't another 35% lead to a few more degree3s of warming?
Post a Comment