Top Republican on Energy committee: God won't destroy the Earth

[itshappening]

Rep. John Shimkus is standing by a controversial comment that global warming isn't something to worry about because God said he wouldn't destroy the Earth after Noah's flood.

The Illinois Republican running for the powerful perch atop the House Energy and Commerce Committee told POLITICO on Wednesday that his understanding of the Bible reaffirms his belief that government shouldn't be in the business of trying to address rising greenhouse gas emissions.

"I do believe in the Bible as the final word of God," Shimkus said. "And I do believe that God said the Earth would not be destroyed by a flood.

“Now, do I believe in climate change? In my trip to Greenland, the answer is yes. The climate is changing,” he added. “The question is more about the costs and benefits and trying to spend taxpayer dollars on something that you cannot stop versus the changes that have been occurring forever. That's the real debate."


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44958.html#ixzz155hI3Ntk

[PeacePlan]

Very scientific and sound assessment...............

[FrankRep]

It's true though.

In the bible after Noah's flood, God said he won't destroy the earth by flood again.

[Brian4Liberty]

“Now, do I believe in climate change? In my trip to Greenland, the answer is yes. The climate is changing,” he added. “The question is more about the costs and benefits and trying to spend taxpayer dollars on something that you cannot stop versus the changes that have been occurring forever. That's the real debate."


If he had just said that part, he wouldn't have created a controversy.

[Brian4Liberty]

It's true though.

In the bible after Noah's flood, God said he won't destroy the earth by flood again.

And the rainbow is a reminder...

YouTube - Auto Tune The Rainbow - Double Rainbow Remix (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g0yZDMBXiE)

[TheHumblePhysicist]

Climate change is not about "belief" it is about facts, and no matter how you slice it, liberty comes out on top.

Even if human emissions ARE causing global warming, (they arent) that global warming is not dangerous. Even they are dangerous, the costs of eliminating them, are higher than the cost of emitting them.

If the world DID drop off a cliff, and start to go to hell in a handbasket, we could always do what the Freakonomics guys suggest and turn down the temperature by spraying harmless volcanic gasses into the atmosphere. This would lower the temperature of earth by a few degrees in just 2 or 3 years.

I just don't see how this powerful argument could be sidestepped for the typical unintelligent "God" answer. I thought God hated the direction the human race was going and is going to destroy it? You see, the religious argument goes both ways.

[Sola_Fide]

It's true though.

In the bible after Noah's flood, God said he won't destroy the earth by flood again.

Yep.

[Theocrat]

God's promise to Noah after the Flood is one reason why I don't believe anthropogenic global warming is such a threat to the world that it warrants increased government intervention to save the planet from total annihilation, like the environmentalists warn us.

[awake]

Look , this guy is the perfect guy for the job... He'll do more for the greens and welfare funded science lobby then they could possibly dream of doing - to use government to properly micromanage the rest of us like lab rats. I don't think the environmentalists could have scored a better choice of straw man.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Something for those who are religiously inclined to consider:

God said that God wouldn't destroy the Earth with a flood again.

Rep. John Shimkus is saying that the Earth would not be destroyed by a flood.

Should we take God's word for his own word, or someone else's misconstruction of God's word and apply it as God's word?

Because, frankly, to say that there hasn't been any portion of the Earth that has been destroyed by flood is demonstrably false. Thus, Shimkus is incorrect, and his statement should be dismissed out of hand.

[FrankRep]

God said that God wouldn't destroy the Earth with a flood again.

Rep. John Shimkus is saying that the Earth would not be destroyed by a flood.

Should we take God's word for his own word, or someone else's misconstruction of God's word and apply it as God's word?

I don't see any floods happening in the Book of Revelation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation) (prophecy).

[Feeding the Abscess]

There's no mention of nuclear armaments taking 1 million lives during WWII, either.

Your point?

[FrankRep]

There's no mention of nuclear armaments taking 1 million lives during WWII, either.

Book of Revelation (prophecy) deals with the End of Days. WWII was just a bump in the road.

[MyLibertyStuff]

It's true though.

In the bible after Noah's flood, God said he won't destroy the earth by flood again.

Right after he created rainbows right?

[FrankRep]

Right after he created rainbows right?


Genesis 9:8-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209:8-17&version=NIV)



Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”

12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”

17 So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.”

[oyarde]

It's true though.

In the bible after Noah's flood, God said he won't destroy the earth by flood again.

But ...... just flood . That leaves lots off possibilities . What all do we have ? Volcanic , asteroid , solar , nuclear ......

[Teaser Rate]

Even if human emissions ARE causing global warming, (they arent) that global warming is not dangerous. Even they are dangerous, the costs of eliminating them, are higher than the cost of emitting them.

Can I ask how you arrived at such a conclusion ?

[MyLibertyStuff]

Genesis 9:8-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209:8-17&version=NIV)



Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”

12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”

17 So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.”

So rainbows are like flood insurance...I got it...

[Feeding the Abscess]

Genesis 9:8-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209:8-17&version=NIV)



Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”

12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”

17 So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.”

I see that you take the bible literally.

Do you also believe in the firmament?

Is it okay to sell your daughter?

[awake]

Guys, lets not let this degenerate, science and religion are being used to divide on this issue.

[FrankRep]

I see that you take the bible literally.

Do you also believe in the firmament?

Is it okay to sell your daughter?

I'm just confirming what the OP said. Go in Religion section if you want a religious debate.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Guys, lets not let this degenerate, science and religion are being used to divide on this issue.

I disagree.

Scientific, data-based disagreements as it pertains to climate discussions are acceptable.

Disagreements based on ancient text are not. Critics are dismissed out of hand by association, and that train of thought isn't going to help us advance the discussion of opposition to climate change believers.

[libertythor]

The earth has actually been cooling down over the last few years.

[Heimdallr]

http://cdn3.knowyourmeme.com/i/6515/original/jesus-facepalm-facepalm-jesus-epic-demotivational-poster-1218659828.jpg?1248715819

[osan]

Rep. John Shimkus is standing by a controversial comment...

If course he is. He is too profound a moron not to.

This is the sort of imbecility the dem/lib/progressive camp torpedoes the republicans on, and they are absolutely on the money for doing so. Believe what you will, but this brand of idiotic spouting needs to be excised from politics in general and the republican party in specific if they are to have even nominal credibility in the eyes of even minimally intelligent people.

Thus far, it appears this republican "come back" stands to be nothing more than the same old tired, boring, dangerous shit. I was very much afraid of this and I may still be proven wrong on the point, but from where I stand now it is not looking very promising.

[Theocrat]

If course he is. He is too profound a moron not to.

This is the sort of imbecility the dem/lib/progressive camp torpedoes the republicans on, and they are absolutely on the money for doing so. Believe what you will, but this brand of idiotic spouting needs to be excised from politics in general and the republican party in specific if they are to have even nominal credibility in the eyes of even minimally intelligent people.

Thus far, it appears this republican "come back" stands to be nothing more than the same old tired, boring, dangerous shit. I was very much afraid of this and I may still be proven wrong on the point, but from where I stand now it is not looking very promising.

That is the problem with our country. A politician cannot even express his religious beliefs for opposing an issue without being personally attacked by the media, the educational establishment, or even so-called liberty-lovers who claim to believe in freedom of speech. Freedom of speech was not honored to suppress public religious expression; it was instituted to protect it. Sadly, many people have forgotten the lesson.

[Slutter McGee]

That is the problem with our country. A politician cannot even express his religious beliefs for opposing an issue without being personally attacked by the media, the educational establishment, or even so-called liberty-lovers who claim to believe in freedom of speech. Freedom of speech was not honored to suppress public religious expression; it was instituted to protect it. Sadly, many people have forgotten the lesson.

Except that they are stupid religious beliefs.

Not talking about global warming.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[PreDeadMan]

Just like these "wars" are god's wars..... tsk tsk tsk mind control , propaganda, and idiocy OH MY!.... repeat that 100 x's!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It's true though.

In the bible after Noah's flood, God said he won't destroy the earth by flood again.

Well I suppose he will destroy the Earth when the Sun goes Red Giant? :D

[osan]

That is the problem with our country. A politician cannot even express his religious beliefs for opposing an issue without being personally attacked by the media, the educational establishment, or even so-called liberty-lovers who claim to believe in freedom of speech. Freedom of speech was not honored to suppress public religious expression; it was instituted to protect it. Sadly, many people have forgotten the lesson.

Please Theo, this is so nonsequitur. None of what I wrote holds an iota of relationship with what you wrote. I have no problem with anyone expressing a religious belief, but such have no place in the basis of political issues such as this. What is relevant is what can be demonstrated. If God pops out from behind a cloud and tells the world that indeed he will protect the earth, yadda yadda, then we have a demonstrated fact before us. Until then the opinion is nothing more than that - opinion - unsubstantiated at that.

If we start basing political decisions on this sort of "reasoning" we will be more fucked than we were 10 minutes ago. It is rankly unsound and patently insane to believe for a moment that this is the way to go. What about when the satanists take power? What then? Eh? Let us then hear you go on about how their bright notions should be the basis of governance. What's that I hear? Could it be *crickets*?