Folks are commenting on John Shimkus’ act with Monckton at the Congressional hearing on adaptation to climate change. For example, PZ Myers:
Shimkus explain how he knows CO2 is not a problem. It’s because the Bible is the inerrant word of his god, and he knows god isn’t going to end the world with global warming.
There’s a genuine policy discussion to be had about climate change. If policymakers like Shimkus and Barton represent the mainstream of House Republican thought, this discussion won’t be bipartisan. Indeed, for humanity’s sake, it can’t be.
Republicans don’t want to hear from real scientists like the climatologists at NASA and the National Academy of Sciences. They prefer to hear only from people who parrot the right wing’s forgone conclusions — what’s good for Big Business and polluting industries is best for America.
Fossil fuel pollution equals life, and anyone who says otherwise hates salad.
But there are some more gems from the hearing. Calvin Beisner testified as to why he thinks that the “atheistic” IPCC is wrong:
When God finished His creation, “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). Do you think he would have judged a fragile system biased by unidirectional feedbacks toward destruction that way? No, He would not. Indeed, the global destruction of the Flood required His supernatural intervention (Genesis 6-8), after which He promised Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man …; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease” (Genesis 8:21-22)-the repeated pairs of opposites being the poetic device called merism, implying that God had committed Himself to ensuring that all the cycles needed for human (and other) thriving would continue.
In other words, if climate sensitivity to the doubling of CO2 is 3 degrees, there is no God.
And since the hearing was about adaptation to climate change, it is interesting to see Monckton’s notion of adaptation:
In the Middle Ages it was warmer worldwide than today. Then global cooling set in. Our ancestors adapted. The Vikings abandoned their settlements in Greenland.
Only if by “abandoned” you mean “starved to death in”. I don’t think that dying off really should count as adaptation.