GOP Still Arguing for a Return to Dinosaur Era

By
Monday, March 30, 2009 at 4:17 pm

Is this really the talking point Republicans want to use in their fight against climate change legislation? 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.”

Never mind that I have trouble imagining a theological debate about the chemical makeup of the atmosphere. Why do Republicans keep using this line of reasoning? (This isn’t the first time.) Do they really want our planet to return to an era of enormous lizards and 40-foot snakes?

Ah, but Shimkus does us the favor of explaining his logic. In a word, God:

The earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. A man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood. I appreciate having panelists here who are men of faith and we can get into the theological discourse of that position, but I do believe that God’s word is infallible. Unchanging. Perfect.

But back to the core issue: Has there been some sort of agreement among House Republicans that references to very bygone eras will somehow defeat cap-and-trade legislation? Remember that last week, another GOP congressman on Shimkus’ subcommittee, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), pointed to the Vikings as evidence that we can adapt just fine to global warming.

And in case that argument somehow wasn’t working, Shimkus tried another tack, claiming that carbon dioxide is valuable “plant food” that we would be remiss to reduce.

I suppose the arguments in favor of curbing global warming have been a bit human-centric …

Watch Shimkus below:

There is no theological debate over whether you should follow TWI on Twitter.

Follow Aaron Wiener on Twitter


Comments

23 Comments

Topics about Climate » Archive » GOP Still Arguing for a Return to Dinosaur Era
Pingback posted March 30, 2009 @ 5:24 pm

[...] The Washington Independent put an intriguing blog post on GOP Still Arguing for a Return to Dinosaur EraHere’s a quick excerptIs this really the talking point Republicans want to use in their fight against climate change legislation? 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 f [...]


Antonio Sosa
Comment posted March 30, 2009 @ 6:31 pm

It's Obama and his accomplices who plan to destroy us using a hoax, the global warming hoax.

More and more scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children. More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. They are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/…

Additionally, 32,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…” http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

“Progressive” (communist) politicians like Obama seem determined to force us to swallow the man-made global warming scam. We need to defend ourselves from the UN and these politicians, who threaten our future and the future of our children. Based on a lie, they have already wasted billions and plan to increase taxes, limit development, and enslave us.

If not stopped, the global warming scam will enrich the scammers (Gore and Obama’s Wall Street friends), increase the power of the United Nations and communists like Obama, and multiply poverty and servitude for the rest of us.


Antonio Sosa
Comment posted March 30, 2009 @ 6:34 pm

As Lord Christopher Monckton says, “The forces of darkness in the environmental movement (led by Obama and his accomplices) want create a new dark age in which humanity is pushed back to the Stone Age and without the right to light a fire.” http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2009/090310climat…


dobermanmacleod
Comment posted March 31, 2009 @ 1:35 am

While I am amazed at the ignorance displayed by global warming deniers (aka pro-carbon), the real problem is the people who have joined us in reality, but advocate the unfeasible strategy of exclusively severe carbon dieting to solve the problem. What is the difference between some who ignores global warming, and one who exclusively advocates an unfeasible solution?

Any carbon diet strategy would be dependent upon clean coal:

“The vast majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired; not “may be coal-fired”; will be. So developing carbon capture and storage technology is not optional, it is literally of the essence.” –”Breaking the Climate Deadlock,” Tony Blair, June 26, 2008

But, Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon dioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide — a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. “Beware of the scale,” he stressed.”

Here is what Climate Code Red says:

–Human emissions have so far produced a global average temperature increase of 0.8 degree C.

–There is another 0.6 degree C. to come due to “thermal inertia”, or lags in the system, taking the total long-term global warming induced by human emissions so far to 1.4 degree C.

–If human total emissions continue as they are to 2030 (and don't increase 60% as projected) this would likely add more than 0.4 degrees C. to the system in the next two decades, taking the long-term effect by 2030 to at least 1.7 degrees C. (A 0.3 degree C. increase is predicted for the period 2004-2014 alone by Smith, Cusack et al, 2007).

–Then add the 0.3 degree C. albedo flip effect from the now imminent loss of the Arctic sea ice, and the rise in the system by 2030 is at least 2 degree. C, assum ing very optimistically that emissions don't increase at all above their present annual rate! When we consider the potential permafrost releases and the effect of carbon sinks losing capacity, we are on the road to a hellish future, not for what we will do, but WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY DONE.

There is but one viable strategy for global warming: a simple and cheap way to immediately cool the Earth immediately-just add a little sun dimming aerosol to the upper atmosphere. Exclusive carbon dieting is the road to a hellish future.

“I'm going to tell you something I probably shouldn't: we may not be able to stop global warming. We need to begin curbing global greenhouse emissions right now, but more than a decade after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, the world has utterly failed to do so. Unless the geopolitics of global warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot.” –Bryan Walsh, Time Magazine, 17 March 2008

“The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state.” –Dr James Lovelock, August 2008


dobermanmacleod
Comment posted March 31, 2009 @ 1:44 am

Mr Sosa, if you believe global warming is some kind of hoax, let's wait and see a couple of decades (or you can just educate yourself as to the physical properties of CO2 or CH4). Your misjudgment isn't a personal catastrophe like wheither you smoking tobacco might lead to you getting cancer, it is a catastrophe for mankind akin to one of the 5 great extinctions. Frankly, your inability to judge the truth probably affects other aspects of your life too, and I sincerely pity you sir. Too bad your poor judgement is now impinging upon a much larger audience.


bobthebuilder
Comment posted March 31, 2009 @ 6:33 am

In the 70's it was an ice age. In the 90's it was we better do something quick or the earth will not last another decade (sound familiar?). And now we better do something about those darn farting and burping cows. Weathermen have a hard enough time forecasting the weather a few days in advance and we are to believe scientists can accurately predict the earths temperature 10, 20, 50 years into the future? Excuse me if I dont trust anything Al Gore is involved with while he has mansions, rides in limos, and flies around the country.


dobermanmacleod
Comment posted March 31, 2009 @ 1:20 pm

Yeah, and in the 70's it was the ozone layer, and in the 40's it was the Nazi threat. How about Mad Cow disease in England or the effort to make the Small Pox virus extinct in nature during the 1960's. All those were also nay sayed by cynics like you.

What does “trust in Gore” have to do with the science of global warming? Frankly, it was a mind-set like yours that caused doctors to wipe their dirty butt with their hands before operating on patients in the late 1990's to disprove germ theory. If you on't understand the concept of greenhouse gas and the mathematics/physics of CO2 & CH4 or notice the abnormal warming of the Polar regions, or even are concerned about mankind dumping over half a teraton of carbon in the air, then what words will magically unlock your common sense?


dobermanmacleod
Comment posted March 31, 2009 @ 1:36 pm

Sorry for the double post, but I can predict what the “skeptics” will say about my misprint of the date range for the skeptics of germ theory (they will say that because of a simple error in type that it disproves my entire arguement, which is really sad because it would just be a red herring). I meant the late 17th century.

“Three hundred years is not a very long time, but it is long enough for us to try to evaluate the results of the growth of science and to decide if it has been of service to humanity. Indeed, several objections have been voiced. For example, both the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and the discovery of nuclear energy increased opposition to scientific advancement. The naysayers shouted, ?Enough! Stop everything!…Younger open-minded men accepted his theories and adopted his methods, but his contemporaries in the United Kingdom were sceptical, losing sight of the basic principle of antisepsis and quibbling about the
carbolic acid, or frankly opposing the new-fangled 'germ theory'. A colleague in Glasgow said, 'those who mount a hobby generally allow it to carry them too far!' Another spoke of 'the carbolic mania'.” –Re: Resistance to Louis Pastuers revolutionary findings Answered By: crabcakes-ga on 27 Oct 2005 13:16 PDT

Some things never change, huh? Now it is global warming, and tomorrow it will be? Some people just don't get it, They will deny a change in paradigm until they die of old age (or are killed by their hardheadedness).


Laszlo
Comment posted March 31, 2009 @ 11:26 pm

what does a theological point have to do with politics; there is supposed to be separation of church and state. we impact our environment, we are products of it. What we need to do is simply eradicate the monetary system in controlled stages, tap and build geothermal infrastructure and create intelligent cities based on available world resources that our children inherit.


Pleo
Comment posted April 19, 2009 @ 6:00 pm

Dumb logic by a dumb man


Pleo
Comment posted April 20, 2009 @ 1:00 am

Dumb logic by a dumb man


Boehner: What’s the Big Deal with CO2, Anyways? | FollowGreen.com
Pingback posted April 23, 2009 @ 7:09 pm

[...] And let’s not forget Rep. John Shimkus, who dismissed the need for timely climate action by arguing that the dinosaurs had managed to thrive in an era of much higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels:“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.” [...]


Talking Point – The Consensus of Global Warming Theory « Lighthouse Patriot Journal
Pingback posted July 21, 2009 @ 2:30 pm

[...] Wiener wrote GOP Still Arguing for a Return to Dinosaur Era in the Washington Independent that clearly instills political motives in what those that opposes the [...]


Swing Trading
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 3:47 am

Interesting post. I have made a twitter post about this. Others no doubt will like it like I did.


cheap mbt shoes
Comment posted May 8, 2010 @ 7:33 am

Thanks for you share the article.Good!


nike shox
Comment posted May 25, 2010 @ 6:40 am

Good.post.I like it.


mbt sandals
Comment posted June 2, 2010 @ 3:36 pm

Thank you for your sharing.I'm very interested in it.


mbt sandals
Comment posted June 3, 2010 @ 1:23 am

so cool


discount ed hardy outlet
Comment posted June 3, 2010 @ 1:43 am

Hhe article's content rich variety which make us move for our mood after reading this article. surprise, here you will find what you want! Recently, I found some wedsites which commodity is colorful of fashion.


discount ed hardy outlet
Comment posted June 3, 2010 @ 1:44 am

I think your blog is very good, very poetic, also very talented, hope you can pay attention to my blog, thank you for coming.


ed hardy outlet
Comment posted June 3, 2010 @ 1:49 am

I think your blog is very good, very poetic, also very talented, hope you can pay attention to my blog, thank you for coming.


air max shoes
Comment posted June 3, 2010 @ 1:56 am

This post is very good, rich tourist resources, a wide choice with beautiful environment, and the price is cheap. From here I know much about tourism. By the way I know some websites is very well.


jordan shoes
Comment posted June 9, 2010 @ 3:28 am

This is a pretty good article!


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.