14 thoughts on “Michele Bachmann: Climate Change Is a Fraud Because ‘God Says We Will Never Be Flooded’

  1. Genesis 9:11

    “And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.”

    He said ALL life.

    Plenty of ambiguity there. Could be just Republicans that are drowned.

    “…destroy the earth…”

    The earth will be here, we might be gone.

    You gotta check the fine print in all covenants.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. She was a ‘ding-bat’ when she was in Congress, and not too surprising to see she hasn’t changed. And, as I recall, I don’t think the bible ever said individual areas WOULD NOT be flooded; but, rather that the WORLD (as a whole, at the same time) would not be flooded again. That’s my recollections of the bible’s comments re: the flood. But, keep in mind I was a going to a church regularly at that time, as a young child and a teenager. I forgot a lot of what I heard/read from that long ago era. ha, ha.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Her “reasoning” is flawed.

    Nonetheless, much of what alarmists tell us is a fraud.

    Climate is changing, but it always has. Most of the warming of the last 100 years is natural recovery form the Little Ice Age. We only recently reached the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period and we are still well below the Roman Warm Period.

    There is an anthropogenic contribution on top of that natural cycle, but it is small, and self limiting.

    Sea level will rise about a foot in the next 100 years, but locally we are also subsiding at about the same rate, so don’t buy a house in Sandbridge.

    In 100 years, our temperature range here may be about the same as Myrtle Beach today, and palm trees will grow at the ocean front.

    Which is hardly a catastrophe.

    Like

  4. What are we supposed to learn from this gratuitous slam on Michele Bachman? I can think of a number of ways she is absolutely correct about climate change.

    For example, the Bible does indeed propose that nature is so arranged that everything humanity needs to survive and prosper is provided. God’s Biblical covenant with Noah symbolizes this view, which once was common even among environmentalists.

    Furthermore, climate change as existential threat is a hoax. To the extent that people of faith seek truth, they will not find it in the topic of climate change as typically discussed.

    I see nothing wrong, and certainly nothing to ridicule in Bachman’s statements. In fact, her idea of the Biblical perspective on climate change is probably closer to the scientific perspective than otherwise.

    Like

      1. RE: “I’ll be sure to include a trigger warning for you next time I post a link dealing with religion.”

        It would be better for you to explain why you post it.

        Like

  5. “For example, the Bible does indeed propose that nature is so arranged that everything humanity needs to survive and prosper is provided.”

    Which is really what evolution is all about. We did not just plop in paradise, we evolved with the natural world because we are part of the natural world.

    In addition, in the last century or so, we have also learned that the world is not limitless. What we do to large parts of the natural world does come back in spades to haunt us depending upon our actions.

    For example, we remove predators and the animals that were controlled by them are now proliferating beyond what a local ecosystems can handle. Or we deplete fisheries. Or we dump garbage like plastics that affect our entire oceans. Or antibiotics, which when used as intended to save lives and alleviate suffering, are now less useful because we dumped them willy-nilly into the environment for pure economic gains. Beef industry is one example.

    And if we want to stay Biblical, we took “dominion” to mean mastery rather than stewardship. A big mistake of Western human hubris, in my opinion.

    I think we are starting to learn our impacts and our place. Now we just have to blend such environmental knowledge with effective political and economic considerations.

    When I hear that climate change is a hoax, existential or not, I am reminded of the tobacco industry denying that cigarettes caused cancer or Big Pharma saying opioids are not addicting. Rght there are two examples of political and economic considerations that override science in favor of profit.

    IMHO

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Odd. I have never heard Libertarianism described as a religion. Another example of Military Intelligence, I guess.

        Libertarianism is derived from a single postulate, that you own your own life, and everything else derives logically from that.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s