18 June 2021

Congressman asks if the U.S. Forest Service could alter the orbits of the moon - or the earth...


This man was elected to Congress to represent voters in the state of Texas.
Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, suggested at a congressional hearing that climate change could be combatted by altering the orbit of the moon and asked a U.S. Forest Service official whether there was any way the agency could do it.

Gohmert made the comments Tuesday during a House Natural Resources Committee hearing on four bills as he was questioning Jennifer Eberlien, an associate deputy chief of the Forest Service.

"I understand, from what's been testified to the Forest Service and the BLM, you want very much to work on the issue of climate change," Gohmert said, referring to the Bureau of Land Management.

"I was informed by the immediate past director of NASA that they've found that the moon's orbit is changing slightly and so is the Earth's orbit around the sun. We know there's been significant solar flare activity," he said. "And so, is there anything that the National Forest Service or BLM can do to change the course of the moon's orbit or the Earth's orbit around the sun? Obviously, that would have profound effects on our climate."
In the video at NBC News you can listen to him actually propound this insane question.

This question is not just a reflection of massive stupidity about planetary engineering.  It is an outgrowth of theories emphasized during the Trump administration that climate change is a natural phenomenon rather than a man-made catastrophe.  The rebuttal by NASA re the time frame of cosmic planetary cycles is discussed at the link.

8 comments:

  1. This one’s a classic too.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q

    Enjoy

    ReplyDelete
  2. "What profession do all of these senators and congressmen have? Law, law, law, law, business man, law, law... Where are the scientists? Where are the engineers? Where's the rest of... life?" Neil Degrasse Tyson

    ReplyDelete
  3. East Texas is rather infamous for being the breeding ground of whackos.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In a way, it sounds... "almost like a cleaning."

    ReplyDelete
  5. During a speech on the House floor on Thursday, Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert said his SAT score would "shock people who think I'm the dumbest member of congress."

    "When I took it, did very well, got me into the Honors program at A&M," Gohmert said.

    Reported in Business Insider, May 21, 2021.

    ReplyDelete
  6. With respect, this is NOT an outgrowth of climate conspiracy theories. This is simply ignorance. Let me explain....

    It is not that the right thinks that no climate change taking place. Rather, it is that the right does not believe that it is as largely attributable to mankind. Some of it, perhaps. But ALL of it? Unlikely.

    I DO believe in climate change. But I admit having some difficulty in ascribing it largely to humanity. Very simply, we seem to be far too small of a matter when it comes to global scale to make that big of a difference. YES, even if we are just a small part, we should definitely seek to reduce our footprint.

    But how much? I guess the question is this: "How far should we inconvenience--and even perhaps be detrimental to mankind--if we are not fully convinced that we are the problem?"

    For those who think mankind is the issue, it stands to reason that, thinking this is an existential threat, we should be willing to do just about ANYTHING to salvage the future.

    For those who think this is kind of a problem, maybe somewhere halfway between where we are now and what the more extreme inconveniences above.

    But for many, the thought of lost jobs, all sorts of inconveniences, higher taxes, and the such, is FAR TOO MUCH for what they deem only a POSSIBLE threat.

    And don't you find it odd that the same government that wants to go all out against climate change...is not so convinced that cigarettes are a true threat that they have not abolished cigarettes? What's with that?

    Again, I am NOT saying there isn't a problem. I am saying that otherwise good and decent folks don't weight the problem the same way. And as such, that is manifested in their response to the situation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To put a point on it: the right wants definitive existence that climate change is caused by man. Anything short is a failure. This sort of argument is, at it's heart, denialism of science. A similar type of argument is made around institutional racism.

      Delete
    2. "far too small of a matter": Just knowing that burning one tank of gasoline puts 300 pounds of carbon into the atmosphere is enough to convince me we are having anything but a small impact. I multiply my consumption by 7.5 billion and try to imagine the magnitude. Humans are radically changing the atmosphere, soil, oceans... Given my impression of our collective unwillingness to make real change, with the sacrifices entailed, I see a future without vertebrate life. We've known since the 1960s that our way of life is unsustainable. Since then, we've consumed at higher and higher rates and more than doubled the number of Homo sapien/ravenous consumers worldwide. Not going to end well.

      Delete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...