Here's the latest on global warming today from Delaware Online: "Del. global warming skeptic stands pat - State climatologist on opposite side of governor in court case. Delaware's state climatologist has found himself in the middle of a political squall after taking skeptical stands on global warming and climate change -- in one case directly contradicting the state's own policy. David R. Legates, a University of Delaware geography professor, co-wrote a 'friend of the court' brief that opposed Delaware's position in a multi-state U.S. Supreme Court case." To cut to the chase here, “Legates, a Ph.D. climatologist,” which means he's a scientist, “who received the title of state climatologist in 2005 from Daniel Leathers, now the head of the University of Delaware's geography department. Legates joined a group of scientists late last year in urging the court to reject the claims of the state of Delaware. ‘It is simply impossible to conclude that the net effect of greenhouse gases endangers human health and welfare,' the brief said. The institute has sued the government in the past to block some fuel economy standards for automobiles. The appearance of Delaware's climatologist on the other side of the court case left some state Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control officials frustrated. ‘He's taken a position that “The climate is changing, but we don't have any danger signs,”' said Ali Mirzakhalili, air quality management chief for DNREC.”
The point of this is that here you have a scientist who's willing to stick his neck out, say, “Wait a minute. There's no conclusive evidence, even if it is happening, that we're causing it, or B, that it's going to be bad.” And that's heresy. Audio sound bite time now, last night Larry King Alive, topic is: “Global warming, could it really kill us all?” That was the topic on Larry King Alive, “Global warming, could it really kill us all?” Barbara Boxer was one of the guests, Larry King's question to Senator Barbara Boxer. “Are we in a panicked situation?”
BOXER: There's really a climate of hope, not fear, because we are listening to the scientists, and yes, there are always a few who are the naysayers just like there were people who said the earth is flat, but eventually there's a consensus. We know there's a consensus that has built, and I'm not going to debate anymore whether this is happening. I know it's happening. What we're going to do is not be afraid of it, we're going to wrap our arms around it and we're going to do the things it takes to meet the challenge, which are energy efficiency, a whole list of things. We're going to clean up power plants. We're going to make sure we have green buildings.
RUSH: Eventually there is a consensus. There's the word that disqualifies any of this as being science. Consensus is just a bunch of scientists organized around a political proposition. You can't have consensus in science. The libs, whether they know it or not, they probably do know it, but they think consensus is the way to sell it because, “Oh, but all these wonderful people agree.” Also a guest last night on Larry King Alive, Dr. Heidi Cullen, the climate expert, quote, unquote, for the Weather Channel who was the woman, as you know, who suggested that any TV meteorologist certified by the American Meteorological Society who did not believe in manmade global warming theory be decertified. So naturally she gets a big platform on Larry King Alive. He says, “Heidi Cullen, are the TV meteorologists taken seriously in this matter?”
CULLEN: TV meteorologists have such a huge opportunity. They've got access to people's living rooms on a daily basis. The heat wave that we saw last summer, was that global warming? The incredibly warm January -- early part of January -- was that global warming? These are all opportunities to discuss the science. And I feel like for a lot of meteorologists they feel like it's a political question, and the politics has really obscured the science. The science is really solid and global warming is absolutely happening, and I think we need to talk about it and I think TV meteorologists should talk about it as well.
RUSH: And if they don't say the right things, she wants them decertified. She's got it just backgrounds. She says the politics has obscured the science. Actually she doesn't have it backgrounds, the politics of the pro-global warming crowd is ignoring science and making it up and saying that they have a consensus about it. I went into this a little bit yesterday. Look it, if in 1979 when the Newsweek cover came out and everybody was talking about global cooling, the ice storm in the southeast today would be evidence of it. The frozen fruit and vegetables in California that destroyed citrus crops would be proof of it. The below freezing temperatures in central Florida earlier this week would have been proof of global cooling. The blizzards and the all the snow in Colorado would be proof of global cooling. So it's not science whatsoever.
Now, here's another piece that I found at the AmericanThinker.com by J. R. Dunn. "It may well turn out that George W. Bush's greatest service to the country won't involve terrorism or Iraq at all, but his steadfast refusal to be buffaloed into joining the panicky consensus on global warming. Rumor had it that Bush intended to embrace the warming thesis at last in his State of the Union address. Instead Greens nationwide went into depressed tailspins as he called for an attack on the problem by means of technical advances, a curve ball very much in the old Bush mode, of a type that we've seen too little of recently. Bush is acting in defiance of much of the civilized world, led by a former vice-president and including the media, the entertainment community, the Democrats, most of the policy elite, that peculiar and never-before-encountered group known as 'mainstream scientists', and now even corporations, eager to clamber aboard the Kyoto wagon while there's still room.
“One curious element involves certain facts that, on first consideration, would appear to be crucial but never seem to come up in debate. I have spent several years trying to track down the actual values of two numbers - the annual amount of carbon dioxide emitted by all human activities, and the amount of carbon dioxide already present in the atmosphere. There are as many answers as there are sources, the first ranging from 3 billion to 28 billion tons, the second from 750 billion tons to 2.97 x 1012 tons, a number so large that there's no common English word for it. Variations of this size - up to three orders of magnitude - suggest a serious lack of basic knowledge," of the amount of carbon dioxide already there versus how much is being added by human beings. “The fact that it never comes up suggests that scientists are well aware of this.”
Moving on. Mr. Dunn here attempts to highlight some things by going back to look at history. “Despite the insistence of Al Gore and friends, this is far from the first time the Earth has ever passed through a climatic warming period. In fact, one occurred relatively recently, the medieval warm period, more commonly known as the Little Climatic Optimum (LCO), a period stretching roughly from the 10th to the 13th centuries, in which the average temperature was anything from 1 to 3 degrees centigrade higher than it is today. Several years ago, I covered the LCO in an article detailing the climatic history of the last millennium. But it's worthwhile to cover the highlights once more, to help put the contemporary panic into perspective.
"How warm was it during the LCO? Areas in the Midlands and Scotland that cannot grow crops today were regularly farmed. England was known for its wine exports. The average height of Britons around A.D. 1000 was close to six feet, thanks to good nutrition. The small stature of the British lower classes (and the Irish) later in the millennium is an artifact of lower temperatures. People of the 20th century were the first Europeans in centuries to grow to their 'true' stature - and most had to grow up in the USA to do it. In fact, famine - and its partner, plague -- appears to have taken a hike for several centuries. We have records of only a handful of famines during the LCO, and few mass outbreaks of disease. The bubonic plague itself appears to have retreated to its heartland of Central Asia."
Anyway, it goes on and on and on describing even the Vikings. “The LCO was the first age of transatlantic exploration. When not slaughtering their neighbors, the Vikings were charting new lands across the North Atlantic, one of the stormiest seas on earth. If you tried the same thing today, traveling their routes in open boats of the size they used, you would drown. They discovered Iceland, and Greenland, and a new world even beyond, where they found grape vines, the same as in England. The Agricultural Revolution is not widely known except among historians. Mild temperatures eased land clearing and lengthened growing seasons. More certain harvests encouraged experimentation among farmers involving field rotation, novel implements, and new crops such as legumes.” For those of you in Rio Linda, forget it. It goes on to apply some common sense. What's so bad if it is warming? Where is most of the world's population concentrated now? Near the equator, where it's hot as hell, year round.
The evidence here suggests that because of these fluctuating cycles of warming and cooling, that all kinds of processes change, agricultural, ocean, any number of things. It's evidence that these things happen cyclically and naturally, and it's the height of vanity for a bunch of human scientists acting upon consensus who are nothing more than in utter panic mode, plus you can't take their politics out of it. They're just purebred socialists who believe in big government. Remember, folks, the whole point of all this is to pound you with this enough and enough and enough to make you feel guilty enough for causing it that you will accept Draconian alterations in your lifestyle and higher taxes to fix it, otherwise we are doomed, otherwise there won't be an earth, not one that we can survive. It's all hocus-pocus. It's one giant lie. Even if it is warming, the idea that there will not be any improvement anywhere on the planet as a result is just silly. When you look at the fact that the 10th and 13th centuries it was three degrees centigrade warmer then than today when there clearly couldn't have been as much carbon dioxide output by humanity, the whole argument that these people are making should be obviated by simple history. But it's not, until we keep working on it.
Just want to give you one more thought here on this whole global warming mess. I want to ask you, "What is the common denominator between embryonic stem cells, synthetic fuels, global warming, and Hillary Rodham Clinton?" What do these four things have in common, embryonic stem cells, synthetic fuels, global warming, and Hillary Rodham Clinton? What is one thing in common? What's the common denominator? You have four fantasies here from the left: embryonic stem cells, synthetic fuels, global warming, and Hillary. You have four magic answers to all of our problems, four untested and unproved, at best, programs to make life peachy keen, and they are all a lifetime away from delivering their promise. You gotta throw Hillary Clinton in that list. Embryonic stem cells, synthetic fuels, global warming, Hillary Rodham Clinton, all liberal Democrat fantasies, pure and simple.
RUSH: Dick in Park Rapids, Minnesota, you're next on the EIB Network, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Well, Rush what a thrill.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: Rush, to piggyback on Barbara Boxer -- pardon the pun -- wasn't there a congressional consensus a few years ago regarding the WMDs in Iraq?
RUSH: Oh, yeah, it was a consensus of 1998. There was a consensus in 2002. Yes, there was a consensus in the US Senate based on intelligence results and reports that there were weapons of mass destruction to be found -- furthermore, the Democrats led by some -- I don't think Boxer was on board -- said because of this consensus, we had to go there and disarm the guy.
CALLER: Well, so in that regard, consensuses are not always a bad thing, but when it comes to science it is a bad thing?
RUSH: Well, what it better illustrates is that in one stretch here you could say that a consensus was wrong. But in science, there can't be consensus. People think that I am being a little footloose and fancy free with the language here, but if you stop and think, science is not about the most people who will agree to a proposition, that makes the proposition so. If that were science, why, we'd still have the earth being flat and the sun orbiting around the earth. Consensus simply cannot have any place in science, and if the global warming crowd continues to pulverize and sell it on the basis that there's consensus, that ought to tell anybody who understands the English language that there isn't any science in it, that it is all politics. I got an e-mail, and I knew this was going to happen, because I have empathy with the audience. I knew this was going to happen. “Rush, you're talking about this so much, tired of this global warming stuff. If we can't change it, and I agree with you on that, why bother? Just let it go because this is all moot.” I said no, “It's not.” The reason why I'm talking about it -- and I'm glad for the question, to be able to phrase it in this way, because many of you may be asking the same thing.
This global warming issue is the essence of liberalism versus conservatism, which is what this program is about. Global warming, militant environmentalism, militant animal rightsism, is nothing more, those things are nothing more than opportunities for communists, socialists, people that support dictatorships, to empower elements of society they think are important, government, statism, and this sort of thing, and every element of conservatism versus liberalism is to be found in the global warming debate. Remember, liberals are self-loathing and their guilt and their hatred for their own country and advanced civilizations and societies, they believe that they have the power that human beings, despite the contempt and despite the condescension with which they look at human beings, they think human beings are so imperfect and so selfish and so carefree that they have the ability to destroy the planet. Remember, there is no god in liberalism other than liberalism itself. Religion is the environment; religion is animal rights; religion is liberal causes. That is what they are loyal to, and they are liberals before they are anything else.
It's amazing, in fact, the left out there decrying devout Christianity or Catholicism or anything of the sort. They are as religious about what it is they believe as anybody else. They are as intolerant of people who disagree. They also have to rely on faith. Faith is that which is not provable. In order to accept belief in something, you must have faith if it can't be proved. That sums up the left's association and attachment to global warming. It represents an opportunity for liberals to do everything they want to do in terms of controlling and limiting freedom and liberty. They blame the American people and civilized peoples all over the world for destroying the planet. They infuse everybody with as much guilt for destroying the planet and how is this guilt ladled out? It is ladled out on the basis that your lifestyle is too rich, that your lifestyle is based on greed, that your lifestyle is based on selfishness, and it's also based on the fact that you don't care about anybody else but yourself, that you are damaging the planet in the process. They have to get hold of you to save the planet, their god.
They have to get hold of you to save their religion. In the process of making you feel guilty, you will support massive increases in the size of government and state, in order to fix the problem that you have caused, and you will gladly fork over more and more taxes to do this while in the throes of your guilt. Global warming is nothing more than a scheme, particularly the manmade characteristics of global warming, the desire for them to make you believe, the attempt to make you believe that you're causing it. Every argument, fundamental and otherwise, that we make in the discussion of liberalism versus conservatism can be found in that issue. Since I, as a conservative, believe in liberty and freedom, since I have a much higher power and higher authority than liberals or the planet, since I do not believe that socialism works because I know it doesn't work and you don't need a consensus for that, you need a simple historical perspective and lesson or two, I'm going to oppose everything they try to make liberalism as mainstream in our society as possible. So that's why I focus on this.
I focus on the details of global warming because it may be one way of convincing as many people as possible that the whole method by which they're going about proving it is bogus. It's just not enough to say, "Hey, folks, liberalism is just a bunch of liberals running amok here with global warming." You need more than that, I think, if you're trying to be genuinely persuasive. But it's hideous, the whole global warming thing. By the way, they've recruited a bunch of fellow travelers and idiots that have no clue what they're doing. Like this Heidi Cullen, I'm sure she believes everything she's saying. I don't think she's probably an activist. She may have been formed into one by now. But she's probably just a Miss America Pageant contestant. Probably thinks that she's saving the world, she probably buys into all of it because it makes her feel good to care and all this sort of thing. Not saying that everybody out there believing in this stuff is a rock-ribbed activist liberal, but liberalism is seductive to people. If they can make you feel guilty, they offer you a solution for the guilt and so forth, and then you can live blame free for all the destruction that is happening. So, look, I could go on and on here for literal hours about the elements of liberalism and conservatism in that argument or in this issue, global warming . That's why I'm not letting go of it. Back in just a second.
RUSH: Look, here's another great example, folks. Headline: "US family oriented job policies weak. The United States lags far behind virtually all wealthy countries with regard to family-oriented workplace policies such as maternity leave, paid sick days and support for breast-feeding, a new study by Harvard and McGill University researchers says. … The study, officially being issued Thursday, says workplace policies for families in the United States are weaker than those of all high-income countries and many middle- and low-income countries. Notably, it says the U.S. is one of only five countries out of 173 in the survey that does not guarantee some form of paid maternity leave; the others are Lesotho, Liberia, Swaziland and Papua New Guinea. 'More countries are providing the workplace protections that millions of Americans can only dream of,' said the study's lead author, Jody Heymann, founder of the Harvard-based Project on Global Working Families and director of McGill's Institute for Health and Social Policy." This goes on to say that the Family Medical Leave Act is not enough.
Now, what's the point of the story? The point of the story is to say the US government is not ordering this and making businesses do it or providing for it itself. You are not responsible for anything that your own decisions cause to happen in your life. You have a child, not your responsibility to make sure you have the means and the ability to take care of the child. No, it's the government's job. And once again, who's the arch enemy? The United States, the most powerful, the most generous, the most prosperous, the most free nation in the world. The leftists target this country every day in an attempt to destroy the institutions and traditions which have made it great. Global warming is no different than this story saying we don't do enough for mothers who need to breast-feed. We don't do enough for people that need to take sick-leave. We don't do enough. We just don't do enough. Meaning our government is not socialistic, pure and simple.