RUSH: An hour ago, the wind chill factor in New York City was minus two. In Chicago, an hour ago, the wind chill factor was minus 19. An hour ago, the wind chill factor in Washington was minus one. In Philadelphia, an hour ago, the wind chill factor was minus eight. Make a note, ladies and gentlemen: whenever it's hot outside, we get news story after news story about global warming. Now that it is freezing, record cold -- it's so cold in Chicago, they delayed the Nielsens! They delayed the Nielsen report on how many Chicagoans watched the Super Bowl last night. Now that it's cold, record cold out there, we will not see any news stories on the major networks questioning global warming. There is one in the LA Times today: "Game Over on Global Warming?" with a question mark after it. It has some interesting statistics in it, but not one story -- not one story -- will we see about global warming maybe not being real, in the middle of record cold.
By the way, do you remember last week Drudge had on his home page a picture of two polar bears? Actually, that picture goes back to 2004. I did a little research. I have found something. That picture has been totally misrepresented. It was of two polar bears on what looks like a melting glacier, a little ice floe that has split away, and they are supposedly stranded. That picture was taken back in 2004, and the caption for the original picture talks about how these polar bears, a mother and her cub, are playing around on an ice sculpture created by waves! An ice sculpture created by waves, a phenomenon that occurs when you have real cold water and cold air in the north like at the Arctic Circle. Now, nobody can tell me that waves are part of global warming, because waves have been in the ocean ever since there's been the ocean. So global warming had no impact whatsoever on where those polar bears were!
They chose to be there. They swam out there, swam up on the ice floe. They can swim hundreds of miles, on top of the water, the surface, underneath. The whole thing was a fraud, and it is a great little microcosm for the entire global warming escapade. I got a whole global warming stack that we'll get to today again -- and, folks, again we've got record cold weather this week, and we don't have any broadcast news stories questioning global warming! All summer long, or in late fall, we can get really hot temperatures and they'll go banshee over the "fact" that there's global warming. Now, there's this cold front today that's going to be all week, 35 wind chill in Chicago last night, and no news about global warming whatsoever maybe being questionable.
I have an urgent global warming update. "Statement: As of 4:45 p.m. February 4th." This is Hawaii time yesterday afternoon. "Record low temperatures set at Kahalui." Record low temperature 54 degrees was set there yesterday. There are record lows in Hawaii. Fifty-four degrees! Do you know, they don't have heat over there? Most of them don't bother to put furnaces or heat in their houses in Hawaii. Fifty-four degrees! I was over there a couple years ago and they had a little cold snap. It was on the day of the Pro Bowl in February. I was over there playing golf and a cold snap came through, and I showed up on the first tee and it was like 65 degrees and these Hawaiians are bundled up in layers and sweaters and windbreakers. It's cloudy and overcast, kind of like it is out there today. We have about 70 degrees out there today, and I was just in my shirt sleeves. So urgent global warming update! It's 45 degrees yesterday in Hawaii.
Now, the Los Angeles Times: "Game Over on Global Warming? -- Everybody in the United States could switch from cars to bicycles. The Chinese could close all their factories. Europe could give up electricity and return to the age of the lantern. But all those steps together would not come close to stopping global warming. A landmark report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released Friday, warns that there is so much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that even if concentrations held at current levels, the effects of global warming would continue for centuries." In fact: "If the rest of the world returned to the Stone Age, carbon concentrations would still rise." Now, if you look at this report and the summary you can find all kinds of evidence contradicting the popular theories espoused by the very scientists who put this thing out. You will not find any science to speak of, but look, if we can all go back to the Stone Age and carbon concentrations would still rise, then what's the point? It means we can't stop carbon concentrations. That leads to another theory.
There's a global warming scientist out there. He's an Israeli. "Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming. Step One: Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect. Step Two: As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities. Step Three: No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause. Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: 'Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated," ah-ha!
My word is complex, "than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the [Drive-By] media. 'In fact, there is much more than meets the eye.' Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future." This is so absurd! The whole concept of manmade global warming is just intellectually and in a common sense way absurd, and here now more and more scientists are starting to come to this conclusion. We may actually be cooling the planet! This guy says our tools are too crude to reveal what our effect has been in the past.
"All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is 'incriminating circumstantial evidence,' which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding 'evidence of fingerprints.' Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, 'without other "suspects."' However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible 'other suspects,' he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming," and what do you think that is? You have heard me postulate it, and I'm not a scientist. I'm just a common sense, ordinary, average Joe, and I look around and I make these judgments based on what appear to me to be common sense. Solar activity, this physicist says!
"'Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming,' he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that 'it is unlikely that (the solar climate link) does not exist.'" Doesn't that make more sense, folks? Doesn't it make more sense that the sun would have far more to do with warming and cooling of the planet than all of a sudden man-made gases that are occurring during the improvement of life, enhancing the quality of life?
By the way, these two guys, this polar bear fraud? Here's that story in the stack now. Basically, those polar bears on that ice floe, that's a water sculpture. It's a wave sculpture. It was not a broken-off part of a glacier or an ice floe that left these poor bears stranded. They swam out to it. The original caption to the picture of 2004 makes this plain: "Mother polar bear and cub on interesting ice sculpture carved by waves. Copyright Amanda Byrd."
Amanda Byrd took the picture in 2004! This is from the "Riehl World View" blog. It talks about how this picture and others are used by the environmentalist wackos and the Drive-By Media to propagandize the whole effort. One of the culprits is a guy named Dan Crosbie. Now, Dan Crosbie claims to have taken the picture of the polar bears that was actually taken by somebody else by the name of Amanda Byrd, and there are pictures here of Dan Crosbie and a buddy of his that are digging. They've got an auger and they're trying to dig through the ice. They want to dig a ten-inch diameter hole to study something and what was funny about it is they encounter all kinds of difficulty because the ice was much, much thicker than they thought it would be based on their own interpretations of global warming! His buddy, Dan Crosbie's buddy, is seen holding a big shotgun -- and if you read their story, do you know why they're holding the shotgun? To protect themselves from polar bears! They were going to shoot polar bears if the polar bears came up and attacked them.
Now three years later, we get a picture of polar bears "stranded" on a water sculpture caused by waves, carved by waves, presented as stranded polar bears out in the middle of nowhere, desperate for life, with no way to get off, all because of man-made global warming. That's how they intend to infuse you with guilt, and to make you feel sympathetic and sorry, so that you will sit around and the next time Hillary Clinton wants to take $40 billion of Exxon profits for global warming, you'll let her do it because you'll feel guilty over having caused all this! In fact, you'll feel so guilty you'll even grow the government and raise your taxes and punish you as much as you will take because you feel so guilty about destroying the planet and stranding these poor polar bears. Meanwhile, ladies and gentlemen: "A French-led marine expedition team has discovered what is believed to be thousands of new species of molluscs and crustaceans around a Philippine island. The announcement was made by officials and scientists on Monday.
"Some 80 scientists, technicians, students and volunteers from 19 countries led by Philippe Bouchet of the French National Museum of Natural History surveyed waters around Panglao island, 400 miles south-east of Manila from 2004-2005." One hundred and fifty to 250 "of the crustaceans and 1,500-2,500 of the molluscs are new species." How can this be, because I listen to these people talk about global warming, ladies and gentlemen, and we're destroying species! How many species a year are being snuffed out because of us? The whole global warming movement is a crock. The man-made global warming amusement is a total crock. The Wall Street Journal editorializes on this today: "Last week's headlines about the United Nations' latest report on global warming were typically breathless, predicting doom and human damnation like the most fervent religious evangelical." Yes! As I so eloquently explained on Friday, it is their religion.
"Yet the real news in the fourth assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may be how far it is backpedaling on some key issues. Beware claims that the science of global warming is settled. The document that caused such a stir was only a short policy report, a summary of the full scientific report due in May." By the way, the purpose of the summary is to make everybody ignore the full report when it comes out, and the Drive-Bys dutifully reported the doom-and-gloom aspects of the IPCC summary. Again I remind you: we have record cold in much of the country and in Hawaii and we will not see one story today on, "Maybe this global warming thing is hyped. How can it be global warming?" In fact, what we'll get is global warming is causing it! Every weather extreme is global warming! These people, they're brilliant little socialists and communists. They know how to propagandize; they know how to keep this alive.
When they came out and said, "Why, this global warming is going to be with us for a hundred years," that means they don't have to predict anymore whether it's going to get bad in ten, 20, 30 and be wrong. A hundred years from now, none of us will be alive. Well, very few of us. Nevertheless, every weather extreme is now said to be caused by global warming, even record cold like this. "More pertinent is the underlying scientific report. And according to people who have seen that draft, it contains startling revisions of previous U.N. predictions. For example, the Center for Science and Public Policy has just released an illuminating analysis written by Lord Christopher Monckton, a one-time adviser to Margaret Thatcher who has become a voice of sanity on global warming. Take rising sea levels. In its 2001 report, the U.N.'s best high-end estimate of the rise in sea levels by 2100 was three feet. Lord Monckton notes that the upcoming report's high-end best estimate is 17 inches, or half the previous prediction. Similarly, the new report shows that the 2001 assessment had overestimated the human influence on climate change since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third. Such reversals (and there are more) are remarkable, given that the IPCC's previous reports, in 1990, 1995 and 2001, have been steadily more urgent in their scientific claims and political tone."
The latest thing to look out for is: "New Orleans! New Orleans! Look what Katrina did! Look at the rising sea levels! Look at the rising water levels in Katrina!"
Uh, they're not rising. New Orleans and the delta are sinking. Talk to anybody who lives there, they'll tell you. It's sinking, and that makes it appear the water is rising. If you're in a boat, and the boat sinks, yeah, the water does look to be getting higher, but it isn't. You're just sinking in it. That's what's happening to New Orleans. This whole thing is nothing but a perpetual fraud.
Story from Nairobi. "The world's poor, who are the least responsible for global warming, will suffer the most from climate change, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told environment ministers from around the world on Monday." This is not Rush parody, folks, this is news. This is an actual news story. "The world's poor, who are the least responsible for global warming, will suffer the most from climate change..." I love the old Sam Kinison line. If you live in a desert, move! Crops don't grow in a desert! Okay, for those of you that still believe this garbage, let me give you another way of looking at it, shall we? The science community, the propagandists on the pro-global warming side along with their allies in the Drive-By Media, tell us that there will be a disastrous -- and it's always "disastrous." It's always disastrous! Have you ever noticed, the warming will always be "disastrous." They never tell us what good would come of it. I don't see people getting on airplanes and saying, "Man, I can't wait to be in Chicago this week."
Anyway, a four degree Celsius increase in temperature, global temperature over the next 50 to 100 years. Well, we know this. In 50 years we're not going to wake up one day and the temperature is going to have shot up, overnight, four degrees, globally. This is going to happen gradually. What I would like to see in addition to this four degree Celsius increase in temperature over 1500 years, what's the temperature going to be a year from now and then ten years from now? Give us that prediction. When is this warming going to happen? When will we have risen two degrees Celsius? Will that happen in 35 years, 38 years? What month of these years are these temperature increases going to happen? You can't just sit there and tell me, because I can figure out the ruse. You can't just sit there and tell me that a hundred years from now or 50 or whatever it is, "It's going to be sweltering all over the globe and four degrees Celsius hotter!" I want to know the gradation increases.
That's how the rest of the weather is forecast. You go to the ten day forecast, they tell you what it's going to be. It's just a National Weather Service wild guest, but at least they do it. They tell us what the forecast, the cloud cover, the precipitation probabilities are. Well, let's put this in the global warming forecasts, shall we? If this is about climate science, if this is about the weather, then let's see it! If we've got a span here of 50 years that the temps are going to rise four degrees Celsius, I want to know what it's going to be ten years from now. Show us the models -- and, of course, that's an average so where's it going to get cooler? Where is it going to go up seven degrees Celsius? Where is it going to go up three degrees Celsius? I want to know these things. You can't just rope me in by saying, "Fifty to a hundred years from now there'll be a four degrees Celsius increase globally," and cause me panic, because I'm not participating in this garbage anymore.