RUSH: Nate in Buffalo, I'm glad you called, sir. Welcome to the EIB Network.
CALLER: Hey, Rush, pleasure to talk with you.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: We disagree on a lot of things. I know this study came out saying that the sun was not the cause of global warming. I know you disagreed with that. But I was just wondering, do you know what the first two planets were closest to the sun?
RUSH: The closest planets to the sun are Mercury and Venus.
CALLER: Yeah. Well, Venus is much warmer than mercury even though it's farther away from the sun and I guess that wouldn't make much sense, but it's because of the gases that are in the atmosphere.
RUSH: Well, but there are geophysical reasons that we can learn from the first glacial age on our own planet to explain this.
CALLER: What is that?
RUSH: Well, one thing, you can't compare the atmospheres of the earth to especially Venus, nor Mercury. And, by the way, I'm not willing to concede that Venus is hotter, but if it is, then it has things to do with circumstances that do not exist on this planet at all. So not only do I reject the notion that the sun has nothing to do it, I think it's absurd. I think it's like literally absurd for anybody to think the sun is not a factor. They don't factor precipitation on the effect on climate in this country. I think it's absurd for anybody alive today to sit there ask think -- this is how vain we are, that the climate today is ideal, and that from any variance from here is going to be destructive. No, we don't know that. We adapt. Human beings and other life forms on this planet have adapted to things that we can't control, and climate is one of them. It's ridiculous to me. It's intellectually depraved to me. This is a religion. This is a political issue. It's liberalism on the march. I'm glad you called, because I had this story in the Global Warming Stack, and I wasn't sure I was going to be able to get to it today. But your call has provided the perfect transition to it.
It is a story in BusinessandMedia.org (pdf). It's a website. It is written by R. Warren Anderson, a research analyst, and Dan Gainor, he's a Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow. These guys are think tank people. And they've done an analysis of the last 100 years of journalism on global warming. It's entitled "Fire and ice." It's 17 pages when you print it out. But this puts the blame for all of this hysteria on global warming exactly where it belongs, and that is the media! Now, for a hundred years we've had wacko scientists trying to advance agendas, and if the agenda happens to fit the media -- and the agenda here, by the way, is chaos. The agenda is crisis. That is why in 1979, Newsweek had run a cover on global cooling, the coming ice age, and there was a cover story on some magazine of a glacier, totally surrounding Manhattan with only Empire State Building protruding. Just as today, Algore's movie has a flood wiping out Manhattan. It doesn't matter, global cooling, global warming; it's crisis; it's we're in trouble; it's we need big government to fix it; we need to punish people; we need to control their lives. People are causing this. It's been going on for 100 years.
Here's the opening paragraph. "It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of 'geologists.' Only the president at the time wasn't Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn't warning about global warming -- it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age. The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be 'wiped out' or lower crop yields would mean 'billions will die.' Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting -- blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature. Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, 'Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.'
Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earth's surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning 'the earth is steadily growing warmer.' After a while, that second phase of climate cautions began to fade. By 1954, Fortune magazine was warming to another cooling trend and ran an article titled 'Climate – the Heat May Be Off.' As the United States and the old Soviet Union faced off, the media joined them with reports of a more dangerous Cold War of Man vs. Nature. The New York Times ran warming stories into the late 1950s, but it too came around to the new fears. Just three decades ago, in 1975, the paper reported: 'A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.'"
They have graphic portrayals of newspaper covers and magazine covers. Here's Science News, March 1, 1975, with Manhattan being enveloped by a glacier. "The future looked cold and ominous with this science depiction from March 1, 1975." Then TIME Magazine, June 24, 1974, story showed how arctic snow and ice had grown from 1968 to 1974. I don't know if it's the cover, might just be the story, but it had a graphic here of the expanding North Pole. New York Times timeline. September 18th, 1924, "MacMillan reports signs of new ice age." March 27, 1933, "America in longest warm spell since 1776." "Temperature line records a 25-year rise." Now, from 1924, we're talking about a new ice age and nine years later they're warning us of global warming in the New York Times, from '33 to 1975, "Scientists ponder why world's climate is changing. A major cooling widely considered to be inevitable. Global cooling was all the rage, all the magazines and newspapers back in '75 through '79. December 27, 2005, 'Past hot times hold few reasons to relax about new warming.'"
This is nothing more than typical media behavior. Nothing more than typical media distortion and really what it is, is constant focus on crisis. If somebody they think is credible, a scientist or an expert, comes out and says, "We got global warming. It's going to happen," you had a former vice president with a movie out there, they love it. It's crisis. It sells newspapers! It gets ratings! It promotes liberalism! It promotes big government! I don't think, folks, based on where some of our thermometers are that take official temperature readings in this country and around the world, I don't think we can possibly know for sure whether it's getting warmer or colder climate-wise worldwide. How can in the middle of global warming we set record lows in the summertime and have record highs in the winter? Some of these things just don't make sense. But aside from all that, you don't factor precipitation, you throw the sun out of the equation, and you only factor in rich countries and wealthy human beings and then point the finger of blame, you don't think that's liberalism? That's liberalism to its core, combined with a compliant media that is focused not on facts and truth and open exchange of ideas, but just promoting crisis, pure and simple. Don't fall for it. It's a hoax!
RUSH: I got pretty passionate there, folks, on this global warming thing, but I have a tough time dealing with people that end up being robots. This is a very, very insidious (at the same time ingenious) campaign that the people on the pro-global warming side have of trying to persuade your kids and everybody else that this is actually happening and it's of course America's fault, and the fault of other Western civilizations, highly achieved, highly advanced. Travel anywhere in the world where it's not advanced and tell me that they clean up their messes as well as we do, and we're going to certify you. Beyond all that, how to explain this? At the root of this is political activism everywhere, from all the scientists on this who say it is this, and then you've got the media that just loves to promote all this stuff. They don't question it. This great, great story called "Fire and Ice," I just shared with you minute amounts of data. But it's a total study of the media and some of the scientists over the years. Every 25 years, it changes. Warming, cooling, ice age, destruction, and it's all our fault. It's happening!
They haven't been right in 100 years about it. They have been predicting catastrophe for 100 years. It hasn't happened, and they're doing it again now, and they're revising the out-year catastrophe. Now they don't say in the next five or ten years. They're smart about it. They say 20 or 30 because you can't say in ten years it's not going to happen, so they still have 20 more years to scare you and so forth. But it's just an absolute, total, 100% hoax. Now, the climate changes all the time. I am not disputing that. I'm talking about the fact that only certain human beings and only certain countries are causing this to happen. It has everything. It has class envy. It has rich versus poor. It has haves and have-nots, and of course the haves are once again victimizing the have-nots, and we're stealing all the resources and burning all the fuel and putting all the CO2 up there -- and that's the thing. We're going to create an atmosphere like Venus, and we're all going to die. Frankly, it's ridiculous. It's not going to happen. We're adaptive. We can deal with it. (sigh) Anyway, I've said my piece on this. Chris in Martinsburg, West Virginia. I'm glad you called, sir. Welcome to the EIB Network.
CALLER: Dittos, Rush. (garbled)
RUSH: Psst. Hello?
CALLER: I wanted to comment on what the last caller was saying about temperatures on Mercury and Venus. Mercury has no atmosphere. So when the side of Mercury that's facing the sun, it is extremely hot, but the side of Mercury that is in nighttime or away from the sun is very cold. If you take those two temperatures and you average them, you are going to get a temperature that is probably a little bit lower, on the average, than Venus, which has a hyperatmosphere, and therefore has a constant temperature. There's just no variation in Venus' temperature, and it's always going to be a little bit higher than an average temperature of Mercury, which has a day and a night, and vast temperature swings on its surface.
RUSH: Well, Venus' atmosphere -- correct me if I'm wrong -- I know it's got a very strong greenhouse effect, but it's a dense atmosphere.
CALLER: Extremely dense.
RUSH: You can't see through it.
CALLER: Right. No, you can't see through it, and Venus --
RUSH: That's how dense it is. So to compare that with ours... Plus, look how much closer to the sun it is. Because of the density... People leave this factor out of the warming claims on our own planet. We've got CO2 here. There's a greenhouse effect here, there's no question. There's a huge one on Venus. But the CO2 portion in our atmosphere is minute compared to that which is on Venus, and the reason it changes very slowly is because the warming effect is short-circuited by weather that happens on the earth, such as clouds and precipitation that they still don't model and factor. None of that has taken place on Venus, or very little of it because the density of the atmosphere.
CALLER: No, you're absolutely right, and what's going on with Venus is that oceans never form, so a lot of their atmosphere is water vapor and a lot of other greenhouse gases.
RUSH: Water vapor is a huge greenhouse gas.
CALLER: Absolutely. Absolutely. So, you could be very misled if you only look at the data but you don't understand what the basis is.
RUSH: That's the point. Glad you called. That's exactly the point. You can be misled, you can be propagandized, and you can be brainwashed. But that guy that called, and his point was political. You know, he asked me about Venus, but he's trying to get me screwed around so that I end up tripping up and agreeing with his political point. I guess the best way for people who are ambivalent about this or even mildly curious, is think of it. It's just a political issue. It's a political issue that's shrouded in science. It is pushed forward with the best of intentions: to save the earth, and to save all living things -- except humans, because the earth really will not be safe, and it will not be saved until the mass of humanity is destroyed by a virus that doesn't kill anything else. There are advocates of that who got serious treatment in a recent Newsweek column. The guy's written a book! Thanks for the call, Chris. I appreciate it.
RUSH: Tom in Highland Park, Illinois, glad you waited, sir. You're next on the EIB Network.
CALLER: Hello, Rush.
CALLER: You know, when libs claim scientific justification for global warming --
CALLER: -- you need to understand there's a reason why they call it scientific consensus rather than scientific theory, and the reason is theory needs to incorporate all the known data, and there's some excellent reports out there right now showing that the nearby planets in our solar system are experiencing solar rises in their surface temperature.
RUSH: Yeah, we reported that, Mars, even Pluto, which they screwed by de-planetizing it for a while. But kids got upset. "You can't tell us that Pluto's not a planet," and so they had to make it a planet again.
CALLER: Well, there's another report out this year showing that all the planets in the solar system are experiencing similar rises in their surface temperatures. So if we're going to accept the scientific consensus as theory, we have to conclude that our American economy is causing a greenhouse effect across the whole solar system. Now, they realize they can't get away with calling it a theory so they've come up with this code term, "scientific consensus" to hide the fact that they're advancing a political agenda rather than scientific fact.
RUSH: Right. They're relying on the basic scientific ignorance of most people, "Oh, consensus, why most scientists agree, why, must be true." They're relying on that. Let me ask you a question. I should ask Roy Spencer this, but I don't have access to him right now. You seem to be informed on this. Do we have the technology to accurately measure surface temperatures on these outlier planets?
CALLER: Well, you're probably exceeding my technical knowledge, but the higher the temperature, the different the radiation is, and the different the color is, and through that I believe that they can measure the surface temperatures of the various planets.
RUSH: Right. It makes sense to me but then all those things you talked about, the radiation and the color and all that, still has to go through our polluted global warming atmosphere, with all that CO2 in it. How might that be distorting it some?
CALLER: I think the more important thing here, Rush, is why they are pushing global warming as such an important part of their political agenda. Would you care to suggest to your listeners why they're doing this or could I help you?
RUSH: Why don't you go ahead. I've already told them what I think.
CALLER: I think we don't have to guess at it. We can look right at Kofi Annan, a speech that he made last spring I believe as the secretary general of the UN, where he claimed that global warming was such a serious worldwide problem that nations needed to forsake their sovereignty to the United Nations to fix the problem. We all know what they say the problem is. It's the American economy. So what they're asking us to do is turn over the last successful capitalistic democracy over to a group that is highly dominated by either dictators, communist nations, or highly socialized states like France, Germany, and England. What I would suggest they're doing is advancing an agenda for worldwide socialism. Would you disagree?
RUSH: No. That's what the objective of socialists is, to wipe out capitalism wherever they can find it, gain control over as much of the wealth of each nation as possible, and the population.
CALLER: Well, there's a problem with that. I mean everybody wants to help out the unfortunate, but I've never seen a communist regime or even a highly socialized state that has not relied on autocratic rule. Therefore socialism really is the enemy of democracy. We've never seen a democratic communist nation anywhere raising its head in history, and the American Democratic Party, if we look at their agenda, it's very hard to find one thing on their agenda that you can distinguish from any communist or socialist regime that ever raised its ugly head in history.
RUSH: Aside from one thing. The Democrats have not yet proposed shooting people who try to escape or who disagree with them.
CALLER: I don't think that's accurate, because last week or two weeks ago we raised a monument to the goddess of democracy in Washington, which is supposed to commemorate the millions of people that died under brutal communist regimes, and it was held in our American liberal press as a controversial monument that the monument was not telling the full story of communism. If the full story of communism isn't murdering millions of people unnecessarily, then what is the other side, Rush?
RUSH: It is, no, it is. Communism kills, Undeniable Truth of Life Number 18. Communism kills. There's evidence to support it. Well, the reason that they won't let the whole story be told is because they don't want the whole story to be told, and they don't want that monument to go up. Anyway, I think all of liberalism is oriented toward control of resources and control of the population. For a whole host of reasons. An interesting call, sir.