Back Home Button
The Rush Limbaugh Show
Excellence in Broadcasting
RSS Icon


1998 Not Hottest Year on Record


RUSH: Global warming stories all over the place because it is 100 degrees in a lot of places out there. It's August. It was 100 in August when I was growing up. It was 100 degrees in August for ten straight days in Kansas City back in the late 70s.

I've got a story here from Reuters that is embargoed until 2 o'clock. I'm tempted to break the embargo, but I probably won't because I play by the rules. But the basic story -- and I'm going to give you the details of this as the program unfolds -- one of the central tenants of the global warming hoaxers today is that 1998 was the hottest year in history on record. And that five of the top ten hottest years have been in the last ten years. Five of the hottest years have been in the last ten. It turns out that the statistics, the temperature data that NASA used to compile the temperatures in 1998 is wrong. 1998 was not the hottest year on record. 1934 was. In fact, five of the top ten, I believe, I'm going to have to check this, five of the top ten warmest years on record are in the 30s, during the Dust Bowl era and so forth.

In fact, this Reuters story talks about how global warming is going to be off the charts starting in 2009 and in this story they actually say that the global warming scientists are really frightened now because 2009 is going to just blow 1998 out of the water in terms of breaking records, and 1998 is now shown to be not true. A blogger discovered this. I'll give you the details as the program unfolds today in a more, shall I say, systematic way. The thing to remember is that 1998 is not the warmest year on record. It forms one of the central theses about the current global warming hoax.


RUSH: The credit for the information I'm going to pass on to you is owed to Steve McIntyre. He's a blogger. ClimateAudit is his site. This all got started with the announcement recently within the past year or two, whenever it was, that 1998 was the hottest year on record in the United States of America. Now there's a blog out there also called NorCal blogs, they have a little subdivision of it called "What's up with that?" It's a blog that deals with puzzling things in life, nature, science, so forth. These guys that run this blog got very curious about the methods for taking official temperatures in this country.

For example, where are the thermometers put? And so they've got guys, just citizens running around, state after state, all over the state, taking pictures and looking at every official temperature monitoring station. They published a picture of a monitoring station in Detroit lakes, Minnesota. The official thermometer is in the back of this radio station in a little wood hut, right next to two air conditioning compressors outside. You know that those things put out gobs and oodles of hot air. It was assumed that the temperature spike in 1999 was due to, in this instance, the air conditioner. So they made a big deal out of this and those of us who follow that stuff said, "Ahh-ha! How can we ever rely on the accuracy of anything regarding temperature when they have monitoring and reporting stations like this?" Turns out, the others in the blogosphere said, "Wait a minute, that's ridiculous." They raised holy hell about the explanation being the air conditioning compressors. So the guys that do this said, "Okay, if it's not the air conditioning compressors, then what did cause the temperature jump at the time? Because it spiked." They have a chart here that shows 1998, 1999, temperature spiking all over the official Detroit lakes reporting station.

So Steve McIntyre, who lives in Toronto, began to investigate the data and the methods used to arrive at the results that were graphed by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. What he discovered was amazing. NASA doesn't fully publish computer source code and formula they use to calculate the trends and the graph I have here nor the correction used to arrive at the correct data. So we had to reverse engineer the process by comparing the raw data and the processed data. And the bottom line is, that 1998 is no longer -- you can say NASA made a reporting error or did they make a reporting error? Did they do this on purpose? How long have they known that it was erroneous and haven't corrected it? But the bottom line of this is that 1998 is no longer the hottest year on record. Four of the top ten hottest years on record are from the 30s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939 while only three of the top ten warmest years on record are from the last ten years, '98, 2006 and 1999. Well, you might say, "So what? What does this matter, Rush?"

Well, when 1934 was the hottest year on record, and NASA may know about it and doesn't correct the data, and when a guy named James Hansen involved in all this, who is a political activist, then you have to figure there is a reason why they want 1998 continue to be reported as the warmest year on record. And voila, from a soon-to-be released Reuters story, "A study forecasts that global warming will set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, which was the warmest year on record." So ladies and gentlemen, what do we have here? We have proof of man-made global warming. The man-made global warming is inside NASA. The man-made global warming is in the scientific community with false data. This is irresponsible. This is supposedly scientific data. It is unchallengeable. It is inarguable. And it's bogus. I don't know how long they've known it. I don't know if they intend to correct it or not. I doubt you'll hear anything about this, other than this program. The Drive-By Media, this is not going to interest them. "Oh, Rush, irrelevant footnote. Everybody knows that global warm is happening out there." All right, well, you see how this works.

I did a little test here. I sent this news out to some people this morning and they said, "So what? It's a NASA reporting error. Who cares? 1998 is not the hottest year on record. '34 is." That alone to me is pretty interesting because global warming has been a big deal the past 20 years, man-made, hotter and hotter and hotter. We're nowhere near as hot as we have been 75, 71 years ago. Nowhere near as hot. That alone, but then, when I tell them, guess what? New global warming forecast from scientists set in with a vengeance after 2009 with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998. You see how this stuff works? So it is just more evidence, ladies and gentlemen, that this whole global warming thing is a scientific hoax. Newsweek has even gotten this story.

Newsweek has this story, current issue, that is the most irresponsible, one sided, no science in it, where they go after the global warming deniers. The use of the term deniers, global warming is on purpose. Holocaust deniers and so forth. It has gotten so bad here, I tell you what the Newsweek thing means. It means we are winning the debate. I said that I think we are going to beat this thing back. In four or five years we'll have a majority of people understanding how phony and fraudulent this is. It is a religion and is being advanced as a reason to raise your taxes, control more of your life, reduce your lifestyle, all coming from the United Nations and allies of the United Nations and the scientific community and elsewhere. But this Newsweek piece, Paul Chesser at the American Spectator, dissected it and brilliantly so. He says, "Now even the partisan-resistant public must acknowledge what conservatives have known for a long time: that Newsweek is driven by a leftist agenda, even if they won't acknowledge it themselves. That can't be illustrated more clearly than by the magazine's cover story this week, titled 'Global Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine.' Science writer Sharon Begley writes proudly and passionately in what she obviously thinks is an eye-opening expose' about the conspiring entities who 'deny the science of climate change.'

"In other words, those of you still with reservations have been duped. What else could be the explanation, since Begley claims rock-solid resources that uncontrovertibly nailed down the left's climate change dogma? ... What was the report? Who were the scientists? I have no idea -- apparently all that matters are the number of experts (probably no larger than the amount of scientists working at a large state university), the number of countries (all friends of the U.S., right?), and the word 'unequivocal.' And what do you think were the philosophical leanings of 'governments, academia, green groups and (unidentified) businesses?' Consensus indeed."

It has gotten so bad that Algore is on the warpath now. He says that global warming research is under attack. He's accusing Big Oil trying to influence opinion. He is critical of the effort. But isn't that exactly what he is trying to do? What is the difference in big oil trying to influence it as opposed to a bunch of bought and paid for science hacks? What's the difference? The double standard here is a crock of you know what. Ask the questions. Does Algore use ethanol or alternative fuels? Would Algore bet his fortune that his predictions will come true? I have offered this. You can go on these online bet sites and wager on anything. Will all these global warming supporters bet everything they've got on their predictions coming true? Of course not. They wouldn't dare.


RUSH: Dennis in Pittsburgh. I'm glad you called, sir. Welcome to the EIB network.

CALLER: Thank you, Rush. I first met you through KDKA Pittsburgh when you were announcing your 202 affiliate sign-up.

RUSH: I remember that. I remember that trip back there very well.

CALLER: It has been quite a while. Anyway, my point is, that I think that you and my other conservative talk show host friends, are giving legitimacy to the liberal, global warming garbage by merely responding to it. I think if you ignored it, they would have a lot more difficulty reaching the American public. You and the other conservative libertarian talk show host, they would have a lot more difficulty reaching the American public. Air America failed. Couldn't get their message through there.

RUSH: What do you mean they couldn't get the message out? You watch "Good Morning America", "Today" they have their two networks all over Georgia. Global warming, 105 degrees. BS, it's Ausgust. I appreciate what you are saying. It's the old argument, you got somebody out there criticizing you, you ignore them or let it go. This is different. This is liberalism on the march. I may as well use your theory and ignore the Hillary Clinton campaign on the idea that it won't have any legitimacy and won't get it publicized. No, no, no, no. We are the bulwark here. We are the dyke holding back the onslaught of liberalism in this country. It comes disguised. It comes camouflaged, such as it is in global warming. Global warming is said to be something to save the planet and save humanity, because humanity is destroying the planet so we have to make amends for our sins. We have to raise taxes. We have to rollback our lifestyles. I'm not going to ignore the onslaught of liberalism because there are still millions of Americans that need to be informed and educated.

It's just like the blob. It just seeps in everywhere. I'll give you a true statement. Something that is an organization, a group people, a family, whatever, that is not conservative by definition will be liberal. Liberalism is easy. It's the most gutless choice you can make. Conservatism is an applied intellectual application. So things that are not conservative, by definition are going to be liberal. You just can't sit back and let this disguised onslaught take place. I couldn't. And I won't.

Chuck in Big Rock, Illinois. Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.

CALLER: Hello, Rush.

RUSH: Hey.

CALLER: Hey, nice talking to you. I heard your discussion on the temperatures. I've been measuring temperatures probably for 35 years. I'm a professional engineer in various aspects of my career. And, I have found that these standard weather shelters that you talked about, they put the thermometers or instrumentation inside, and they have the little slots where the air goes in and out. The hope is that this is a standard measurement.

RUSH: Right.

CALLER: However, humidity affects it. Flow of air through it may affect it.

RUSH: Concrete affects it. Asphalt affects it.

CALLER: Everything does. There's a micro climate effect. Depends what micro climate you stick it in. If you put it in Death Valley, it's going to behave a little different than some other place up in Alaska. Instruments have varied in accuracy over the years, a hundred years ago, one can argue are not as accurate as they are now. There are visual measurements that are made, you know. If your thermometer has one degree increments, you could probably read to a one half a degree accuracy and then some of these claims are saying that we've had temperature rises of almost a degree in a hundred years. I really can't see that as a trend with respect to the lack of instrumentation and accuracy over the years. Certainly, in the future, would get better instrumentation. But, I, as temperature of measure person, there's a lot of problems with measuring temperatures and I'm very leery about some of this.

RUSH: Well, common sense would make you leery and you have more than common sense because it is your career. So you know what you are talking about. I mean, I can take it to a rudimentary level. I have an iPhone. The iPhone can get you the weather and current temperature from most cities in the country. I think it is the country, not around the world. I haven't checked the world. I also have a bunch of MACs and a widget that does the same thing. They use two different sources. One is AccuWeather and one is yahoo. I was checking the other day, I was going to go to New York and looking at the temperature. It was a two degree difference. I thought the temperature was official. I thought we had an official temperature. It wasn't because of the time of day when they take it. They change them every hour. Some places, ten to the hour, some places right on the hour. But there was a two degree differential in what was reported. Maybe one was Central Park or LaGuardia or J-FK. Who knows. But, anyway, this stuff is so all over the ballpark that it is only reasonable to be suspicious of it. But what he is calling about here, folks, if you missed the first hour, a central tenant in the theory that we are going through a period of vast man-made warming is based on the fact that 1998 is recorded as the warmest year on record. And it's not.

It turns out that the numbers that NASA reported and calculated that year are wrong. It's just a bunch of bloggers who found this out. I don't know how long NASA has known it. They haven't corrected it or if they do know it and haven't corrected it. But you know there is an agenda inside there. They have this guy James Hansen who is big global warming advocate. It turns out the warmest year on record is 1934. And five of the top ten warmest years on record are in the 30s. So, the idea that '98 was the highest and hottest, and of course I shared with you this story that Reuters has coming out today. Let me just read you the lede to it. I can't read you the story because it is embargoed until 2 o'clock.

"Global warming is forecast to set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, the warmest year on record, scientists reported on Thursday." So they're using 1998 as the benchmark and it is going to be even worse than that! They don't dare say 1934 because '34 was before anybody was even talking global warming. Well, actually that is not true. They have been talking about global warming or global freezing in the media. A couple guys did stories on this. The media can go out and find experts, quote unquote, in literally anything. In the 1800s, they were worried about coming glaciers and ice ages. Every 20-25 years it shifts from cooling to warming. It's all part of this cycle. Keep everybody on the edge of their seats and in a constant state of fear and crisis and angst and so forth. But the data here is so spurious on all of this. The models don't even take into account all of the factors that affect the climate. The greenhouse. It is all a hoax. It's all designed to advance liberalism and what's liberalism? Liberalism, in this case, is more and more control over individuals. It is concentration of power in the state. It is increased taxes on everybody so as to facilitate your control over them.

In this case, they are using the same belief systems or the same theories that religions use. You must take it on faith. It has its Garden of Eden, the original pristine Earth. It has the arrival of man. It has sin. Yeah, the sin is the destruction of the planet. It has redemption. Believing in global warming. Letting your tacks to go up. Rollback your lifestyle. Start changing your light bulbs. Go out and do this carbon credit gunk. Have a carbon neutral lifestyle. All of this stuff is designed to get you to change the way you live because the liberals don't like you being free. They want you under their control. It's got salvation, got everything in it. It has the primary ingredient of every religion: faith. Because none of it can be proved. They have to run around and say, "Well, there's a consensus in science." Consensus and science -- I got blue in my face saying this -- don't and cannot mutually co-exist.


RUSH: One more little global warming story. It's from the Sacramento Bee, amazingly. It starts this way: "Don't tell Al Gore, but global warming is taking a holiday in Sacramento this week. The maximum temperatures Sunday and Monday set records each day -- as the coolest 'highs' for the dates since record-keeping began in 1877." I used to live out there. It's my adopted hometown. They can routinely get, in August, 110. It's a dry heat. It's a valley. It will get down to 55 at night because of the sea breeze coming up the delta, but it is scorching hot out there. You know, 80. What's the high temperature? "Monday's downtown high was 74, three degrees cooler than the previous record of 77 set in 1906. Sunday's downtown high was 76 and that broke the previous record of 78 set in 1962. Monday's downtown high was just 74 degrees, 3 degrees cooler than the previous record of 77 degrees set in 1906... Sunday's downtown high of 76 frosted the previous low maximum of 78, set in 1962. 'These were the coldest highs for Aug. 5 and Aug. 6 that we've ever recorded,' said meteorologist Cynthia Palmer of the National Weather Service office in Sacramento." She credits this to "'The marine layer along the coast really deepened -- and then the trough of low pressure brought that marine air inland." Anyway, I'm amazed. The Sacramento Bee is the Drive-By Media out there.



Rush 24/7 Audio/Video

Listen to the Latest Show Watch the Latest Show
Listen to the Latest Show Watch the Latest Show




Most Popular

EIB Features