RUSH: Cory in Richland, Washington, welcome to the EIB Network, Sir. Hello.
CALLER: Hello. Hey, Rush, how's it going?
CALLER: A couple things, actually. First one was with the new emissions tax down in California.
RUSH: Yeah, I know all about it. I'm the host.
CALLER: Well, they claim that the people that it's going to hurt is the rich people or whoever can go out and buy the big gas guzzler and whatnot, and they're the ones who are gonna end up paying that tax. So what about the poor people who can't afford to upgrade to the new ultralow-emissions vehicles? Seems to me that they are the ones who would suffer more from that tax.
RUSH: Your instincts are right on the money. Any time these liberals come along with tax increases that are designed to punish the upper tier, they end up hurting the little guy, big time. By the way, California is working on its own emissions increase in the cost to register a car and gasoline taxes. Los Angeles is working on its own adjunct to this. (sigh) All under the premise of a hoax. I got a Global Warming Stack. You know what? I need to get into this Global Warming Stack here because there is some fascinating stuff in this. I've been stockpiling it here for two days. First, there is a... You know, one of the things that I have attempted to shout from the mountaintops as often as I can is something I heard Michael Crichton say, and it's true. "There can be no consensus in science." Science does not allow consensus. You don't take a vote on what your scientific proposition is, and whatever the majority thinks ends up being called science. Global warming, the consensus of science? They essentially refute their own conclusion when they use the word "consensus" -- and here we have in The Australian, which is a newspaper: "'Good Science Isn't About Consensus' -- Australia is faced, over the next generation at least and almost certainly much longer, with two environmental problems of great significance.
"They are, first, how to manage water and, second, how to find acceptable alternatives to oil-based energy. Global warming is not one of those two issues, at least for me, and I see it as a distraction..." This alternatives-to-oil thing, this is going to drive me insane, this alternatives to oil. If people would just stop and think for a moment, there aren't any! The private sector is indeed working on them. (sigh) Sorry, I don't want to go through the whole thing because of limited time here, but I've got a brilliant monologue on this in the archives at RushLimbaugh.com. From the French News Agency: "Climate change will increase the risk of people losing their sight through cataracts because of higher levels of ultraviolet rays, an expert said Monday. 'The three main risk factors that lead to cataract blindness are age, smoking and UV exposure, in that order,' said Andreas Mueller of the Fred Hollows Foundation." Climate change. Increased cataract blindness, experts.
Here's another brilliant story. This is from NewScientist.com: "Apart from the human devastation, a small-scale nuclear war between India and Pakistan would destroy much of the ozone layer, leaving the DNA of humans and other organisms at risk of damage from the sun's rays, say researchers." No kidding! Nuclear war would be bad for the environment, too, eh? Who would have thunk that?
Here's the big news, though: "Global temperatures have not risen since 1998." That is ten years ago. "Global temperatures in fact will drop..." This is the BBC to boot: "Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said. The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer. This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory." La Nina, El Nino, these are the things that can affect global temperatures, not even sure of the models.
The Daily Mail had the same story: "The world will experience global cooling this year, according a leading climate scientist," same guy at the World Meteorological Organization.
The New York Times on April 6: "'A Shift in the Debate Over Global Warming' -- The charged and complex debate over how to slow down global warming has become a lot more complicated. Most of the focus in the last few years has centered on imposing caps on greenhouse gas emissions to prod energy users to conserve or switch to nonpolluting technologies. Leaders of the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change -- the [frauds] awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year with former [Algore] -- have emphasized that market-based approach." There's nothing market-based about this approach! Governments are demanding it! What is market-based approach? There's nothing market-based about this. Imposing caps on greenhouse gas emissions? Who's doing the imposing? Governments are! You can't call this market-based. Anyway, "All three presidential candidates are behind it." Yeah, we know. "And it has framed international talks over a new climate treaty and debate within the United States over climate legislation. But now, with recent data showing an unexpected rise in global emissions and a decline in energy efficiency, a growing chorus of economists, scientists and students..." Students! Yes, my friends, even students are weighing in here, being allowed to make policy. "[S]tudents of energy policy are saying that whatever benefits the cap approach yields, it will be too little and come too late." (sigh) You see? There's nothing we can do. We're destroying the planet, and it's almost over.
"Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley recently warned that failure to take action on global warming could mean the extinction of the human race." You know, the claims of these nuts just get wilder by the day. The whole East Coast now is going to disappear. St. Louis will be the East Coast, and we're going to be cannibals, and we're going to eat ourselves to extinction -- all because of global warming.