RUSH: The United Nations, as forecast -- the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate or whatever -- has predictably issued their latest report based on the hoax of man-made global warming, and they say that it is getting warmer and that we are causing it. I think it's a blatant, flood-the-zone technique. We're not getting warmer. For the last 15 years, it has not gotten warmer. Everybody's running around in the global science community saying, "Global climate change," trying to explain why it hasn't warmed.
They're using, "Well, it's been hurricanes, volcanoes, Sahara dust and so forth." I don't know, folks. We live in an era where nothing is real except the nothing. The real nothing is what's passed off as real, and what is real is mocked and laughed at, made fun of and discarded. Algore, four days ago, called for making climate change denial a taboo. Algore said, "There needs to be a political price for climate denial." A political price?
Now, remember, we have a Constitution, and there is in the Constitution the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments. One of them, the first one, is freedom of speech -- and specifically political speech was singled out as protected. Global warming is a political issue, and if you doubt that, the very people pushing it are all political people, be they scientists or otherwise. But Algore is a politician. He's not a scientist. He has no formal scientific training. He never has had.
He's a politician.
The number one advocate for global warming is a politician, and here's a guy now who has made millions, multiple millions of dollars scaring people with this big, fat lie. It has been proven to be a lie and untrue. He has made millions off of this, and he's suggesting that anybody who disagrees with him be punished, or outcast, or pay some kind of a price. Public humiliation or a tax increase or something. This is precisely the mental attitude of dictators and statists who don't tolerate dissent.
They want to criminalize dissent. They want to criminalize people that disagree with him. Algore is apparently not interested in entering the arena of ideas and winning debates with any of this, or any of the people that disagree with him. "Within the market system we have to put a price on carbon, and within the political system," he said, "we have to put a price on denial." Do you believe this? A price on denial!
He said this at the Social Good Summit in New York City. Algore said, "It is simply unacceptable for major companies to mimic the unethical strategy of the tobacco companies in presenting blatantly false information in order to protect a business model." He added, alleging what some oil and coal companies are doing, "There needs to be a political price for denial."
"He urged attendees to challenge denial of climate change in conversations in families and communities and elsewhere. 'We can win this conversation and winning a conversation can make all the difference,' Gore said. 'Don’t let denial go unchallenged.' Gore noted how racism and later homophobia have become increasingly unacceptable." So now denying the politics of global warming is akin to racism and homophobia, and it must be treated the same way.
Those of you, those of us who dare disagree with Algore or any of the other politicians trying to advance the latest liberal cause of climate change are no different than racists and homophobes, and we need to be called out. We need to be made to pay a political price. Now, this ought to, within its own context, fully explain just how political this issue is. It ought to fully explain that the proponents of this don't think they can defend it in these desired conversations.
Obama said we don't have a debt problem. Is he a denier? He said it. He said raising the national debt doesn't mean we're incurring more debt. Well, it's a taboo. I mean, Obama's denying debt. Does he have to pay the price for denying that we're getting more in debt? It's absurd. But Algore is dead serious, and so are the proponents, because they're like other leftists, folks. They're intolerant of dissent. Their objective is not to be civil. Their objective is not to be bipartisan. Their objective is not to get along and avoid a government shutdown or whatever.
Their objective is to silence, however they can do it, any opposition, any dissent.
RUSH: No, no, no. I'm not concerned about it. I think the cult of climate change... Well, I was gonna say it's in its final days. The cult is not in its final days. The polling data is such that the vast majority of the American people now do not buy this, and for reasons that are not the best but we'll take 'em. They associate climate with weather, and it isn't getting warmer. There is no sign. Nothing that has been predicted is happening. Nothing since 1980 when all this really started in earnest, none of it's happening.
There are no massive floods. There are no massive earthquakes. It's not swelteringly hot. This was an unusually cool summer. Most people look at the claims of climate change and oppressive heat and flooding and don't see any evidence. They say, "Where is it?" These guys have had to change the terminology from "global warming" to "climate change," and now any extreme weather is said to be because of that. This thing, this UN report today, the IPCC, is a last-gasp effort.
Everybody involved in this, from Algore on down on his side of the aisle, is simply doing this for two reasons. They're making big money out of it. They're establishing relationships with crony capitalists with it. They're making big money, and, at the same time, they're advancing the liberal agenda. That's one of their objectives. But in terms of actually creating a groundswell of public opinion and support, they're not.
But again they're leftists. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether it's the people oppose them or support it. They're gonna do what they're gonna do, and they're gonna keep at it. So it's a last-gasp effort in order to convince people that it's real, but they are not going away. Leftists don't give up anything once they get started on it as evidenced by what's happening in the country now, given the social agenda and the political agenda.
They just keep going. They never, ever stop.
That's why they have to be defeated.
That's why this whole idea of bipartisanship and compromise and getting along with them is silly. There's nothing to compromise with. There's no opportunity for bipartisanship. It's not what they're after. They have to be defeated. If liberalism is to be stopped, if the fundamental transformation of America is to be stopped, it has to be defeated, not worked with, not compromised with -- and that's not a radical statement. It's simply a statement of fact, that politics is about winning.
All political fights. The people who are doing this, there's no compromise with these people. It's not compromise so that people will have a functioning government. It's all a trick. Those of us who are diametrically opposed to the spread liberalism, the advance of statism, the advance of socialism. We're called extremists. Now Algore calls us deniers and wants to make us pay a political price for it. That's panic. There's no question that that is panic. But, I'm sorry, folks, we're not extremists. If anything, we're traditionalists.
If anything, we're preservationists.
We're trying to preserve the greatness of this country -- and in order to do that, these people are gonna have to be defeated. Not compromised with, not gotten along with, not given just a little of what they want.
RUSH: Here's another little bit of ammo on the global warming side. It is acknowledged by everybody, even the Algore types -- one of the reasons why they've been in such a panic -- it has not warmed in 15 years. They even admit this. Now, let me ask you a question. If you have been warning people about global warming since the 1970s and '80s, and if you've been out telling people how bad it's gonna be and you've been urging people to change the way they live. And if you have been fighting who you think are evil polluters, and you have had some success in making them change the way they do business. And if you have been constantly warning people of the absolute horrors that will result from global warming, such as floods and all this other stuff, rising sea levels.
If a 15-year period goes by where warming doesn't happen, wouldn't you be happy? And wouldn't you even maybe want to claim credit for it? You've been working very hard on this since the seventies and eighties. You've been getting people to change the cars they drive. You have been trying to get people to stop using coal. You got people out there in small numbers, but still some are doing it, buying electric cars and hybrids, and you've got all these companies doing green this and green that. I mean, if you're big advocate, you could claim a lot of success. You'd be lying but you could claim a lot of success. You could claim you've changed a lot of people's lifestyles.
You have done a lot to alert public consciousness about it, and then all of a sudden, 15 years ago go by, and it doesn't warm, wouldn't you be happy? All of that horror, maybe not gonna happen. Wouldn't that be good news? I would think so, but why isn't it? Why isn't the fact that it didn't get warmer for 15 years, why is that a problem? And when you look at it that way, you see that this is nothing put politics. And then you say, "Well, then maybe these global warming proponents don't want this to stop. Maybe they don't want it to end. Maybe they don't want to really succeed in stopping global warming." It hasn't warmed in 15 years. They could claim credit for it and they'd have had the help of the media. They could have made even greater inroads in altering lifestyles by claiming credit for it.
But they didn't. They got mad. And they claimed that it was just a temporary interruption and started looking for wacko, crazy excuses to explain why it didn't get warmer. Well, I thought the objective of the global warming crowd was to arrest the warming, to stop it, to save us all, to save our planet, to save the poor people of the world. And for 15 years it hasn't warmed, and there wasn't one of them that was happy. And there wasn't one of them that claimed success.
Every one of the advocates, every one of the prime movers immediately concocted reasons and excuses to explain that they weren't wrong. That it is gonna get hot. It's gonna get sweltering hot. It's gonna get destructively hot. It's gonna get meltingly hot. It's gonna get so hot that the arctics and the Antarctics are gonna melt and we're all gonna be under water. It's gonna happen. It's gonna happen. Send me your money now.
But it didn't happen for 15 years, and so then came these cockamamie excuses. "Well, yeah, there's a volcano we didn't figure on, and Sahara dust. Yeah, the Pacific oscillation. Yeah, El Nino or La Nina happened. We didn't think it was gonna happen. Maybe our model's missing --" There was no happiness. There was no even claiming of success. There was panic. And then they started examining maybe their models were wrong. Models? Yes, climate models, my friends, computer climate models where they claimed to be able to predict what the climate is gonna be 50 years from now, a hundred years from now.
We can't predict what the weather is gonna be with ontological certitude five days from now, but the climate, "Oh, no, that's easy, our models, we got that handled." Models weren't right. Abject panic set in. That's why the IPCC has issued their report. That's why Algore's out there. That's why these people are pounding the pavement again, because common sense is standing in the way. Common sense has become their number one obstacle. I think they blew it by not claiming credit for it.
This is a political movement, folks. Global warming, climate change, is a leftist, Democrat Party political movement. If I could just make everybody believe that, it would be the end of this. Algore wanting to somehow penalize people that disagree says it all. Apparently the science doesn't stand on its own. Apparently the science is not enough to persuade the world that we're getting warmer. So we need a consensus of scientists to say that it is. But then when you have a consensus, i.e., a vote, do you have science?
Let's say that some Looney Toon wanted to postulate that the earth is flat today. Some Looney Toon, some wacko from the sixties, let's say he went out and paid a bunch of scientists and he had a pool of a hundred scientists, and he found 55 of 'em to agree. Consensus of scientists says the earth is flat. But of course you can have all the consensus in the world you want, but it isn't true. And science has never been up to a vote, real science. Politics always is. And that's exactly what this is. But I think their mistake was not claiming credit for it. They were so invested in their models and they were so invested in the long term politics of this. The longer this goes, the richer they get. They don't want it to end.
Let me give you another analogy. How about the race industry. Do you think that the Reverend Jackson and Al Sharpton would ever celebrate the end of racism in America? If such a thing could be established, if that day were to ever come, and many thought the election of "Barack Hussein Obama! Mmm! Mmm! Mmm!" represented that. Many people who voted for the guy thought that's what his election would mean, the end of racism in America. We've cleansed ourselves, they hoped. Huh-uh.
This is easy as predicting that two and two is four. The election of the first black president means any criticism of him is gonna be called racism, and it's only gonna get worse, and that's what's happened. But if we could ever get to that day where we could say that it's over, think Jackson would to put up with it? He's out of business, isn't is he? So is the Reverend Sharpton, if there's no more racism. To show you how desperate they are they have to take an Hispanic guy, claim he's white in the Trayvon Martin thing just to keep the whole thing alive. And then when there is real racism of the reverse kind, they ignore it, because the racism really is another liberal Democrat political movement.
It is not an actual behavior exhibited by a majority of Americans. It's a political movement. The whole race industry is. I'll give you another extra with another question. You've heard the old saw that if somebody in his basement invented the internal combustion engine that really got 75 miles to the gallon, what would they do to this guy? The old saw is they'd find a way to bury him and they'd find his invention, they'd bury it and nobody would ever hear about it because the oil industry wouldn't be interested in it, and neither would Big Auto.
Okay, let's head down the road. How many charities, how many scientists, how many hospitals, medical institutions are devoted to the treatment of cancer? And let's say, hopefully, someday that there is indeed a cure. Do you think that it's going to be universally embraced? Or will there be people who say, "No, no, no. We haven't cured cancer. No, no, this guy's a charlatan. There's no way we're gonna cure cancer."
There's a whole industry that is rendered kaput.
No, this isn't a cynical view. This is strictly human nature. We're talking about the way people earn their living. This is how Algore got rich. It's how these scientists are making a living. It's how they get their grants. So many people in this global warming business don't even have real jobs. They run around with their hands out. They're begging for donations. They're begging for grants -- and in order to get the money, you have to tell the grantor what he wants to hear.
So if somebody's gonna give you money to study global warming, and they believe in it, you better have science that indicates that it's happening. If you do, you'll keep getting your money, and you'll keep being able to buy food and cars and houses and so forth. But it isn't honest. This whole global warming movement is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the entire world, but specifically the United States. You ever wonder why that is?
Why is the United States the number one target of these people who claim we have to dial it back, we have to dial back our progress, we have to dial back our technological advancement, we have to dial it back? Why is that? Why is it that we have to pay all the increased taxes or the vast majority of them, the lion's share in order to fight this? Why is it that we have to do that? Could this also be a United Nations assault on the United States? Of course it is all of these things.
It's all political, and in every one of these things, we are up against the left, which embodies itself as the Democrat Party, pure and simple.
RUSH: No. What I was gonna say is, if I'm in a global warming movement, and it hasn't warmed up in the last 15 years, I'd claim credit for it. I say it's all the hybrids. It's the reduction in coal! I claim that everything I've been advocating is the reason, and then I say, "We need to do more of this." I mean, if their objective is to downsize this country and downsize our lifestyle and downsize our progress, we had a golden opportunity.
Fifteen years of no warming! They could have claimed credit and had a pretty good chance of being supported by the media in advocating further lifestyle change. But they didn't, did they? Because they don't want the issue changing in any way. They don't want the premise changed. The premise is it's getting warmer and we're causing it, and nothing is gonna change that narrative. Nothing. Even if they can claim success in it.
The narrative, the template is, "It's getting warmer, we're causing it, and we have to pay a price," and it's never gonna end. Just like affirmative action will never end. There will never be a day where somebody says, "You know what? Okay, we've had enough reverse racism now that we've evened the score, and we're gonna get rid of it and we're now in a level playing field." They will never happen. The price will never be paid.