RUSH: The UN's latest report from the international planetary committee on climate, whatever, IPCC, whatever the hell it stands for -- doesn't matter to me -- their latest report's out and it's the biggest scaremongering global warming report. Nobody will be spared, folks. In fact, because this is the scariest climate prediction ever, do you realize that we will experience a global surge in the number of golfers? Climate change would increase boating, golfing, and beach recreation at the expense of skiing. There would even be an increase in golf in Canada due to climate change, and that is supposed to panic us.
We're supposed to hear that: "No, no, no, wait a minute, you mean there's gonna be all that much more golf? There's no way!" These people don't know what they're talking about. Golf is in trouble, if you want to know the truth about it. Major golfing organizations are trying to figure out what they can do to attract more people to the game because they're not holding people's interest in the game. They're in a little trouble. And these guys -- I mean, this is how absurd. Nobody will be spared. We're all gonna die. We're all gonna suffer. Oh, it's gonna be horrible.
You know, by now this has become a laughingstock. Speaking of which, Barbara Boxer, she serves on the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. And what is the date for this release? March 30th. So this is just yesterday. US Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat, California, not to be confused with Senator Leland Yee, state senator, Democrat, San Francisco.
"US Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, released the following statement in response to the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Working Group II report on the impacts of climate change. Senator Boxer said: 'The latest IPCC report adds a tremendous sense of urgency for Congress to wake up and do everything in its power to reduce dangerous carbon pollution. In California, we can just look out the window to see climate change's impacts.'"
Wait just a second. She can see climate change from her house? She can just look out the window and she can see climate change? Yeah, "from the driest year on record in 2013 to the increased frequency and intensity of wildfires," she can see all of that just looking out the window. Sarah Palin never said, "Oh, yeah, I'm qualified on foreign policy. I can see Russia from my house." She never said it. Most Americans think she did say it because it was made up by Tina Fey in a parody on Saturday Night Live. She never said it. She was laughed at, ridiculed, made fun of, destroyed for being a total dunce and an idiot for saying, "Oh, yeah, I'm qualified in foreign policy. I can see Russia from my house." She never said it.
Barbara Boxer, "Oh, yeah, we can look out the window to see climate change's impacts." No, you can't! It's just getting absurd. It's getting more and more absurd as the days go by, because these people are panicking, and they're panicking because they're losing public opinion on this.
Something that's consistent with the left, as they panic, as they lose public opinion on any issue, they get funnier, more ridiculous, more outlandish. The claims, the scare tactics, the ways they attempt to frighten people, it just knows no bounds, no limits whatsoever. And that's what this latest IPCC report is: No one will be spared.
RUSH: Here's David in Provo, Utah. You're next. I'm glad you waited, sir. Welcome to the program.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. It's an honor to speak with you. I'm 27. I've been pretty much raised on your voice, and now I'm raising my son the same way.
RUSH: Well, I'm flattered. Thank you much.
CALLER: So, Rush, I'm calling to talk a little bit about global warming. I am a geologist, and I'll tell you one thing that's very interesting about you and your analysis of global warming. I mean absolutely no offense when I say that you don't necessarily grasp a lot of the science behind it when you're trying to explain a lot of things, but you seem to always come to the right conclusion just based on the people supporting it and the fiasco at East Anglia and all those kinds of things.
RUSH: Well, I appreciate that. He's basically saying my instincts are so right on, I don't even need to know what I'm talking about, I'm right anyway.
RUSH: That's what you're saying, right? I may not know what I'm talking about, but I'm right anyway.
CALLER: Yeah, exactly.
RUSH: This guy's a big fan. Stop and think of that. (laughing)
CALLER: Yeah. Yeah. So, I just wanted to give a little bit of insight on just a couple things that you've been saying recently. One of the things that we talked about, you know, what is normal on temperature and what is the average, and you try to, you know, say what is 60 years ago, we think that the average is something in our lifetime. And, as a geologist, one of the things we look at is the history of temperature through time. And while the farther back through time you go, the less accurate our estimates are, we do have ways of estimating the changes in temperature millions of years back. What's interesting is that today we're actually, geographically speaking, still in an ice age. There have only been about five ice ages in all of earth's history, and we're technically in one now because we have significant polar ice caps. And so that's just something interesting today is that it's been much warmer through most of earth's history than it is today.
RUSH: Well, I wouldn't object to that. In fact, I would add something to it. You know, we've been told the science on global warming is settled. And all they're a using is computer models! They're not using any empirical data. Folks, every prediction on global warming is based on a computer model that is simply nothing better than whatever the input data is. But I've got this story here: "Researchers Find Five Previously Undetected Greenhouse Gases." They've never been detected before. So how can it be settled science if we've just found five new previously undetected greenhouse gases? And does this mean it's even worse than we thought, or not as bad as we thought? Well, I will answer that question, even though I don't know what I'm talking about, when we come back.
RUSH: So as I mentioned earlier, we got this brand-new United Nations climate change global warming scare report out, and nobody is safe, nobody will go unscathed, nobody will escape. It's going to wipe everybody out in the next hundred years, when none of us are alive anyway to see whether or not they're correct.
Now, I want to emphasize two things, again. We had a caller just a moment ago -- and by the way, folks, the reason I was laughing about it was, our caller, he was trying to give me a really supreme compliment, and I understood this. He was trying to tell me that I am so smart that I know exactly the right answer to everything even when I don't know what I'm talking about, is the way he put it.
What he meant was, look, you're not trained in the sciences, you're not a geologist, you're not a climatologist, you're not a meteorologist, and yet you know this stuff. That's what he was trying to say. It's like even when I think I'm wrong, I'm right. When I tell jokes about the left, the jokes come true. He was trying to pay me a supreme compliment. And for that I was grateful.
He mentioned two things that I'd said. One was the average, normal temperature. For this global warming scare stuff to be relevant, the temperatures today and 15 years ago have to be what is normal since the beginning of time. And there was simply no way we know that because we don't have accurate recordkeeping for thousands and thousands and billions and billions of years ago. It's a wild guess. You go back and look at ice cores and tree trunk rings and all this, but we don't know.
The point is, they, these climate scientists, try to tell you they do know. But if you can just try to get your mind around this one concept, how do we know that what it is when we happen to be alive is what is normal for all time? Because these deviations are only relevant if what is happening now is normal. Well, let's say, for example, that the warming they claim, let's just play a little hypothetical, let's say it is warming, even though it isn't, let's say it's warming and we're headed for the devastation that these people say is waiting for us a hundred years from now. Well, what if that's what's normal is? What if where we're going is what normal is? How do we know?
The vanity of these liberals to assume that when they are alive, when they are scientists, when they are studying, that this is what is normal. That when they are alive is when the evil capitalist destroyers happen to exist, and these evil capitalist destroyers using fossil fuels are going to destroy the planet. When no external outside force yet has destroyed this planet, all of a sudden when they happen to be alive, the planet is subject to destruction.
Now, I just think it's absurd. We do not know that the temperatures, the climate of today is what is normal. By the way, what is normal? Is it what God intended? Is it an average of what's always been? We just don't know. This is such folly. We just do not know what's normal. That is why God made us adaptive. Because there's no normal, every living thing, regardless its intelligence, has to be able to adapt or it's up the creek. We are not, despite what anybody says, we are not built to live outside. We, human beings, require shelter, and sometimes that shelter requires heat.
For the longest time, we didn't have air-conditioning. That wasn't invented until Mr. Carrier did it in the forties. That's how recent it is. We adapt. As our knowledge base increases and as our entrepreneurial freedom is allowed and as our creative and inventive juices get flowing, we adapt. If we live in a floodplain, we get flooded out, we adapt. We move or we make a bet that we can still live there and it's not gonna happen for a hundred years. We adapt, because it isn't constant.
Birds migrate. Bears hibernate. It's called adaptation. And if you can't do it then you are going to be extinct as a species, and that's just the way it is. These people want to tell you we can't adapt, that this stuff's all gonna kill us unless we do what they say. What is it they say we should do? Big governments, ever-growing big governments, less and less individual freedom and liberty, higher taxes. Isn't it amazing how that's always the solution to every crisis that they come up with.
The second thing, which I think is important as a scientific matter, is that all of these predictions, I don't care whether it's Algore's movie that you watched and you might have been seduced by, think it's dead-on right, or any other global warming prediction that you believe. Every damned one of them is nothing more than what a computer has produced. Every global warming prediction, story, nightmare is the result of a computer model. It is not the result of empirical scientific data.
It is nothing more than a prediction. And the people that put these models together, human beings who are fallible, write the computer models, and then they put the data into them that they think they know, and they input the data based on an outcome they desire. They're human beings. These are people pushing global warming. They have been shown to be plenty capable of faking it, making up data, eliminating data that's detrimental to their cause. That's what we learned from the e-mails at East Anglia University in Great Britain.
There is no hard, fast science. Therefore there is no science and isn't settled, and science cannot be the result of a consensus. Science is not up for a vote. It is or it isn't. Just because 98% of scientists agree on something doesn't make it -- that's not at all how the scientific theory is vetted, any scientific theory. It's all become politicized, folks. There's not a thing in life today that is not politicized. That's why I always say, I wish people could learn ideology and understand it. If we could pull that off, we could spare of ourselves so much pain, suffering, and grief, it's not funny. If we could just get people to learn and understand what liberalism is and what conservatism is. And that's been one of the quests on this program since it started.
Now, this guy that called said we're actually in a current ice age. Now, I imagine many people that listened, "Well, this guy's a kook, it's hot where I am." The reason he's saying it is that an ice age does not mean the planet's covered in ice. An ice age doesn't mean there's no place for us to go. An ice age simply means the amount of ice on the planet is above -- there we go back to "normal" again, but the polar ice caps are larger now than they've been in a while, and very cold. The arctic is growing. (interruption) It isn't melting and the polar bears aren't in the water. Even if they are, they can swim 60 miles. Polar bears are made to be in water.
How many of you have been to the Central Park Zoo in July and seen their polar bears? Have you seen what they have to do? Those polar bears are living on slabs of ice in July. It's the most inhumane thing in the world to take a polar bear to the Central Park Zoo in the summertime. That's not where they're intended. It's why there aren't any polar bears in New York. It's too hot. We have 'em in the zoos, but they've gotta live on slabs of ice. Same thing with the penguins. Go take a look at the penguin display, Central Park Zoo. I've been there. It's freezing where they are. Take a look when the guy comes out to feed 'em, looks like Nanook of the North.
Anyway, I'm getting distracted. The point is, it's all computer models. The United Nations, IPCC, whatever, it's all computer models. There's no certainty. They just want you to think that the models are infallible. Do you know there are economic models, economic computer models? The Congressional Budget Office does them all the time. And that's how we were told that Obamacare would cost less than a trillion dollars. We had a computer model that assured us Obamacare is gonna cost less than a trillion dollars. The CBO swore by the thing and the reason they were able to swear by it is 'cause they only were allowed to use the data that Congress gives them.
Congress is run by the Democrats at this point, they say CBO's not biased, but it is based on the data they get. So the magic number was a trillion dollars. The war in Iraq cost a trillion dollars. The war in Iraq was immoral, unjust, which is why we had to get rid of it, but it was money we were spending, and Obamacare, it's gonna be less than the Iraq war cost. Oh, that's wonderful. Well, that number was a trillion dollars. Amazing. Obamacare first projections came in under a trillion dollars, $900 billion, everybody thought, wow, we're saving a hundred billion dollars doing Obamacare. How'd they do it? They had a computer model that swore by it.
How'd they do it? Well, it's a ten-year projection, and it's very clever what they did. They had 10 years of tax increases in their model but six years of benefits. So they had 10 years of revenue coming into the government by virtue of Obamacare, but because Obama was being delayed, full implementation to 2014 -- now that's been delayed to 2016 -- we were only gonna have six years of expenses associated with it. Well, naturally if you had a ten-year program, but only six of those 10 years are gonna be spending any money, but 10 years are gonna be collecting, it's gonna be easy to get whatever number you want, and they did, and it was a computer model that did it, and everybody swore by it. And now look, it's worthless.
It was worthless then, it's worthless now, as worthless as a climate change model is. It ought not be this hard to educate people, but I know what we're up against. We're talking fact here, and we're up against emotion, and we're up against the polar bears who are dying. No. We're up against we're killing the polar bears with our cars. Remember that stupid car commercial during the Super Bowl two years ago? A polar bear is walking through a neighborhood and it's examining all the cars it sees in various driveways. And finally it comes across an electric car, and it finds the owner and hugs the owner. The polar bears were thanking us for saving the planet by creating this car.
A, if a polar bear ever ended up in your neighborhood, you'd have to call animal control, you'd have to tranquilize it or shoot it or kill it 'cause it would kill you. It would break into your house, it would get your peanut butter and jelly or whatever else it could find in there and you wouldn't want to be anywhere near where this thing was, because they are predators. It wouldn't hug you. It would strangle you. It would squeeze you to death and go for your carotid artery and kill you. It doesn't know global warming to global cooling. It doesn't know an electric car. But little kiddies, impressionable young children, this is how they end up getting indoctrinated.
They go watch Gore's movie, they see a polar bear on three square feet of ice and they're led to believe that that's all the ice that's left and it's 'cause of us. They go home and start complaining, griping to their parents about how their parents are destroying the planet and parents want their kids to love 'em and so they go out and buy a different car to keep little Johnny quiet, make little Johnny love 'em. This is how this whole thing happens, and it's all bogus.
Now, from AccuWeather: "Researchers Find Five Previously Undetected Greenhouse Gases." Well, wait a minute. I thought the science was settled. "Two new scientific research efforts have uncovered five new man-made greenhouse gases that may play a role in climate change and ozone depletion." Oh, it's even worse than we thought, folks. We always knew that CO2 was out there destroying everything and methane, but now there are five other poisonous gases that we are creating. "Increasing greenhouse gases trap additional heat in lower --" tell people that in the upper Midwest, that any heat is being captured anywhere. But I digress.
"Increasing greenhouse gases trap additional heat in the lower atmosphere, which results in higher surface temperatures, AccuWeather.com Senior Meteorologist Brett Anderson said. 'Climate models certainly account for the increase in greenhouse gases.'" That's bull! Folks, these models are absolutely flat-out bullcrap! "Climate models certainly account for the increase --" of course they do because you programmed it into the models. A model, a computer model. So the computer knows. I don't know. I'm reacting because I just can't stand my intelligence being insulted this way.
Anyway, "The increase in greenhouse gases may be causing more extremes in global weather over the long term, such as heat waves, drought and heavy precipitation events."
So you see, everything that is not normal is now climate change, the models say so. "'However, it is very difficult to blame any particular extreme event on climate change.'
The discovery of three chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and one hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) were reported online March 9, 2014, in the journal 'Nature Geoscience' by researchers from the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, France and the Netherlands.
What I want to know is who paid them and how much.
"'We were certainly surprised to find so many previously undetected gases out there, and we keep finding more,' Johannes C. Laube of the University of East Anglia," which has got no credibility left. This is the place where the faked e-mails were discovered. "We were certainly surprised to find so many previously undetected --" Well, how smart are you people if you got all these destructive gases out there and you're only now learning about 'em? They're just now gonna be able to pile all these on to all the others. Folks, it'll be amazing if anybody's alive by the end of the year.