RUSH: Now, I got a story here, this from the UK Telegraph. You'll not ever find a story like this in the Drive-By Media. "The Game is up for Climate Change Believers." Oh, and I'm looking for one thing. I hope I put it in this Stack. Yeah, I found it. Okay, here we go. "The Game is up for Climate Change Believers." Before I tell you what's in this, let me tell you something I saw yesterday was reading my tech blogs that buttresses the point.
The left -- now, don't doubt me on this. The left, all of these people on the left, think that their "science" for global warming is dead-on right. They do. They think it's irrefutable. This "consensus" of scientists, they believe it. They really believe that we are destroying the planet. They really believe we don't have much time. Folks, they believe all this. They now are frustrated at all of us "deniers," as you know.
They're really mad, and they're think they could put us in jail. They don't let us speak, all that kind of stuff. But now their academics are doing research surveys to try to explain to them why we deniers don't accept "the science." They have engaged in massive amounts of research. To them, the science is unassailable. To them, the science is one fact after another that says, "Man is destroying the climate!"
So they started a research project with some people at Yale with the premise, "Okay, the science is irrefutable. Why do smart people reject the science?" They have engaged in very deep psychological examinations of people who they believe know the science says the climate is warming and yet we reject it, and they can't understand why. Do you know what they're blaming it on?
The headline of the story: "Politics Makes Us Stupid." It was a piece by Ezra Klein at his new website Vox-whatever dot-com. Koko, I didn't print it out. Koko, you need to find that and link to it on our home page so people can find it. If you want to take the time to read this, it's the most amazing thing. They have got themselves believing that the only reason we don't succumb...
For example, they think if me or anybody like me were to all of a sudden come here and tell you, "By the way, folks, we are destroying the planet," it would end my career. You would abandon me and so forth. So I am willing -- because of my political associations, I am totally willing -- to disavow real science and be wrong. I mean, the hubris and the arrogance here is just stunning.
They are so beside themselves that they can't make us see the science like they do, that they think there's something deeply wrong with us psychologically. They've come up with some of the most convoluted theories and experiments and so forth to prove it and it basically boils down to the more educated you are on politics, the stupider you are in science or the more recalcitrant you are to accept science.
Now, the fact is, their science is bogus!
Their science isn't science.
Their science is computer models.
They don't have any science!
But you can't tell 'em that. They think their science is the bible, and their science says only one thing, that man is destroying the planet by causing temperatures to rise. It's the most... This now takes me to this piece in the UK Telegraph: "The Game is up for Climate Change Believers -- Charles Moore reviews The Age of Global Warming by Rupert Darwall," and this Age of Global Warming looks to be a history of the entire environmentalist, global warming wacko movement since 1970.
I just want to read you lede here: "Most of us pay some attention to the weather forecast. If it says it will rain in your area tomorrow, it probably will. But if it says the same for a month, let alone a year, later, it is much less likely to be right. There are too many imponderables. The theory of global warming is a gigantic weather forecast for a century or more. However interesting the scientific inquiries involved, therefore, it can have almost no value as a prediction.
"Yet it is as a prediction that global warming ... has captured the political and bureaucratic elites. All the action plans, taxes, green levies, protocols and carbon-emitting flights to massive summit meetings, after all, are not because of what its supporters call 'The Science'. Proper science studies what is -- which is, in principle, knowable -- and is consequently very cautious about the future -- which isn't" knowable. "No, they are the result of a belief that something big and bad is going to hit us one of these days. ...
"The origins of warmism lie in a cocktail of ideas which includes anti-industrial nature worship, post-colonial guilt, a post-Enlightenment belief in scientists as a new priesthood of the truth, a hatred of population growth, a revulsion against the widespread increase in wealth and a belief in world government." That's who the global warming believers are. Now, I have to stop there, but I'm by no means finished.
RUSH: I want to read to you... I can't possibly read that entire Ezra Klein piece that I was telling you about, but I told Koko to find it. It's at Vox.com by Ezra Klein, the wunderkind at the Washington Post who left, formed his own website. He's a big lib. Think Nate Silver that doesn't do polling data. I want to read you one little paragraph from this piece.
This is the deep psychological study to try to explain why we "deniers" refute this onslaught of irrefutable evidence. "Perhaps people aren’t held back by a lack of knowledge. After all, they don’t typically doubt the findings of oceanographers or the existence of other galaxies. Perhaps there are some kinds of debates where people don’t want to find the right answer so much as they want to win the argument.
"Perhaps humans reason for purposes other than finding the truth..." Remember, he's writing about us. "[P]urposes like increasing their standing in their community, or ensuring they don’t piss off the leaders of their tribe. If this hypothesis proved true, then a smarter, better-educated citizenry wouldn't put an end to these disagreements. It would just mean the participants are better equipped to argue for their own side."
So they can't figure out why, with the "evidence" is irrefutable and clear as it is, that we become even more opposed. So that's what they're digging deep trying to explain to themselves -- and of course the truth is, their evidence is bulls---. They don't have any! All they've got is computer models. There is no evidence. All they've got is predictions, of a hundred years out! They don't have anything!
They don't even talk about the hoax e-mails from the East Anglia University. So let me go back here to Charles Moore writing in the UK Telegraph, just to... No, I'll read one other paragraph from it just to repeat. "The theory of global warming is a..." Now, here's the answer to that paragraph: Why don't we believe? Why don't we? We believe what they tell us about galaxies, and we believe...
I don't know that we even do. We just know who can refute that? We can't see galaxies. If they want to tell us they found Galaxy X5, fine. They found it. We're never gonna go there. Hell, nobody invests in it. Now, if they want to tell us Galaxy X5 15,000 light years from earth is destroying the planet, then they got a problem. But in this paragraph they say we don't reject any other science. Anything else they tell us, we believe. Why?
The theory is particularly prevalent in Washington, where partisans devote enormous amounts of energy to persuading each other that there’s really a right answer to the difficult questions in American politics -- and that they have it. But the More Information Hypothesis isn’t just wrong. It’s backwards. Cutting-edge research shows that the more information partisans get, the deeper their disagreements become.
"The theory of global warming is a gigantic weather forecast for a century or more. However interesting the scientific inquiries involved, therefore, it can have almost no value as a prediction. Yet it is as a prediction that global warming ... has captured the political and bureaucratic elites." A prediction has captured them! "All the action plans, taxes, green levies, protocols and carbon-emitting flights to massive summit meetings, after all, are not because of what its supporters call 'The Science.'"
It's what they want us to believe, but it's not "The Science" that's making them do all of this. "Proper science studies what is -- which is, in principle, knowable -- and is consequently very cautious about the future," because nobody can know it! Yet they're telling us with ontological certitude that unless we pay higher taxes and support one-world government, the climate's gonna be destroyed.
And nobody can know that! They're asking us to believe a future prediction of a hundred years out, when we won't even believe a 10-day weather forecast -- and they get mad at us for being stupid! These global warming clowns exist as a result of a belief than that big and bad's gonna happen someday. "The origins of warmism lie..." This is how Mr. Moore describes these people.
"The origins of warmism lie in a cocktail of ideas which includes anti-industrial nature worship, post-colonial guilt, a post-Enlightenment belief in scientists as a new priesthood of the truth, a hatred of population growth, a revulsion against the widespread increase in wealth," people just can't stand to see wealth happen, "and a belief in world government."
That's who makes up the lion's share of the global warmests, the elites, the academics, the scientists, and in many cases the rank-and-file. Now, let me move on to another little piece, something to delve on this. Headline: "Members of Parliament Seek to Silence Climate Change Skeptics." This is another story where they want to deny speech to people that don't believe and they want to put 'em in jail.
Of course it makes perfect sense. They're totalitarianists. They're fascists. Of course they would. It makes perfect sense. There's a guy that writes for the Newark Star-Ledger who doesn't like me at all. His name is Paul Mulshine, and he has authored countless hit pieces of me over the course of many years. But he has a piece in today's paper, and I don't know...
He's a huge media leftist, but after this piece, and especially after I highlight it, I don't know what they're gonna do to him. He may end up like Brendan Eich. (interruption) Oh, you're intrigued now, huh? Okay, well, let me just read parts of this to you, 'cause Snerdley knows who this guy is, and this guy's been relentless in his attacks on your beloved host. He starts this way:
"Imagine a public policy issue that could determine the course of millions of lives. Imagine the science concerning this issue was complex and confusing. Nonetheless, most scientists had reached agreement on certain aspects of it. And imagine the Washington Post wrote an editorial stating, 'Government agencies must constantly make recommendations on the basis of just this kind of incomplete but suggestive evidence, and there is a consensus on what to do.'"
Again: 'Government agencies must constantly make recommendations on the basis...'" Even though this is incomplete, and even though it's suggestive, it's true! "'Government agencies must constantly make recommendations on the basis of just this kind of incomplete but suggestive evidence, and there is a consensus on what to do.' That sounds like the current debate over climate change, doesn't it? Nope.
"That editorial is from 1980. The issue was not levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but levels of cholesterol in the diet. In that case, the consensus was that the amounts of saturated fats and cholesterol in the diet are related to the levels of cholesterol in the blood and 'that reducing one will lower the other,' the Post wrote. That seemed to be the case at the time.
"But there were dissenters who claimed carbohydrates, particularly refined ones, were the more likely triggers for obesity and heart disease," and I was one of them, by the way. "That led the mainstream authorities to hold a 'Consensus Conference' in 1984. The result was a national policy emphasizing low-fat diets as a means of combating obesity and heart disease," and Michelle Obama is still doing it today!
"Soon the market was inundated with low-fat foods. But they weren't having the desired effect. By 2002, the cracks in the consensus were so evident that the New York Times Magazine ran a lengthy and well-researched article by noted science writer Gary Taubes headlined 'What if it's all been a big fat lie?'
"'It used to be that even considering the possibility of the alternative hypothesis, let alone researching it, was tantamount to quackery by association,' Taubes wrote. 'Now a small but growing minority of establishment researchers have come to take seriously what the low-carb-diet doctors have been saying all along.'"
May I translate this for you?
In 1980, science -- a consensus of scientists -- said, "Cholesterol is bad and that in order to reduce your cholesterol, you had to stop eating high-saturated foods and all this sort of stuff. That led to a low-fat diet, and everybody got on a low-fat diet, and obesity just went crazy." They found out that it wasn't reducing the amount of cholesterol you ate, saturated fats that was causing it; it was the amount of refined carbohydrates.
It's exactly what Atkins and all these low-carb diet doctors say: If you want to get healthier, reduce your carbs. Well in a low-fat diet, you increase your carbohydrate intake. You stop eating beef, you stop eating butter, you stop eating things with no carbohydrates, and you carbo load on the theory that you're eating healthier.
And what happened is obesity picked up like crazy. The bottom line is that the original consensus was proven wrong. Okay? He then writes, "Last month, the prior consensus was turned on its head by a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. A meta-analysis of 76 studies and clinical trials showed no link between fat, even saturated fat, and increased heart-disease risk."
He goes on to say: So what if they're all wrong again about climate science? They've been wrong before. But there's more. There's one more thing, and this one more thing involves perhaps the smartest man in the world. Not Hawking.
RUSH: Okay. Back to this Mulshine piece. He said. "...I would encourage my fellow journalists to keep that in mind in light of the highly touted 'consensus' on the role of carbon dioxide in promoting global warming. Climate science is infinitely more complicated than human physiology. Once all of the data are in, we may find that atmospheric carbon dioxide actually has the effect predicted by physicist Freeman Dyson of the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton.
"The 90-year-old Dyson, whom many consider to be the smartest guy on Earth, argues that far from harming the planet, atmospheric CO2‚ may have a positive effect by increasing plant growth. Perhaps you disagree. Fine, but you're disagreeing with a guy who calculated the number of atoms in the sun when he was 5 years old and who's been at the institute since Einstein was walking the grounds.
"Science requires taking the long view, said Dyson when I called him the other day. 'Science, of course, is always correcting mistakes,' he said. 'That's what it's all about.' It is indeed. What it's not about is consensus." Freeman Dyson is among the signatories of a letter to the UN criticizing the IPCC. Freeman Dyson is one of the smartest people around. He's a scientist, a physicist, who says CO2 could well be a good thing.
Remember, they said the same thing about cholesterol, and they said the same thing about coffee and oat bran and all that. They're always wrong. So now we're supposed to believe a 100-year prediction or 30-year prediction or 50-year prediction, when nobody knows what the future is and they're acknowledging that.
They say, "We can't afford to find out if we're wrong!" It's how they cover themselves. Folks, it's a giant hoax, and science cannot possibly be science if there's a consensus. It's not up to a vote. They're panicking. They're losing ground. That's Paul Mulshine in the Newark Star-Ledger. Sorry, Paul, I had to highlight you. I know it's not gonna help you with your buddies, but it's a good piece. What can I say? You wrote a good piece.