|
RUSH: How many of you happened to see last night's first three episodes of the 11-part series on Discovery Channel, Planet Earth? Now, I've been waiting for this, because they've got footage of animals doing things and captured in natural habitats that have never been seen before, and it's in high definition. I think they were five years in the making, over 200 shoots in different locations. It was just astounding. The first episode last night was "Pole to Pole." They went from the North Pole to the South Pole. The reason I bring this up is not just because of the beautiful photography and the things that we've never seen before about the animal kingdom and all this sort of thing. This series buttresses the point that I've been trying to make about how massive and complex our whole climate and planet are. It makes the point in this first episode that without the sun, nothing's here. The sun is the source of all energy. It is the source of all life. They start out by discussing the six-month winter at the North Pole and what happens when summer happens up there, and you get 24-hour sunlight but it's not direct sun rays and so forth.
It was just beautiful in HD. It was just astounding. The first three were last night and they're being rerun through the course of the week, and there are 11 here in total. It was produced by the BBC. Sigourney Weaver is the narrator, and there's some obligatory references to how if we don't do this, then this poor little animal won't survive, such as a leopard that only exists in Russia. There are only something like 11 or 12 pairs of them left and it's up to us and so forth. All that is to be expected. It wasn't too much. But I tell you, folks, if you watch this -- and the second one is on mountains and how they were formed and how old they are -- it just makes the case of how literally insignificant we are in everything that has ever happened on this planet. But the salient point is the point they make in the first episode called "Pole to Pole" about the power of the sun. The sun is the source of virtually all life and virtually all energy. If you watch this with any kind of an open mind you cannot escape the conclusion that there is nothing we can do about the sun. We can't cool it down; we can't heat it up; we can't move it; we can't do diddly-squat.
This series (whether it intends to or not), for the thinking people watching in the audience, will shoot all kinds of holes-- I mean, you watch this, and there is no way, there is literally no way that switching from fluorescent lightbulbs or incandescent lightbulbs to these fluorescent things will make a smidgen's bit of difference, and you can't help but conclude this. Forget the narration. The photography alone would help make this point. You parents out there who are worried that we're killing the polar bears? The first episode opens with a mama polar bear coming out of her den after the hibernation of winter with two little cubs and they casually throw in that in nature, half the cubs don't survive. Many of the cubs are eaten by their fathers when they come out of the den. They're so hungry (and it's the same thing with grizzly bears), that the mother has to keep the cubs away from the father because if the father is hungry. It doesn't matter. It's a little thing. He can handle it. Bam, bam, bam, it's gone. They don't show this. Here they're killing each other and we're sitting here supposedly destroying them. |
 |
|
 RUSH: They have some of the most amazing footage of a great white shark -- I have never seen this kind of thing -- popping out of the ocean, and swallowing whole a huge seal. You see animals and the way they live. You see these dogs, I don't even remember the name of them, somewhere in Africa chasing Impala and how they work in tandem to catch these Impala and wipe 'em out. All kids ought to be made to watch this to see how nature really works. They get to the Amazon. ("Pole to Pole" means they go from the North Pole to South Pole, and cover as much of the Earth as possible.) But aside from all of these observations I'm making, I actually think that even people who are not intellectually curious about this are going to be in awe. People who watch it are going to be in awe of the complexity and the size and of the insignificance of any one living organism by itself and alone on the fate of the planet. It's just that well done. Some of the photography, all the photography is just out of this world if you have high-definition TV.
Something else I want to share with you, too. One of the monologues that I've done on global warming in recent months on this broadcast, I spent a lot of time telling you that my fundamental reason -- and it is true -- for not buying all of this leftist global warming garbage is my belief in God. I think if you don't believe in God you'll believe in anything. If you don't believe in God, you gotta have replacement. Everybody, even atheists believe in something. It's the planet or something. For the global warming people, this is their religion. You cannot come away from watching this -- and I had confirmed my thought that God created this magnificent planet and its climate and environment and all that. The idea that we can destroy it is just absurd. Just in the second episode alone watching the mountains and how they're formed, to think that we could have ever stopped this. There were people alive when these mountains were formed. They came out of the bottom of the ocean. Volcanoes created them. We couldn't have stopped it if we had wanted to. We couldn't have changed lightbulbs to stop it. Of course that created new continents. Who knows what kind of life was displaced or killed in the process. Of course these mountain rages form so slowly that they're in the process of still being formed.
Some of them are being eaten away by erosion. The Andes are in trouble. The Rockies are in trouble. The Rockies are disintegrating now, by the way, in certain parts, according to this series. Parts of the Alps are, too, which is a normal, natural thing. It's not being caused by our SUVs -- which, I have a question about. Here's a little think piece question for you people. As you know, we are in the midst of this scare that global warming is "destroying the planet," and of course that we are primary responsible for this. Bjorn Lomborg had a great piece in the New York Post on Sunday. He said, (paraphrasing) "Look, warming is happening. There's no question it's warming up. It's always warming or cooling on this planet and it may be somewhat enhanced by the manmade activity, but one of the terribly misleading things about Algore, for example, is they talk about all of the horrible things that will happen when things heat up."
This series last night makes it plain that the greatest concentration of life, all kinds of life, is in the tropics, where it is the hottest, where it is the most humid. You get to the rain forests and all these places in the tropics that are equatorial, that's where all kinds of life are teeming. The idea that heating things up is going to destroy people, Lomborg points out, "Well, if that happens, think of all the winter- and freeze-related deaths that will not happen." So it may be a net wash. There may be no new deaths really specifically tied to global warming. We don't have any idea. Here's the question. Here's my think piece. Here's the question for you. We are told that it is our SUVs, and we are told that it is our lightbulbs, and we are told that it is our smokestacks, and we are told that it is Big Oil that is causing the greenhouse emissions (our carbon feetprints, if you will) to skyrocket out there and put inexorable, inalterable pressure on our climate, causing this massive heat-up.
Now, let's just say that in 1979 when Newsweek and TIME Magazine ran their covers on global cooling, that that had stuck as the cause de jour, and let's say that instead of Algore running around with Earth in the Balance because of global warming, he was running around talking about, "We are chilling down! We're getting colder, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah." If we were in the midst of global cooling, would these same advocates be telling us to drive more and bigger SUVs? Would they be telling us to get rid of the carbon fluorescent bulbs and go back to these incandescents, to use as much power as possible? Would they be telling us to build as many factories as possible, with smokestacks as high as we can build 'em to belch all kinds of pollutants out there to warm the planet up? Do you think so? Do you think that they would be suggesting we rely even more on oil, and do everything we can to find even more and burn it, because we need to heat this planet up? Do you think they would be doing that?
Does anybody want to take a stab at that?
BREAK TRANSCRIPT |
|
|
RUSH: Sedalia, California or Missouri? Alan, where are you? Alan? Hello? Testing, 1-2.
CALLER: Hello. Yes. Maha Rushie. Yeah. Sedalia, Missouri.
RUSH: Sedalia, Missouri. That's what I thought. Home of the famous and popular Missouri State Fair.
CALLER: Oh, my gosh, yeah. The fairgrounds are about five blocks from here. It's really cool.
 RUSH: You get Malone's taffy and all that, the only place you can get it is state fairs.
CALLER: Yeah, I always go for the corndogs, but I called because you started off today talking about what you saw on the Discovery Channel and I had a question for you. There were two things I was going to ask you about, but the question was, I keep hearing a statistic that manmade carbon dioxide emissions, whatever, are about 4% of the total that's actually emitted by termites and volcanoes or whatever.
RUSH: That's true, and that includes every time we exhale. If we all stopped breathing, we can eliminate maybe 1% or 2% of the carbon dioxide emissions, and the rest of it is our automobiles and smokestacks and SUVs and incandescent lightbulbs and whatever else.
CALLER: Ah. But, okay, if that's true, if 4% of the total is caused by man, and if you think that maybe at the United States manmade total that we produce is maybe 25% of what the rest of the people on Earth produce, that would mean if you completely, overnight, eliminated the United States' emissions of carbon dioxide, that you would only reduce the manmade -- you would only reduce the total by 1%.
RUSH: That is exactly right.
CALLER: And totally devastate the world's economy in the process.
RUSH: What do you think the objective is? Not devastate the world's economy, devastate ours. What do you think the objective is? You're on the right track here, pal.
CALLER: If the United States stops going to work, pretty darn soon they're going to run out of corn flakes and everything else in the rest of the world.
RUSH: It's not going to happen.
CALLER: Oh, I know. |
|
|
 RUSH: The story that I cited that was in the New York Post yesterday by Bjorn Lomborg has a little chart. You know, everybody's saving grace, everybody's panacea is the Kyoto protocol which has guidelines for countries around the world, the signatories to reduce their carbon emissions. There's a chart that shows rising carbon emissions with Kyoto and without, and with the Kyoto protocol, the reduction would be insignificant. It's so small the two lines on the graph barely separate. All of this is a hoax and a myth. It may be warming, and we may be in some small way contributing to it, but the idea that we are causing the destruction of the planet?
Like Algore in this movie shows Greenland breaking up. If Greenland happened to break up and sink, sea levels would rise and there would be no more Manhattan. Well, yeah, that might be true if it happened, but there's nobody saying it's going to happen. Algore doesn't say it. He just wants the picture to scare everybody that sees the movie and think that it's happening. There's so much subterfuge and deceit in this whole argument that it's a crying shame. But people have the psychological belief or desire to believe that they are this powerful and that we are oriented toward evil and that we are committing sin, but there is salvation, and that is little curly cued lightbulbs! It's a joke. You watch this series on Discovery. You watch this. All the different lightbulbs in the world would not have one iota of an impact. It's absurd. The whole thing is absurd. What's the second thing you wanted to ask me?
CALLER: Well, you've inspired me to learn a bit about the sun. I started off researching it, and it's more unbelievable and more -- they actually don't know what it is. I mean, physicists says they're solid liquid and gas and then there's this stuff called plasma which is what the sun is made out of. It's electronically charged atomic particles, and it conducts electricity and it conducts magnetism tremendously. There's an article in the National Geographic July of 2004 that talks about the sun and it is just is unbelievably strange.
RUSH: Well, here's what you have to do. The point is, you're now a missionary. You want to go out there and you want to persuade people. So you go out there and you want to become an evangel on all this because you now believe it. There's one simple question, maybe two, that you can ask people about the sun. Actually, not a question. The point that's made in the first episode called "Pole to Pole" of this whole Discovery HD channel on Planet Earth show, is that without the sun there is nothing here. There is no life. There's no energy. The sun is the sole source. We have no control over the sun. We can't get farther from it. We can't make it cooler. The idea that we, all of humanity with our lightbulbs and our SUVs have any effect on the sun is absurd. The second thing is this. I do not think the human mind -- maybe Einstein and a few physicists, Steven Hawking, other than that, I don't think the human mind -- is capable of comprehending the kind of power contained in our sun, which is a little star.
How many billions of years has it been burning? We cannot comprehend what makes this possible. We can't comprehend that kind of concentrated energy source that will not burn out for more years than the human mind is capable calculating. Once you understand that whether this all was created (as I happen to believe), or whether it's just the result of some giant coincidence, the fact of the matter is we're powerless. We are no different in the big scheme. If you go out 3,000 miles in space or more and look down on the planet, we're no different than the insects. We're no different than any other living creature. We have a bigger brain and we have a little bit more power to have stewardship over what we do, but in terms of having the ability to impact all this without even trying, that's another thing.
It's like I once said about the ozone hole. Everybody was panicked about the ozone hole. "Oh, my God, ozone, UV rays! We're going to get skin cancer!"
Let's say Ronald Reagan heard about this, "Oh, the ozone hole up there causes cancer? Great! Let's make it even bigger so all Democrats get cancer." So Reagan calls Cap Weinberger, the secretary of defense, and says, "Cap, I want you to widen the ozone hole out there."
Cap says, "Okay we'll look into making the ozone hole bigger." Cap goes and studies it. He calls the most brilliant minds in the world, "Okay, we want to make that ozone hole that's out there even bigger. We want to move it from Antarctica right over San Francisco and New York and Washington. Three little holes there with all the UV radiation."
The scientists answer, "Cap, sir, I can't do that."
Cap says, "Why not? The ozone hole is down there. Aren't we causing it?"
"No, we're really not. You know what creates ozone, Cap?"
"No."
"The sun."
That's the sun's interaction with various elements in our atmosphere that create atmospheric ozone. So if we wanted to eliminate ozone, we'd have to put the sun out. Now, we don't have a fire truck big enough for that folks. We wouldn't have a way to get the fire truck to the sun to put it out. If we did that we'd be dead, too. The idea that we can eliminate the ozone on purpose or that we are doing it on purpose; the idea we're doing it by accident just living our lives; the idea here that we have been granted by virtue of our creation the ability to use our minds to enhance our lifestyles, to make our standards of living even higher, this is what galls me the most about all of this is, that the one country and the free people of the world, Western civilizations and democracies are trying to improve the lifestyles of their people and the standard of living, that is what's being blamed for destroying the planet. Do you really believe a loving God would create people who by using what he created in them, an active brain able to advance their own civilization, would destroy this?
Wouldn't it be more likely that the polluters of the world and the people that don't clean up their messes and the people in the Third World and dictatorships who don't care about this where there are three headed frogs in the rivers, wouldn't it be more likely that the people making the mess and not cleaning it up would be more responsible for damage than people like us? It's the other way around, though, when you listen to the lib socialists. It is our advanced lifestyle and it's our quest for a better life. It is our quest to improve standards of living; our quest to grow more food, to have more energy, that's what's destroying the planet? Bah, humbug! I refuse to believe that that is intellectual or spiritually possible. That would not be a loving God, one who created human beings that would destroy their planet simply by using their God-given intelligence, tendencies, creativity, and so forth.
"Well, what about nukes, Rush, what about nukes?"
Okay, fine, nukes. Maybe we can wipe ourselves out or some of ourselves, but we wouldn't destroy the planet, and whatever we do to it, it would reform and life would start up all over again. It's silly. Besides we're not going to nuke the whole planet, unless the Iranians have a different view, and then we're screwed anyway. |
|
|
| END TRANSCRIPT |
|
|
| *Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time. |
|
|
