{"id":24430,"date":"2007-02-01T01:01:01","date_gmt":"2011-05-19T06:05:06","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2011-05-19T06:05:06","modified_gmt":"2011-05-19T06:05:06","slug":"global_warming_is_a_giant_lie_it_explains_liberalism_in_a_nutshell3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/01\/global_warming_is_a_giant_lie_it_explains_liberalism_in_a_nutshell3\/","title":{"rendered":"Global Warming is a Giant Lie: It Explains Liberalism in a Nutshell"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Here\u2019s the latest<\/a> on global warming today from Delaware Online: “Del. global warming skeptic stands pat – State climatologist on opposite side of governor in court case. Delaware\u2019s state climatologist has found himself in the middle of a political squall after taking skeptical stands on global warming and climate change — in one case directly contradicting the state\u2019s own policy. David R. Legates, a University of Delaware geography professor, co-wrote a ‘friend of the court\u2019 brief that opposed Delaware\u2019s position in a multi-state U.S. Supreme Court case.” To cut to the chase here, &ldquo;Legates, a Ph.D. climatologist,&rdquo; which means he\u2019s a scientist, &ldquo;who received the title of state climatologist in 2005 from Daniel Leathers, now the head of the University of Delaware\u2019s geography department. Legates joined a group of scientists late last year in urging the court to reject the claims of the state of Delaware. &lsquo;It is simply impossible to conclude that the net effect of greenhouse gases endangers human health and welfare,\u2019 the brief said. The institute has sued the government in the past to block some fuel economy standards for automobiles. The appearance of Delaware\u2019s climatologist on the other side of the court case left some state Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control officials frustrated. &lsquo;He\u2019s taken a position that &ldquo;The climate is changing, but we don\u2019t have any danger signs,&rdquo;\u2019 said Ali Mirzakhalili, air quality management chief for DNREC.&rdquo;<\/p>\n

The point of this is that here you have a scientist who\u2019s willing to stick his neck out, say, &ldquo;Wait a minute. There\u2019s no conclusive evidence, even if it is happening, that we\u2019re causing it, or B, that it\u2019s going to be bad.&rdquo; And that\u2019s heresy. Audio sound bite time now, last night Larry King Alive, topic is: &ldquo;Global warming, could it really kill us all?&rdquo; That was the topic on Larry King Alive, &ldquo;Global warming, could it really kill us all?&rdquo; Barbara Boxer was one of the guests, Larry King\u2019s question to Senator Barbara Boxer. &ldquo;Are we in a panicked situation?&rdquo;<\/p>\n

BOXER: There\u2019s really a climate of hope, not fear, because we are listening to the scientists, and yes, there are always a few who are the naysayers just like there were people who said the earth is flat, but eventually there\u2019s a consensus. We know there\u2019s a consensus that has built, and I\u2019m not going to debate anymore whether this is happening. I know it\u2019s happening. What we\u2019re going to do is not be afraid of it, we\u2019re going to wrap our arms around it and we\u2019re going to do the things it takes to meet the challenge, which are energy efficiency, a whole list of things. We\u2019re going to clean up power plants. We\u2019re going to make sure we have green buildings.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Eventually there is a consensus. There\u2019s the word that disqualifies any of this as being science. Consensus is just a bunch of scientists organized around a political proposition. You can\u2019t have consensus in science. The libs, whether they know it or not, they probably do know it, but they think consensus is the way to sell it because, &ldquo;Oh, but all these wonderful people agree.&rdquo; Also a guest last night on Larry King Alive, Dr. Heidi Cullen, the climate expert, quote, unquote, for the Weather Channel who was the woman, as you know, who suggested that any TV meteorologist certified by the American Meteorological Society who did not believe in manmade global warming theory be decertified. So naturally she gets a big platform on Larry King Alive. He says, &ldquo;Heidi Cullen, are the TV meteorologists taken seriously in this matter?&rdquo;<\/p>\n

CULLEN: TV meteorologists have such a huge opportunity. They\u2019ve got access to people\u2019s living rooms on a daily basis. The heat wave that we saw last summer, was that global warming? The incredibly warm January — early part of January — was that global warming? These are all opportunities to discuss the science. And I feel like for a lot of meteorologists they feel like it\u2019s a political question, and the politics has really obscured the science. The science is really solid and global warming is absolutely happening, and I think we need to talk about it and I think TV meteorologists should talk about it as well.<\/p>\n

<\/a>RUSH: And if they don\u2019t say the right things, she wants them decertified. She\u2019s got it just backgrounds. She says the politics has obscured the science. Actually she doesn\u2019t have it backgrounds, the politics of the pro-global warming crowd is ignoring science and making it up and saying that they have a consensus about it. I went into this a little bit yesterday. Look it, if in 1979 when the Newsweek<\/a> cover came out and everybody was talking about global cooling, the ice storm in the southeast today would be evidence of it. The frozen fruit and vegetables in California that destroyed citrus crops would be proof of it. The below freezing temperatures in central Florida earlier this week would have been proof of global cooling. The blizzards and the all the snow in Colorado would be proof of global cooling. So it\u2019s not science whatsoever. <\/p>\n

Now, here\u2019s another piece that I found at the AmericanThinker.com<\/a> by J. R. Dunn. “It may well turn out that George W. Bush\u2019s greatest service to the country won\u2019t involve terrorism or Iraq at all, but his steadfast refusal to be buffaloed into joining the panicky consensus on global warming. Rumor had it that Bush intended to embrace the warming thesis at last in his State of the Union address. Instead Greens nationwide went into depressed tailspins as he called for an attack on the problem by means of technical advances, a curve ball very much in the old Bush mode, of a type that we\u2019ve seen too little of recently. Bush is acting in defiance of much of the civilized world, led by a former vice-president and including the media, the entertainment community, the Democrats, most of the policy elite, that peculiar and never-before-encountered group known as ‘mainstream scientists\u2019, and now even corporations, eager to clamber aboard the Kyoto wagon while there\u2019s still room.<\/p>\n

&ldquo;One curious element involves certain facts that, on first consideration, would appear to be crucial but never seem to come up in debate. I have spent several years trying to track down the actual values of two numbers – the annual amount of carbon dioxide emitted by all human activities, and the amount of carbon dioxide already present in the atmosphere. There are as many answers as there are sources, the first ranging from 3 billion to 28 billion tons, the second from 750 billion tons to 2.97 x 1012 tons, a number so large that there\u2019s no common English word for it. Variations of this size – up to three orders of magnitude – suggest a serious lack of basic knowledge,” of the amount of carbon dioxide already there versus how much is being added by human beings. &ldquo;The fact that it never comes up suggests that scientists are well aware of this.&rdquo;<\/p>\n

Moving on. Mr. Dunn here attempts to highlight some things by going back to look at history. &ldquo;Despite the insistence of Al Gore and friends, this is far from the first time the Earth has ever passed through a climatic warming period. In fact, one occurred relatively recently, the medieval warm period, more commonly known as the Little Climatic Optimum (LCO), a period stretching roughly from the 10th to the 13th centuries, in which the average temperature was anything from 1 to 3 degrees centigrade higher than it is today. Several years ago, I covered the LCO in an article detailing the climatic history of the last millennium. But it\u2019s worthwhile to cover the highlights once more, to help put the contemporary panic into perspective.<\/p>\n

“How warm was it during the LCO? Areas in the Midlands and Scotland that cannot grow crops today were regularly farmed. England was known for its wine exports. The average height of Britons around A.D. 1000 was close to six feet, thanks to good nutrition. The small stature of the British lower classes (and the Irish) later in the millennium is an artifact of lower temperatures. People of the 20th century were the first Europeans in centuries to grow to their ‘true\u2019 stature – and most had to grow up in the USA to do it. In fact, famine – and its partner, plague — appears to have taken a hike for several centuries. We have records of only a handful of famines during the LCO, and few mass outbreaks of disease. The bubonic plague itself appears to have retreated to its heartland of Central Asia.”<\/p>\n

Anyway, it goes on and on and on describing even the Vikings. &ldquo;The LCO was the first age of transatlantic exploration. When not slaughtering their neighbors, the Vikings were charting new lands across the North Atlantic, one of the stormiest seas on earth. If you tried the same thing today, traveling their routes in open boats of the size they used, you would drown. They discovered Iceland, and Greenland, and a new world even beyond, where they found grape vines, the same as in England. The Agricultural Revolution is not widely known except among historians. Mild temperatures eased land clearing and lengthened growing seasons. More certain harvests encouraged experimentation among farmers involving field rotation, novel implements, and new crops such as legumes.&rdquo; For those of you in Rio Linda, forget it. It goes on to apply some common sense. What\u2019s so bad if it is warming? Where is most of the world\u2019s population concentrated now? Near the equator, where it\u2019s hot as hell, year round. <\/p>\n

The evidence here suggests that because of these fluctuating cycles of warming and cooling, that all kinds of processes change, agricultural, ocean, any number of things. It\u2019s evidence that these things happen cyclically and naturally, and it\u2019s the height of vanity for a bunch of human scientists acting upon consensus who are nothing more than in utter panic mode, plus you can\u2019t take their politics out of it. They\u2019re just purebred socialists who believe in big government. Remember, folks, the whole point of all this is to pound you with this enough and enough and enough to make you feel guilty enough for causing it that you will accept Draconian alterations in your lifestyle and higher taxes to fix it, otherwise we are doomed, otherwise there won\u2019t be an earth, not one that we can survive. It\u2019s all hocus-pocus. It\u2019s one giant lie. Even if it is warming, the idea that there will not be any improvement anywhere on the planet as a result is just silly. When you look at the fact that the 10th and 13th centuries it was three degrees centigrade warmer then than today when there clearly couldn\u2019t have been as much carbon dioxide output by humanity, the whole argument that these people are making should be obviated by simple history. But it\u2019s not, until we keep working on it. <\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

Just want to give you one more thought here on this whole global warming mess. I want to ask you, “What is the common denominator between embryonic stem cells, synthetic fuels, global warming, and Hillary Rodham Clinton?” What do these four things have in common, embryonic stem cells, synthetic fuels, global warming, and Hillary Rodham Clinton? What is one thing in common? What\u2019s the common denominator? You have four fantasies here from the left: embryonic stem cells, synthetic fuels, global warming, and Hillary. You have four magic answers to all of our problems, four untested and unproved, at best, programs to make life peachy keen, and they are all a lifetime away from delivering their promise. You gotta throw Hillary Clinton in that list. Embryonic stem cells, synthetic fuels, global warming, Hillary Rodham Clinton, all liberal Democrat fantasies, pure and simple. <\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: Dick in Park Rapids, Minnesota, you\u2019re next on the EIB Network, sir. Hello.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Well, Rush what a thrill.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Thank you, sir.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Rush, to piggyback on Barbara Boxer — pardon the pun — wasn\u2019t there a congressional consensus a few years ago regarding the WMDs in Iraq?<\/p>\n

RUSH: Oh, yeah, it was a consensus of 1998. There was a consensus in 2002. Yes, there was a consensus in the US Senate based on intelligence results and reports that there were weapons of mass destruction to be found — furthermore, the Democrats led by some — I don\u2019t think Boxer was on board — said because of this consensus, we had to go there and disarm the guy.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Well, so in that regard, consensuses are not always a bad thing, but when it comes to science it is a bad thing?<\/p>\n

RUSH: Well, what it better illustrates is that in one stretch here you could say that a consensus was wrong. But in science, there can\u2019t be consensus. People think that I am being a little footloose and fancy free with the language here, but if you stop and think, science is not about the most people who will agree to a proposition, that makes the proposition so. If that were science, why, we\u2019d still have the earth being flat and the sun orbiting around the earth. Consensus simply cannot have any place in science, and if the global warming crowd continues to pulverize and sell it on the basis that there\u2019s consensus, that ought to tell anybody who understands the English language that there isn\u2019t any science in it, that it is all politics. I got an e-mail, and I knew this was going to happen, because I have empathy with the audience. I knew this was going to happen. &ldquo;Rush, you\u2019re talking about this so much, tired of this global warming stuff. If we can\u2019t change it, and I agree with you on that, why bother? Just let it go because this is all moot.&rdquo; I said no, &ldquo;It\u2019s not.&rdquo; The reason why I\u2019m talking about it — and I\u2019m glad for the question, to be able to phrase it in this way, because many of you may be asking the same thing.<\/p>\n

This global warming issue is the essence of liberalism versus conservatism, which is what this program is about. Global warming, militant environmentalism, militant animal rightsism, is nothing more, those things are nothing more than opportunities for communists, socialists, people that support dictatorships, to empower elements of society they think are important, government, statism, and this sort of thing, and every element of conservatism versus liberalism is to be found in the global warming debate. Remember, liberals are self-loathing and their guilt and their hatred for their own country and advanced civilizations and societies, they believe that they have the power that human beings, despite the contempt and despite the condescension with which they look at human beings, they think human beings are so imperfect and so selfish and so carefree that they have the ability to destroy the planet. Remember, there is no god in liberalism other than liberalism itself. Religion is the environment; religion is animal rights; religion is liberal causes. That is what they are loyal to, and they are liberals before they are anything else. <\/p>\n

It\u2019s amazing, in fact, the left out there decrying devout Christianity or Catholicism or anything of the sort. They are as religious about what it is they believe as anybody else. They are as intolerant of people who disagree. They also have to rely on faith. Faith is that which is not provable. In order to accept belief in something, you must have faith if it can\u2019t be proved. That sums up the left\u2019s association and attachment to global warming. It represents an opportunity for liberals to do everything they want to do in terms of controlling and limiting freedom and liberty. They blame the American people and civilized peoples all over the world for destroying the planet. They infuse everybody with as much guilt for destroying the planet and how is this guilt ladled out? It is ladled out on the basis that your lifestyle is too rich, that your lifestyle is based on greed, that your lifestyle is based on selfishness, and it\u2019s also based on the fact that you don\u2019t care about anybody else but yourself, that you are damaging the planet in the process. They have to get hold of you to save the planet, their god. <\/p>\n

They have to get hold of you to save their religion. In the process of making you feel guilty, you will support massive increases in the size of government and state, in order to fix the problem that you have caused, and you will gladly fork over more and more taxes to do this while in the throes of your guilt. Global warming is nothing more than a scheme, particularly the manmade characteristics of global warming, the desire for them to make you believe, the attempt to make you believe that you\u2019re causing it. Every argument, fundamental and otherwise, that we make in the discussion of liberalism versus conservatism can be found in that issue. Since I, as a conservative, believe in liberty and freedom, since I have a much higher power and higher authority than liberals or the planet, since I do not believe that socialism works because I know it doesn\u2019t work and you don\u2019t need a consensus for that, you need a simple historical perspective and lesson or two, I\u2019m going to oppose everything they try to make liberalism as mainstream in our society as possible. So that\u2019s why I focus on this. <\/p>\n

I focus on the details of global warming because it may be one way of convincing as many people as possible that the whole method by which they\u2019re going about proving it is bogus. It\u2019s just not enough to say, “Hey, folks, liberalism is just a bunch of liberals running amok here with global warming.” You need more than that, I think, if you\u2019re trying to be genuinely persuasive. But it\u2019s hideous, the whole global warming thing. By the way, they\u2019ve recruited a bunch of fellow travelers and idiots that have no clue what they\u2019re doing. Like this Heidi Cullen, I\u2019m sure she believes everything she\u2019s saying. I don\u2019t think she\u2019s probably an activist. She may have been formed into one by now. But she\u2019s probably just a Miss America Pageant contestant. Probably thinks that she\u2019s saving the world, she probably buys into all of it because it makes her feel good to care and all this sort of thing. Not saying that everybody out there believing in this stuff is a rock-ribbed activist liberal, but liberalism is seductive to people. If they can make you feel guilty, they offer you a solution for the guilt and so forth, and then you can live blame free for all the destruction that is happening. So, look, I could go on and on here for literal hours about the elements of liberalism and conservatism in that argument or in this issue, global warming . That\u2019s why I\u2019m not letting go of it. Back in just a second.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: Look, here\u2019s another great example, folks. Headline<\/a>: “US family oriented job policies weak. The United States lags far behind virtually all wealthy countries with regard to family-oriented workplace policies such as maternity leave, paid sick days and support for breast-feeding, a new study by Harvard and McGill University researchers says. &hellip; The study, officially being issued Thursday, says workplace policies for families in the United States are weaker than those of all high-income countries and many middle- and low-income countries. Notably, it says the U.S. is one of only five countries out of 173 in the survey that does not guarantee some form of paid maternity leave; the others are Lesotho, Liberia, Swaziland and Papua New Guinea. ‘More countries are providing the workplace protections that millions of Americans can only dream of,\u2019 said the study\u2019s lead author, Jody Heymann, founder of the Harvard-based Project on Global Working Families and director of McGill\u2019s Institute for Health and Social Policy.” This goes on to say that the Family Medical Leave Act is not enough. <\/p>\n

Now, what\u2019s the point of the story? The point of the story is to say the US government is not ordering this and making businesses do it or providing for it itself. You are not responsible for anything that your own decisions cause to happen in your life. You have a child, not your responsibility to make sure you have the means and the ability to take care of the child. No, it\u2019s the government\u2019s job. And once again, who\u2019s the arch enemy? The United States, the most powerful, the most generous, the most prosperous, the most free nation in the world. The leftists target this country every day in an attempt to destroy the institutions and traditions which have made it great. Global warming is no different than this story saying we don\u2019t do enough for mothers who need to breast-feed. We don\u2019t do enough for people that need to take sick-leave. We don\u2019t do enough. We just don\u2019t do enough. Meaning our government is not socialistic, pure and simple. <\/p>\n

END TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

END TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here\u2019s the latest on global warming today from Delaware Online: “Del. global warming skeptic stands pat – State climatologist on opposite side of governor in court case. Delaware\u2019s state climatologist has found himself in the middle of a political squall after taking skeptical stands on global warming and climate change — in one case directly […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":25,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nGlobal Warming is a Giant Lie: It Explains Liberalism in a Nutshell - The Rush Limbaugh Show<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/01\/global_warming_is_a_giant_lie_it_explains_liberalism_in_a_nutshell3\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Global Warming is a Giant Lie: It Explains Liberalism in a Nutshell - The Rush Limbaugh Show\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"Here\u2019s the latest on global warming today from Delaware Online: “Del. global warming skeptic stands pat – State climatologist on opposite side of governor in court case. Delaware\u2019s state climatologist has found himself in the middle of a political squall after taking skeptical stands on global warming and climate change — in one case directly […]\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:image\" content=\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/stop_the_tape.Par.0012.ImageFile.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/\",\"name\":\"The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"description\":\"Excellence In Broadcasting\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/01\/global_warming_is_a_giant_lie_it_explains_liberalism_in_a_nutshell3\/#primaryimage\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/stop_the_tape.Par.0012.ImageFile.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/stop_the_tape.Par.0012.ImageFile.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/01\/global_warming_is_a_giant_lie_it_explains_liberalism_in_a_nutshell3\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/01\/global_warming_is_a_giant_lie_it_explains_liberalism_in_a_nutshell3\/\",\"name\":\"Global Warming is a Giant Lie: It Explains Liberalism in a Nutshell - The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/01\/global_warming_is_a_giant_lie_it_explains_liberalism_in_a_nutshell3\/#primaryimage\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-19T06:05:06+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2011-05-19T06:05:06+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/01\/global_warming_is_a_giant_lie_it_explains_liberalism_in_a_nutshell3\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/01\/global_warming_is_a_giant_lie_it_explains_liberalism_in_a_nutshell3\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/01\/global_warming_is_a_giant_lie_it_explains_liberalism_in_a_nutshell3\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Global Warming is a Giant Lie: It Explains Liberalism in a Nutshell\"}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/admin\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Global Warming is a Giant Lie: It Explains Liberalism in a Nutshell - The Rush Limbaugh Show","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/01\/global_warming_is_a_giant_lie_it_explains_liberalism_in_a_nutshell3\/","twitter_card":"summary","twitter_title":"Global Warming is a Giant Lie: It Explains Liberalism in a Nutshell - The Rush Limbaugh Show","twitter_description":"Here\u2019s the latest on global warming today from Delaware Online: “Del. global warming skeptic stands pat – State climatologist on opposite side of governor in court case. Delaware\u2019s state climatologist has found himself in the middle of a political squall after taking skeptical stands on global warming and climate change — in one case directly […]","twitter_image":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/stop_the_tape.Par.0012.ImageFile.jpg","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/","name":"The Rush Limbaugh Show","description":"Excellence In Broadcasting","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/01\/global_warming_is_a_giant_lie_it_explains_liberalism_in_a_nutshell3\/#primaryimage","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/stop_the_tape.Par.0012.ImageFile.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/stop_the_tape.Par.0012.ImageFile.jpg"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/01\/global_warming_is_a_giant_lie_it_explains_liberalism_in_a_nutshell3\/#webpage","url":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/01\/global_warming_is_a_giant_lie_it_explains_liberalism_in_a_nutshell3\/","name":"Global Warming is a Giant Lie: It Explains Liberalism in a Nutshell - The Rush Limbaugh Show","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/01\/global_warming_is_a_giant_lie_it_explains_liberalism_in_a_nutshell3\/#primaryimage"},"datePublished":"2011-05-19T06:05:06+00:00","dateModified":"2011-05-19T06:05:06+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/01\/global_warming_is_a_giant_lie_it_explains_liberalism_in_a_nutshell3\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/01\/global_warming_is_a_giant_lie_it_explains_liberalism_in_a_nutshell3\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/01\/global_warming_is_a_giant_lie_it_explains_liberalism_in_a_nutshell3\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Global Warming is a Giant Lie: It Explains Liberalism in a Nutshell"}]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#personlogo","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"url":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24430"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/users\/25"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24430"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24430\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24430"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24430"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24430"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}