{"id":9656,"date":"2014-04-08T18:36:07","date_gmt":"2014-04-08T18:36:07","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2014-04-08T18:36:07","modified_gmt":"2014-04-08T18:36:07","slug":"ezra_klein_psychoanalyzes_us_and_paul_mulshine_writes_a_good_piece_on_carbon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2014\/04\/08\/ezra_klein_psychoanalyzes_us_and_paul_mulshine_writes_a_good_piece_on_carbon\/","title":{"rendered":"Ezra Klein Psychoanalyzes Us — and Paul Mulshine Writes a Good Piece on Carbon"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Listen<\/a><\/p>\n

RUSH: Now, I got a story here, this from the UK Telegraph<\/a>. You\u2019ll not ever find a story like this in the Drive-By Media. “The Game is up for Climate Change Believers.” Oh, and I\u2019m looking for one thing. I hope I put it in this Stack<\/a>. Yeah, I found it. Okay, here we go. “The Game is up for Climate Change Believers.” Before I tell you what\u2019s in this, let me tell you something I saw yesterday was reading my tech blogs that buttresses the point. <\/p>\n

The left — now, don\u2019t 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\u2019s irrefutable. This “consensus” of scientists, they believe it. They really believe that we are destroying the planet. They really believe we don\u2019t have much time. Folks, they believe all this. They now are frustrated at all of us “deniers,” as you know. <\/p>\n

They\u2019re really mad, and they\u2019re think they could put us in jail. They don\u2019t 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\u2019t 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!”<\/line><\/p>\n

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\u2019t understand why. Do you know what they\u2019re blaming it on? <\/p>\n

The headline of the story: “Politics Makes Us Stupid.” It was a piece by Ezra Klein at his new website Vox-whatever dot-com<\/a>. Koko, I didn\u2019t 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\u2019s the most amazing thing. They have got themselves believing that the only reason we don\u2019t succumb…<\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

They are so beside themselves that they can\u2019t make us see the science like they do, that they think there\u2019s something deeply wrong with us psychologically. They\u2019ve 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. <\/p>\n

Now, the fact is, their science is bogus! <\/p>\n

Their science isn\u2019t science.<\/p>\n

Their science is computer models. <\/p>\n

They don\u2019t have any science! <\/p>\n

But you can\u2019t tell \u2019em 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/line><\/p>\n

“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\u2019. Proper science studies what is — which is, in principle, knowable — and is consequently very cautious about the future — which isn\u2019t” knowable. “No, they are the result of a belief that something big and bad is going to hit us one of these days. …<\/p>\n

“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\u2019s who the global warming believers are. Now, I have to stop there, but I\u2019m by no means finished.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: I want to read to you… I can\u2019t possibly read that entire Ezra Klein piece that I was telling you about, but I told Koko to find it. It\u2019s at Vox.com by Ezra Klein, the wunderkind at the Washington Post who left, formed his own website. He\u2019s a big lib. Think Nate Silver that doesn\u2019t do polling data. I want to read you one little paragraph from this piece. <\/p>\n

This is the deep psychological study to try to explain why we “deniers” refute this onslaught of irrefutable evidence. “Perhaps people aren\u00c2\u2019t held back by a lack of knowledge. After all, they don\u00c2\u2019t typically doubt the findings of oceanographers or the existence of other galaxies. Perhaps there are some kinds of debates where people don\u00c2\u2019t want to find the right answer so much as they want to win the argument.<\/p>\n

“Perhaps humans reason for purposes other than finding the truth…” Remember, he\u2019s writing about us. “[P]urposes like increasing their standing in their community, or ensuring they don\u00c2\u2019t piss off the leaders of their tribe. If this hypothesis proved true, then a smarter, better-educated citizenry wouldn\u2019t put an end to these disagreements. It would just mean the participants are better equipped to argue for their own side.”<\/p>\n

So they can\u2019t figure out why, with the “evidence” is irrefutable and clear as it is, that we become even more opposed. So that\u2019s what they\u2019re digging deep trying to explain to themselves — and of course the truth is, their evidence is bulls—. They don\u2019t have any! All they\u2019ve got is computer models. There is no evidence. All they\u2019ve got is predictions, of a hundred years out! They don\u2019t have anything!<\/line><\/p>\n

They don\u2019t 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\u2019ll read one other paragraph from it just to repeat. “The theory of global warming is a…” Now, here\u2019s the answer to that paragraph: Why don\u2019t we believe? Why don\u2019t we? We believe what they tell us about galaxies, and we believe…<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t know that we even do. We just know who can refute that? We can\u2019t see galaxies. If they want to tell us they found Galaxy X5, fine. They found it. We\u2019re 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\u2019t reject any other science. Anything else they tell us, we believe. Why?<\/p>\n

The theory is particularly prevalent in Washington, where partisans devote enormous amounts of energy to persuading each other that there\u00c2\u2019s really a right answer to the difficult questions in American politics — and that they have it. But the More Information Hypothesis isn\u00c2\u2019t just wrong. It\u00c2\u2019s backwards. Cutting-edge research shows that the more information partisans get, the deeper their disagreements become.<\/p>\n

“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.'”<\/p>\n

It\u2019s what they want us to believe, but it\u2019s not “The Science” that\u2019s 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\u2019re telling us with ontological certitude that unless we pay higher taxes and support one-world government, the climate\u2019s gonna be destroyed. <\/line><\/p>\n

And nobody can know that! They\u2019re asking us to believe a future prediction of a hundred years out, when we won\u2019t 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\u2019s gonna happen someday. “The origins of warmism lie…” This is how Mr. Moore describes these people. <\/p>\n

“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\u2019t stand to see wealth happen, “and a belief in world government.”<\/p>\n

That\u2019s who makes up the lion\u2019s 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\u2019t believe and they want to put \u2019em in jail. <\/p>\n

Of course it makes perfect sense. They\u2019re totalitarianists. They\u2019re fascists. Of course they would. It makes perfect sense. There\u2019s a guy that writes for the Newark Star-Ledger<\/a> who doesn\u2019t 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\u2019s paper, and I don\u2019t know…<\/p>\n

He\u2019s a huge media leftist, but after this piece, and especially after I highlight it, I don\u2019t know what they\u2019re gonna do to him. He may end up like Brendan Eich<\/a>. (interruption) Oh, you\u2019re intrigued now, huh? Okay, well, let me just read parts of this to you, \u2019cause Snerdley knows who this guy is, and this guy\u2019s been relentless in his attacks on your beloved host. He starts this way: <\/p>\n

“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.'”<\/p>\n

Again: ‘Government agencies must constantly make recommendations on the basis…'” Even though this is incomplete, and even though it\u2019s suggestive, it\u2019s 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.\u2019 That sounds like the current debate over climate change, doesn\u2019t it? Nope.<\/p>\n

“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,\u2019 the Post wrote. That seemed to be the case at the time.<\/p>\n

“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\u2019 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!<\/p>\n

“Soon the market was inundated with low-fat foods. But they weren\u2019t 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\u2019s all been a big fat lie?\u2019 <\/line><\/p>\n

“‘It used to be that even considering the possibility of the alternative hypothesis, let alone researching it, was tantamount to quackery by association,\u2019 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.'”<\/p>\n

May I translate this for you? <\/p>\n

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\u2019t reducing the amount of cholesterol you ate, saturated fats that was causing it; it was the amount of refined carbohydrates.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s 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\u2019re eating healthier. <\/p>\n

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.”<\/p>\n

He goes on to say: So what if they\u2019re all wrong again about climate science? They\u2019ve been wrong before. But there\u2019s more. There\u2019s one more thing, and this one more thing involves perhaps the smartest man in the world. Not Hawking. <\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

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\u2019 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.<\/p>\n