Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: Now, why am I proud of you people? Yesterday we had the story on this program of somebody I had never heard of until yesterday. That would be Heidi Cullen, the climate specialist at the Weather Channel. Heidi Cullen had said, and either written, posted on her blog or what have you, that all of these local and cable weather forecasters who have been certified by the AMS, the American Meteorological Society, should be decertified if they refuse to accept the proven science of manmade global warming. As I adeptly and accurately pointed out on this program, that’s typical of the left and the global warming movement. If you don’t agree with them, you don’t count and you have to shut up. She talks about how the science is conclusive on this, and it isn’t.

There are numerous credible scientists, including William Gray and Patrick Michaels, a number of them, who have not been convinced that this is anything other than sunspot activity or normal cycles that the earth has gone through for billions and billions and billions and billions of years. So science can’t prove manmade global warming, they simply can’t, so they come up with this notion of consensus. ‘Well, the scientific consensus is…’ There is no consensus in science, Miss Cullen, or Ms. Cullen. Not sure if she’s married or not, doesn’t matter, it’s irrelevant to this. There can be no consensus in science, Ms. Cullen. Even if a majority of scientists agree on something, they know that if they don’t agree on it they’re not going to get their funding anymore, they won’t have jobs. If it could be proven that there is no manmade global warming, Ms. Cullen might be out of a job.

Anyway, she has responded. Do I have to explain this? I’d be happy to explain it. How can there not be consensus in science? Let me try this again. Science is science. Science is what is. After discovery, tests, trial, if a consensus of scientists today said that the sun orbits around the earth, would we say that they’re right simply because there is a consensus? No. Because we know the earth orbits around the sun just as if there were a consensus that the earth is flat would we agree with them? No. So there can’t be a consensus on something that hasn’t been proven. This is a political movement. This whole global warming thing is a political movement. It is a refuge for displaced socialists and communists who simply want big government and total control or as much control over people as possible. It’s a way to get money. It’s a way to get paid via study grants and this kind of thing.

Anyway, you people responded to her post en masse, in droves. I was reading your posts, your response to her blog today, it’s up on the DrudgeReport.com if you want to go there, and I recognize you. She even admits that she got grief yesterday on a radio show. She doesn’t, of course, mention me, but what other radio show would there have been to generate this kind of response? She said, “I wrote a post recently that has generated some pretty strong reaction, and I wanted to take a moment to stop the spin. I am a scientist and I am a skeptic.” You can’t be a skeptic, Ms. Cullen, based on your attitudes about this. Skepticism requires disbelief and curiosity, not conformity to conventional wisdom. There’s no science here. This is pure politics.

Anyway, your posts, they were full of logic and reason. There were no personal attacks. There were no insults– well, there might have been a few minor ones that didn’t come from you people. But you sliced and diced this babe. This one woman says, ‘When I get my graduate degree, it is going to be my objective to disprove this political notion of manmade global warming.’ So you can go read that. She has responded on her blog with a written statement, and also an audio post on her blog, and we have it. I’d like you to listen to it. This is Dr. Heidi Cullen, climate expert, the Weather Channel.

CULLEN: Scientists have learned something very important about our planet. It’s warming up. Glaciers are melting, sea level is rising, and the weather is changing, and the primary explanation for this warming is the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels. With that knowledge comes responsibility. Here at the Weather Channel we have accepted that responsibility and see it as our job to give you the facts on global warming. Many of you have accused me and the Weather Channel of taking a political position on global warming. That is not our intention. Our goal at the Weather Channel has always been to keep people out of harm’s way, whether it’s a land-falling hurricane or global warming.

RUSH: You know, the sad thing about this, I love the Weather Channel. They’ve turned it now into a political cable channel with this mess. “Many of you have accused me and the Weather Channel of taking a political position on global warming. It’s not our intention.” Who cares about your intentions, the result is that you have. The reality is you’ve taken a political position because this is a political issue. It has not been settled by science. Our goal at the Weather Channel has always been to keep people out of harm’s way. How you gonna keep ’em out of harm’s way on global warming? There’s nothing we can do about it. That’s the big little secret, there’s nothing we can do about it, and even some of these global warming scientists have been saying for 20 years, “It’s too late! It’s too late!” Who’s to say if it is warming, manmade or not, that it’s all bad?

There are so many assumptions here, presumptions that are just shoddy. Yeah, the sea level might be rising. Where? Glaciers might be melting. Yeah, glaciers in the northern hemisphere might be melting a little bit but they’re growing in Antarctica. How can this possibly be? Global warming is global warming. If you’ve got expanding ice floes and glaciers in Antarctica, conveniently ignored by Algore, how in the world — this is just absurd. Everybody is talking about this mild winter. Do you know the winter of 1931 and ’32 was far milder than the one we’ve just had? Here’s the interesting thing. This is the woman who’s now, “Oh, no, no, we’re just trying to keep our people out of harm’s way.” This is the woman who yesterday or the day before wanted to decertify American meteorological society members who didn’t march to the tune that they wanted. They didn’t fall into line and didn’t start marching in lockstep with the political left on global warming.

Any weather forecaster who dares publicly to question the notion that global warming is manmade, should be stripped of their professional certifications. That’s what she said yesterday. See, her theory is, if we, any of us who doubt what she thinks is settled science, we’re being political. But if you agree with Dr. Cullen, then you’re being scientific, and this is the arrogance and the conceit with which the left sets themselves up. Their position is automatically based on virtuous characteristics, and their opponents are nothing but a bunch of mealy mouthed politicos. This story gets even better, however, ladies and gentlemen.

I got a story here from a weather forecaster, an ABC station in Alabama, who says, ‘Well, well, some climate expert on the Weather Channel wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent global warming is a natural process. So much for tolerance, huh? I’ve been in operational meteorology since 1978 and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job is to look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I don’t know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the manmade global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find ’em. Here are the basic facts that you need to know. Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the manmade global warming bandwagon. No manmade global warming, the money dries up.

“This is big money. Make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail. It tells the story. Even the lady at the Weather Channel probably gets paid good money for a prime-time show on climate change. No manmade global warming, no show, no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many global warming is a big cash grab. The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last ten years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the thirties and other decades. And let’s not forget, we’re at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and northern Europe. The great perspective here is she wants to strip certification from TV weather forecasters whose job is tell you what the weather is going to be the next seven days, not the next 100 years. Because they don’t agree with some political conclusion of global warming, she wants them stripped, and then claims that she was not doing anything of the sort.’ No, she was not trying to silence people. She wants more debate, she says, after the initial statement. Well, the pièce de résistance to this comes next. Nancy Pelosi has stepped in it again.


RUSH: Global warming people ignore nature; they ignore water vapor; they ignore sunspot cycles and sun activity. It’s typical liberal guilt and politics wanting to blame western societies and lifestyles for causing all these problems because it leads to government and United Nations solutions, and that’s where liberals like power vested. And of course when people come along and don’t agree, they gotta be shut up. This Heidi Cullen is not the first to suggest that people that don’t march in lockstep be shut up, silenced, or discredited. Somebody else out there, I forget who, started calling them global warming deniers, as in Holocaust deniers. He even ended up having to apologize for the outrageous attempt at stifling free speech. I forget where he’s from, Canada or Norway or some such thing. But Nancy Pelosi yesterday, when the temperature was 37 in San Francisco, 36 in Santa Barbara and in the thirties all over the country, announces the formation of a new global warming panel, and she has stepped in it because her committee chairmen, some of them, are not happy with this, led by John Dingell, who normally his committee oversees this kind of thing.

Let’s take a look at Pelosi’s checklist because they’re all happy. She’s all happy. They finished their hundred-hour project in 42 hours. They rammed legislation through the House, got that done, made it easier to raise taxes, got that done. They’ve irritated some Senate Democrats, Pelosi’s done that, and she’s also ticked off her own house committee chairman. Now she’s picked a fight with the Dean of the house, John Dingell. Now, she forms this committee, and Ed Markey is going to be the chairman of this committee. He’s from Massachusetts. Dingell said, “We should probably name it the Committee on World Travel and Junkets.’ Dingell is a chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee which oversees the Clean Air Act and the EPA and he’s miffed that a new committee is being formed that he has no purview over, and so he’s dishing right back at Pelosi. “Let’s name it the Committee on World Travel and Junkets,” and, by the way, let’s start calculating the carbon footprint of these clowns on this committee.

Dingell further said, “We’re just empowering a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs to go around and make speeches and make commitments that will be very difficult to honor. They’re going to get under the feet of and interfere with those who are trying to do a decent job of legislating. I’m unaware of anything they will do that will be of any value.” This is John Dingell ripping in to Nancy Pelosi. She’s mad at Harry Reid because the Senate’s stifling their legislation and gumming up the works on the minimum wage bill. They’re really upset in the House, which I predicted. I said to you, the real bet that you want to make is how long is it going to take before Reid and Pelosi stop speaking to one another.

Now, the Boston Globe has this story about Markey being the chairman of this new committee, and it’s all about how he’s caught in the middle of all of this. They quote Dingell. Dingell had announced hearings on global warming before Pelosi moved to create this new committee. Environmentalists regard Dingell with deep skepticism because of his ties to the auto industry. His wife Debbie is a lobbyist for General Motors. (Laughing.) So Pelosi is probably responding to leftist fears that Dingell wouldn’t be hard enough on this has gone over his head and puts her in direct conflict with committee chairmen. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel has expressed skepticism about Pelosi’s idea but said he’s not decided whether to support it.

Now, they also went and talked to Barney Frank about this and he said, “I don’t understand what their problem is. There’s a mistaken view that, quote, this is my turf.” He’s talking about Dingell. “We’re talking about public policy here. We’re in this together.” Yeah, well, Barney, you’ve got your turf, easy for you to say. Let’s listen to Barney’s turf, shall we?

FRANK: Yes, the gentleman may state the inquiry.

McHENRY: So the chair is saying that I may not offer an amendment exempting American Samoa —

FRANK: The gentleman will suspend! The gentleman is making a speech and will suspend. The chair is not saying anything —

McHENRY: If the chair will let me finish my question.

FRANK: (pounding gavel) The gentleman will suspend. The chair has answered the gentleman’s question. The gentlemen will state the point of order.

McHENRY: How many times —

FRANK: No. No. The gentleman — (pounding gavel) the gentleman — ”how many times” could not conceivably be a point of order.

McHENRY: If the chair will not answer my question —

FRANK: The gentleman will not interrupt. (pounding gavel)

McHENRY: Is exempted from this legislation.

FRANK: (pounding gavel) The gentleman will not — well, the chair is presiding, will not make speeches in the guise of a parliament inquiry. (pounding gavel) The gentlemen will suspend. The gentlemen —

McHENRY: Point of order.

FRANK: The gentlemen from Texas will suspend. (pounding gavel)

McHENRY: — out of order in the past.

RUSH: (Laughing.) ‘The gentleman will not respond while the chairman is presiding!” That’s Barney Frank on his own turf. I love the Drudge page headline here: “Pelosi Announces Global Warming Panel.” That headline is under a picture of a frozen orange with five-inch long icicles on it.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This