Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: Drive-By Media panic over global warming. This is NBC’s Matt Lauer and Andrea Mitchell and ABC’s Sam Champion all talking about global warming.
LAUER: Now to a controversy in Washington over what literally could be the end of the world as we know it. Did the Bush administration freeze out scientists trying to sound the alarm on global warming?
MITCHELL: If nothing is done, temperatures will climb by the end of the century, sea levels will rise, the snow cover will shrink.
CHAMPION: Between 1.1 and 3.2 billion people will suffer from water shortage problems by 2080. Now, that’s not your grandchildren, that’s your children. And between 200 million and 600 million more people will be going hungry.
RUSH: I’ll tell you, they’re getting desperate now because people are not buying into this. Matt Lauer in one of the most irresponsible statements on network news, ?Could literally be the end of the world as we know it.? Could be the end of the world as we know it? All right, so we have our global warming stack today. First up, ?Prime Minister Stephen Harper once called the Kyoto accord a ?socialist scheme? designed to suck money out of rich countries, according to a letter leaked Tuesday by the Liberals. The letter, posted on the federal Liberal party website, was apparently written by Harper in 2002, when he was leader of the now-defunct Canadian Alliance party. He was writing to party supporters, asking for money as he prepared to fight then-prime minister Jean Chr?tien on the proposed Kyoto accord. ?We’re gearing up now for the biggest struggle our party has faced since you entrusted me with the leadership,? Harper’s letter says. ?I’m talking about the ?battle of Kyoto? ? our campaign to block the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto accord.?? He?s right, and he is now the prime minister of Canada.
In Los Angeles, ?The county can’t ban the use of trans fat in restaurants because it lacks the authority to do so, according to legal advisers.? What a bummer and what a shock, ladies and gentlemen. A government body constrained in some way in California? Legal beagles telling a government body it doesn’t have the authority to do something? I don’t believe it. ?The county counsel told public health officials that neither a trans fat ban nor a requirement that restaurants display nutritional information on their menus would be possible under current state law. The state has jurisdiction in such matters.?

(story) ?Fearing that young models strutting down the runways in New York City are too skinny, a state lawmaker proposes that weight standards be established for the fashion and entertainment industries. Bronx Assemblyman Jose Rivera wants to create a state advisory board to recommend standards and guidelines for the employment of child performers and models under the age of 18 to prevent eating disorders.? Yep, a law will stop that. ?Aides to Rivera knew of no other similar bill nationwide aimed at the fashion and entertainment industries.? Isn?t this what we want of our elected leaders? There are homicides in New York, in the Bronx, all over the city, there’s murder taking place left and right just like there is in Philadelphia, and here is this clown wanting a law to ensure healthy fashion models.
As you know, the Super Bowl is Sunday, right down the road here. It’s in Davie, Florida, which is where Dolphin Stadium is. The National Football League is hoping to tackle some of the heat trapping gas emissions that will emerge from the game itself and from all the traffic arriving, the limos, the buses, the cars, all of the cooking that will be going on. The National Football League is worried about gas emissions that will lead to global warming or contribute to it, and they have got a problem, and they have got a solution. They are going to plant 3,000 mangroves and other trees native to Florida. However, ?the plan could be more of an incomplete pass than a touchdown when it comes to global warming, experts said. ?It’s probably a nice thing to do, but planting trees is not a quantitative solution to the real problem,? said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford University. The NFL began planting the trees in August and will finish in May. This year’s Super Bowl features the Chicago Bears against the Indianapolis Colts.?
I support the Bears, but I wish they weren’t there. I wish it was the Saints. I’m just kidding. I support the Bears but wish they weren’t there. Support the troops, but pull ’em out. So the NFL, if nothing else, what does this story tell you? Three-thousand trees to combat the global warming effects of a Super Bowl football game? Shouldn’t the NFL be planting 3,000 trees at every NFL stadium every year? All of the heat trapping emissions from a football game? If this doesn’t tell you that this whole thing is ridiculously political. Here’s the NFL just trying to score some good old boy points. Three-thousand, we got enough trees in Florida, for crying out loud. We got trees all over the place, and they’re gorgeous. It’s not that we don’t need any more. It’s just silly. It is absurd. It is an insult to the average person’s intelligence, and if you have above average intelligence as I do, it’s really insulting. By the way, I don’t have time — you know that road closure they were going to have to rebuild a seawall down here? They had to be done by April 30th so as to get it done before the turtles showed up? They canceled the project. Well, they delayed it until further notice. Nobody seems to know why. (Laughing.) Nobody seems to know why.

RUSH: More global warming idiocy here, before we get back to the phone calls. It really is getting absurd now. Dr. John Christie was making a speech recently. I don’t know who Dr. John Christie is but I know that he’s got a brain, because Dr. John Christie said, ?We care so much about the environment, we would do anything, except take a science course.? Get this. On Thursday evening, tomorrow night, as scientists and officials put finishing touches on a long-awaited report about global warming, the Eiffel Tower will switch off its 20,000 flashing lightbulbs that run up and down the tower and illuminate the French capital’s skyline. The Eiffel Tower’s lights account for about 9% of the monument’s total energy consumption of 7,000 megawatt hours per year. The five-minute blackout comes at the urging of environmentalist wackos seeking to call attention to energy waste, and just hours before the world scientists on Friday unveil a major report warning the planet will keep getting warmer and presenting new evidence of humans’ role in climate change.
California Senator Henry “Nostrilitis” Waxman, ?The Democratic chairman of a House panel examining the government’s response to climate change said Tuesday there is evidence that senior Bush administration officials sought repeatedly ?to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming.?? They didn’t inject doubt. They’ve got scientists who doubt it. The whole premise of it makes Bush and the administration sound like a bunch of criminals. Mislead the public? You think maybe the global warming alarmists are misleading the public? A couple new books out by global warming scientists say yeah, the world’s warming up, it happens, it’s cyclical, it’s related to sunspot activity and so forth. No case can be made for human activity. All right, you’ve got a bunch of scientists who are always ignored, who say there’s no manmade factor here. This is bigger than us, it’s bigger than we are, it’s happening, maybe, but there?s nothing we can do about it. We didn’t cause it.
Finally, in this list of silliness, ?A California lawmaker wants to make his state the first to ban incandescent lightbulbs as part of California’s groundbreaking initiatives to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. The ?How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act? would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact fluorescent lightbulbs,? which suck. Pardon the French. Want to communicate. ?Incandescent lightbulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago,? and for it Thomas Edison should be stripped of any honor that he has been bestowed. Thomas Edison, major contributor to global warming and pollution.
You know who is behind this? This is Laurie David. Remember, she was on The View, she was on Oprah, and she’s running around with these lightbulbs. She’s the activist wife of a comedian, and she’s gotta book out, and of course it will be heralded by the Drive-Bys. Change the lightbulbs, unplug your toaster when you’re not using it, unplug the microwave. Bury the car, don’t use toilet paper, just go out and get some leaves. These are actual suggestions from 12 years ago from environmentalist wackos to save the environmental.

RUSH: One more global warming story. ?Deep mountain snow usually drives moose to seek lower ground in Anchorage, but the snow piling up in town this winter is a bit much even for the stilt-legged animals. So they’re going where they’d rather not, choosing major roads, plowed sidewalks and groomed trails to sidestep the vast cushion of snow in neighborhoods and greenbelts left during a remarkably temperamental month in Alaska’s largest city. The half-ton ungulates are even showing up downtown, placidly gnawing on bare trees at busy intersections. ?They don’t want to walk through deep snow either,? said state wildlife biologist Rick Sinnott. ?Most moose don’t really want to interact with people and cars and dogs,?? but here they’re not able to totally avoid them because of the snow in Anchorage.
Now, I thought global warming and all of this hot weather was causing the ice caps to melt up there and so forth. No, no, no, no, we got snow. How can it be that the polar bears are dying because it’s so hot where they are and the moose in Anchorage, Alaska are having to abandon their normal winter habitat for the city of Anchorage where there’s even more snow? Now, you say, this is an isolated example. Folks, I’m just doing the same thing they do. If you have, in the month of January, a temperature of 65 degrees in New York or Chicago, ?Global warming! Global warming! Global warming!? Okay, I’ll pick an American city where there’s more snow than they’ve ever had, so much snow that the moose are being forced out of their natural habitat, ?Global warming isn’t happening! Global warming isn’t happening! Global warming isn?t happening!? Use the same logic they do. If an unusually warm day in the middle of winter in a northern city takes place is evidence of global warming, why can’t I turn around and say record snow in the city of Anchorage causing moose to relocate isn’t evidence of global warming?

Why can’t I cherry-pick individual weather to prove my case? ?Well, because, Mr. Limbaugh, you can only cite one case where winter is unusual.? Oh, yeah? Take a look at the map today. Nineteen degrees in Kansas City, 13 degrees in Denver, 34 degrees and falling in Dallas with freezing rain — Dallas, Texas! Guess what? We went below freezing down here in central Florida a couple nights ago. We are still five or six degrees below normal and it’s Super Bowl week. Now, it’s going to be 80 and 84 and 85 on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, but on Sunday going to be 76 down in Miami with some rain — that’s the forecast now. So how can there be global warming when we have freezing temperatures in California where the citrus crop was destroyed? What, $1 billion worth of citrus? How come I can’t point to that and say, ?Well, it can’t be global warming.?

If the world is warming up to the point of utter destruction, if the world is warming up in such a way that we are literally going to destroy the planet as we know it, how in the world can it get so cold in Los Angeles? How can it snow in Malibu? Why can’t I say there can’t possibly be any warming, it’s colder in Malibu than it’s been in 30 years! The citrus crop in California ruined. How come I can’t say that? ?Because it’s just one or two examples, Mr. Limbaugh.? So just take their technique, turn it right around on them, my good buddies. It?s the same thing. That’s all they’re doing. I guarantee you, you know, back in 1979 or ’74, whenever it was, Newsweek did this big cover story on global cooling and the coming ice age. If, since the mid-eighties, the environmentalist wackos had been touting global cooling instead of global warming, and if there had been this consistent drumbeat, I’ll guarantee you what would have happened. Every example of freezing cold weather would have been cited as evidence of it. In the summertime where a cold front went through some town, clearing all the humidity out, saying the temperature was ten degrees below normal, which happens sometimes in certain warm climates in August, September, they would have said, ?See, global cooling, global cooling.? Citrus crop being destroyed in California, cold temperatures in California this week, the snow and ice in Anchorage, Alaska, ?Global cooling, global cooling,? and everybody would believe that global cooling is taking place.
So it’s all a sham, it’s all a scam, and it?s all an effort to expand the role of the United Nations and for poor countries to get their hands in the pockets of rich countries, expand the role of government in people’s lives, and to make you feel as guilty as you can about the way you’re living your life because that’s what’s causing all these catastrophes so that in your guilt, you will be more readily agreeable to paying higher taxes, to replacing lightbulbs in your house, doing all kinds of stupid, irrelevant things. Guess what the latest thing they’ve learned about ethanol is? It creates more smog than gasoline. (Gasping.) So not only are we driving up the world price of corn — that are going to lead to riots in Mexico over the price of tortillas — not only are we raising the price of corn and the price of food thus around the world, in Third World countries, because we’re taking so much of the corn selfishly and using it ourselves under the misguided premise that we are making the world cleaner, produces more smog. It?s one of those little, ?Oh by the way, gang, there’s a news story today we didn’t tell you about, ethanol creates more smog.? ?You’re just citing individual examples, Mr. Limbaugh. You refuse to see the truth.? That’s the voice, by the way, of the new castrati, the spineless, gutless testicle free wonders that rule the world these days.

RUSH: Flash, flash bulletin, bulletin, bulletin, beep, beep, beep, whatever. Just cleared, ladies and gentlemen. This is from the Ottawa Globe & Mail. ?Humans have already left such a deep footprint on the environment that the effects of global warming will last for the next 1,000 years, according to a draft copy of a new report. The Globe and Mail obtained an early version of the climate change study being prepared by the world’s leading scientists, and reported that little doubt remains that the planet is getting hotter. ? It says human influence on the atmosphere during the 21st century alone will propel global warming for another 1,000 years, based on estimates of how long it will take nature to clean the air of gases that contribute to climate change.? When the hell is that going to happen? What they mean is the next ice age.
Now, here we go again. The weathermen of the world cannot predict weather for tomorrow. I have been tracking this. As you know, ladies and gentlemen, the Super Bowl is Sunday. Dolphin Stadium, kickoff around 6:30. The Chicago Bears and the Indianapolis Colts. Well, I got some guests going to the game. I secured a suite at Dolphin Stadium, put some clients and friends in there. I am not going. I got it for them, so I’ve been very concerned about the weather for these people. The AccuWeather– (laughing) — I can read the expressions in there. Snerdley, ?Well, I never heard about this, you didn’t invite me.? Did you want to go to the game? (interruption) Oh, you can’t understand why I don’t. I’ve been. This is for people who have not been. Besides, I’ve got my little theater room with my big screen and so forth. I want to watch the game. I don’t want to be ? (interruption) yeah. This is an example of my generosity, Snerdley. Anyway, don’t get me sidetracked here. So I’m hoping that the weather is okay.
We’ve had a great winter in south Florida. Would you not agree? Our average temperature, since — well, I guess October, has been in the eighties. So the AccuWeather site forecasts weather for 15 days. So two weeks ago I began checking the AccuWeather site for weather on Super Bowl Sunday in Miami. And the firstly day I checked the forecast for February 4th was for a massive cold front to sweep in Saturday night. The high temperature was going to be 64 degrees, a low the night before the Super Bowl of somewhere in the forties, and there was going to be wind and rain. So I have a couple friends that work on the Super Bowl host committee, and I said, ?Uh-oh, all the work you’ve been doing the past two years, look at what’s going to happen Super Bowl Sunday,? and I sent them the forecast. I said, ?Don’t worry, I will guarantee you this is not right. I will guarantee you this is going to change.? That forecast was the same the next day.
Thirteen days away from the Super Bowl, totally different. Super Bowl Sunday was going to be a high of 80, a low of 65, no chance of rain. In just two days the weather forecast — and I have nothing against AccuWeather, don’t misunderstand this. I’m talking about the science of predicting things. Two-day range, we had a high temperature forecast of 66 and rain, go up to 80 and no rain and 65 at night with sunshine. It has changed every day that I have looked at it. It has gone from a high of 82. It is now currently rain in the daytime and 76 for an afternoon high, the low temperature 60, the rain ends. That’s the forecast for Sunday in Miami. It’s different than any day previous to today. Just two days ago they were forecasting glorious sunshine. And who knows what the weather is going to be. As we get closer to it, they will be more accurate about the prediction.
My point is that in just a seven-day span, or eight or nine-day span, the forecast for Miami, at the Super Bowl, on Super Bowl Sunday, has been all over the place. Now we’ve got these jerks, these scientists telling us that global warming will last for 1,000 years. That’s probably 950 years longer than the war on terror is forecast to last. Now, if you want to take this headline, ?Global Warming to Last for 1,000 Years,? there’s a positive way of looking at this. The way I choose to look at life. Great news, global warming only a temporary phenomenon, because it’s going to end in a thousand years. (Laughing.) My friends, the effort here to just make you feel so damn guilty so that you will acquiesce to the demands of the world’s elitists and socialists, to higher taxes, to fix the problems you’ve caused and created, knows no bounds now. Global warming to last for 1,000 years.
You project this out long enough, and there’s no one to know how stupid people are once you start changing the predictions. It is mind-boggling. You just keep in mind — and you can go this AccuWeathersite yourself, and again, I don’t want anybody calling Joe Bastardi up there and saying, ?Limbaugh was dumping on you.? I’m not. I?m just simply trying to illustrate. They have a great reputation, and they take a great risk on putting a two-week weather forecast on the website, they can do it for any city in the country. A 15-day forecast is a huge risk. People make travel plans based on this, a whole bunch of things, and it’s just been all over the place, it’s been erratic as it can be.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This