RUSH: Dadelut dadelut dadelut. It’s time to get to the Global Warming Stack. Paul Shanklin’s as Algore warbles.
(Playing of “Ball of Fire” Global Warming Update Theme Song.)
RUSH: Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network.
(Continued playing of song.)
RUSH: All right. I have a pretty healthy Global Warming Stack here. Interesting things off the top. In news from the UK: “A new documentary that will air soon on the BBC, ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle,’ says that accepted theories about man causing global warming are lies. ?The Great Global Warming Swindle? – backed by eminent scientists – is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans.? Remember, there cannot be science if there is
?The programme, to be screened on Channel 4 on Thursday March 8, will see a series of respected scientists attack the “propaganda” that they claim is killing the world?s poor. Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2. Nobody in the documentary defends the greenhouse effect theory, as it claims that climate change is natural, has been occurring for years, and ice falling from glaciers is just the spring break-up and as normal as leaves falling in autumn. A source at Channel 4 said: ?It is essentially a polemic and we are expecting it to cause trouble, but this is the controversial programming that Channel 4 is renowned for.? Controversial director Martin Durkin said: ?You can see the problems with the science of global warming, but people just don?t believe you ? it?s taken ten years to get this commissioned. I think it will go down in history as the first chapter in a new era of the relationship between scientists and society. Legitimate scientists ? people with qualifications ? are the bad guys. It is a big story that is going to cause controversy.??
Now, note the way this is written. It’s essentially a
They are trying to shut up people who don’t believe what they say, but it isn’t working because more and more people are coming out and expressing exactly what this is, nothing more than propaganda. Here’s another report on the same program, and this is from the BBC’s site. The first one was not from the BBC site. This one is from the BBC site, Channel 4. ?In a polemical and thought-provoking documentary, film-maker Martin Durkin argues that the theory of man-made global warming has become such a powerful political force that other explanations for climate change are not being properly aired. The film brings together the arguments of leading scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus that a ‘greenhouse effect’ of carbon dioxide released by human activity is the cause of rising global temperatures. Instead the documentary highlights recent research that the effect of the sun’s radiation on the atmosphere may be a better explanation for the regular swings of climate from ice ages to warm interglacial periods and back again. The film argues that the earth’s climate is always changing, and that rapid warmings and coolings took place long before the burning of fossil fuels. It argues that the present single-minded focus on reducing carbon emissions not only may have little impact on climate change.?
It is a very scientific presentation from what I understand. ?’The ice core record goes to the very heart of the problem we have,’ says Tim Ball, Climatologist and Prof Emeritus of Geography at the University of Winnipeg in the documentary. ‘They said if CO2 increases in the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas, then the temperature will go up’. In fact, the experts in the film argue that increased CO2 levels are actually a result of temperature rises, not their cause, and that this alternate view is rarely heard. ‘So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans, is shown to be wrong.’
“‘I’ve often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system,’ says John Christy, Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center, NSSTC University of Alabama. ‘Well I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true.’? In a story from Canada, ?Claude Allegre, one of France’s leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming. ?By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century,? Dr. Allegre, a renowned geochemist, wrote 20 years ago in Cles pour la geologie. Fifteen years ago, Dr. Allegre was among the 1500 prominent scientists who signed ?World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity,? a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming’s ?potential risks are very great? and demanding a new caring ethic that recognizes the globe’s fragility in order to stave off ?spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse.??
However, Claude All?gre has now changed his mind.
?He now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank. His break with what he now sees as environmental cant on climate change came in September, in an article entitled ?The Snows of Kilimanjaro? in l’Express, the French weekly. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro’s retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. ?The cause of this climate change is unknown,? he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the ?science is settled.?? It cannot possibly be settled if there are scientists in great numbers that disagree with all this. There’s no way it can be settled. So big names are starting to defect from the accepted theories.
Jerry Schmitt, writing in the AmericanThinker.com, points out in a little short article here the hypocrisy and the curiosity of the left. They trust global warming models, but when it comes to the economic models of Milton Friedman and many others that show that lower taxes produce growth and prosperity, they discount them! They throw them out — even though there is evidence in the United States since the 1980s that such is the case, actually since the sixties, when John Kennedy first cut taxes. He writes that, ?This dichotomy only underscores the conviction that modern Liberalism is a quasi-religious set of beliefs that cannot be perturbed by facts or evidence.?
It is a religion. Remember we talked to Roy Spencer last week, the prominent scientist, climatologist and a number of other things, University of Alabama Huntsville? He used to be with NASA. He was saying that what nobody can factor — what nobody can model, and what nobody is really spending enough attention in analyzing — is the precipitation around the world and the effects that that has on climate change. Lo and behold, LiveScience.com: ?With constant weather forecasts on TV and the Internet and all the precise storm totals that are reported, you might think scientists had a firm grasp of how much rain and snow falls around the planet. And you’d be wrong. ?It’s amazing how much we don’t know about global patterns of rain and snow,? said Walt Petersen, an atmospheric scientist with the National Space Science and Technology Center and the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Meteorologists don’t know how much snow falls each day and where it lands. They also don’t know how much rain comes down, nor how much is heavy downpours versus light drizzles. ?These are just a few of the outstanding questions,? Petersen said.?
So little is known. The models are wrong. They cannot possibly measure the deep complexity of the climate on this planet, and yet global warming is a “settled science.” It is not
RUSH: By the way, ?The European Union is unlikely to meet the goal of a maximum 2 degree Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) rise in temperatures which it views as a threshold for dangerous climate change, a leading U.N. climate official said on Friday. ?It clearly seems very, very difficult to limit it to below 2 degrees,? Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told Reuters in a telephone interview.? It?s crazy. We had a story on Friday that the UN is going to issue an edict that there can only be a certain amount of temperature rise, and the EU can’t even meet what the Kyoto Protocols called for. The EU — and they complain at us and gripe about us, say we are to blame. It’s our fault.
Oh, the tornadoes. Everybody is saying the tornadoes last week had to do with global warming.
From the Toronto Sun. A story by Lorrie Goldstein, a column, actually, “More Inconvenient Truths.? Planting trees won’t save us, ethanol isn’t cool, and rebuilding a city below sea level is insane. She says, ?The more you research global warming, the more you realize we’re being told things that don’t add up. Here’s some examples. ?Green? celebrities often claim to reduce their carbon imprint to zero when flying around the world by buying ?carbon offsets.? One popular way of doing this is by planting trees. Let’s do the math.? For those of you that went to the public school system, we’ll help here. ?It takes 15 trees…? Get this, now. Listen to me on this ?It takes 15 trees 40 to 50 years to absorb five tons of carbon.?
Planting trees ain’t the answer!
?A return flight from Toronto to Vancouver injects 5.4 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per passenger. Carbon dioxide takes 50 to 200 years to dissipate naturally. Therefore, to absorb most of the carbon dioxide caused by one passenger taking one domestic round-trip flight across Canada in 2007, requires planting 15 trees today that won’t complete the job until 2047-2057, assuming none is destroyed by fire, disease or insects. If they are, they’ll release their carbon back into the atmosphere. As Guy Dauncy and Patrick Mazza write in Stormy Weather, 101 Solutions to Global Climate Change, from which I took these figures: ?If we imagine that tree planting can be the solution to the world’s climate problems, we may be making a massive miscalculation.? Flying is also one of the worst ways to emit greenhouse gases. Taking one long flight can easily exceed a year’s worth of car emissions. Plus, it injects the gas into the atmosphere at high altitude, heightening the greenhouse effect. The only way to be ?carbon neutral? when flying is to get off the plane before it takes off.?
This is in the Toronto Sun on March the 4th. We heard about Schwarzenegger registering his private jet with TerraPass, and he’s going to reduce and eliminate his “carbon footprint” because they’re going to go out there and plant trees. Do you understand, ladies and gentlemen, how totally bogus all this is? Forty to 50 years to absorb the carbon put in the air by one passenger taking a Canada coast to coast flight? Now, you could then use that statistic. You could say, ?My gosh, we’re not doing as much damage as we thought. If that much carbon is put in, all these trees, it takes that many years to put the carbon, there’s no way we can stop it! There’s nothing we can do!? We’re not going to stop flying, and you know that Algore is not. These “green” celebrities are not going to stop flying.
This column also talks about ethanol and so forth: ?We’re told ethanol added to gasoline reduces greenhouse gases. Most ethanol in the U.S., the world’s biggest emitter, comes from corn. It takes about 74 units of greenhouse gas-emitting fossil-fuel energy to produce 100 units of ethanol energy. You also lose the carbon dioxide absorption value of the corn,? the plant. You gotta take the corn out of the ground, you get rid of the stalks, the green part of the corn — and there goes your carbon absorption. ?While ethanol added to gas produces a net of 30% less carbon-dioxide emissions compared to plain gas, to plant enough corn to make this significant for global warming, would, as Robert Henson writes in The Rough Guide to Climate Change, require covering 15% of the world’s agricultural land — a country the size of India — with nothing but corn, solely for ethanol. That would cause starvation. There’s also a war between proponents of “adaptation” and “mitigation” in addressing global warming.?
Anyway, you run these numbers and you find out that all this is impossible anyway. If it’s impossible to take that much carbon out of the sky because you can’t plant enough trees, it takes them 40 to 50 years, then you have to ask just how much damage is it really doing? If all these jet engines and plane flights were going to cause global warming, we’ll be boiling right now. They’ve been flying around up there since the forties, thirties, forties, fifties. We’d be dead! Anyway, I know there’s other stuff folks. It’s become a cause c?l?bre with me. I single-handedly am on a mission to blow this whole thing out of the water because it’s just another giant lib hoax. At the end of it, if it works, you’re going to be paying higher taxes and your kids are going to be paying higher taxes and you’re going to have all kinds of big government with regulations telling you what you can and can’t drive, can and can’t eat, where you can and can’t live. Added to the Hillary health care restrictions, it’s not going to be fun to be an American, if this stuff ever comes to pass.