×

Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu




RUSH: Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut. Finally we get to it, ladies and gentlemen.

RUSH: After two days of delays, we have time to squeeze the update in.

(‘Ball of Fire’ Global Warming Update Theme Song)

RUSH: It’s the EIB Network.

(Song continues.)

RUSH: Paul Shanklin here.

(Song continues.)

RUSH: As Algore.

(Song continues.)

RUSH: One more time, Al, how about it?

(Song concludes.)

RUSH: Okay. As I say, the Global Warming Stack has been growing on its own. Items keep accumulating each day, and I haven’t had a chance to get to it. I don’t get to it every day because as I say, I don’t want to wear you out on this stuff, but here’s the latest from Discovery.com: ‘Planting new trees in snow-covered northern regions may actually contribute to global warming as they have the counter-effect of tropical forests. This according to a study out Monday.’ Tree planting could add to warming. How can this be? Well… ‘While rainforests help cool the planet by absorbing carbon dioxide and producing clouds that reflect sunlight, the dark canopy of Canadian, Scandinavian and Siberian forests catches sunrays that would be reflected back to space by the snow, the study said.

‘The study, published Monday in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that reforestation projects in the tropics would help mitigate global warming, but such projects would be ‘counterproductive’ in high latitudes. In mid-latitude locations like the United States and most of Europe, more trees would only create marginal benefits for climate change…’ So all you people buying these carbon offsets (mwa-hahaha!) and you’re investing in these companies to go out and plant trees so you can fly your private jets around, you’re contributing to the so-called problem. This is if we accept the premise of totally manmade global warming. ”Our study shows that only tropical rainforests are strongly beneficial in helping slow down global warming,’ Govindasamy Bala, who led the research, said. ‘It is a win-win situation in the tropics because trees in the tropics, in addition to absorbing carbon dioxide, promote convective clouds that help to cool the planet,’ he said. ‘In other locations, the warming from the albedo effect (sunlight absorption) either cancels or exceeds the net cooling from the other two effects,’ said Bala, an atmospheric scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.’

See, what happens here, folks — let me tell you this in layman’s terms. There’s no snow down there in the tropical rain forests, ever, but there is snow up obviously you get further north latitude naturally. So you go start planting a bunch of trees up there, and the sunlight that reflects off the snow is captured by the trees, and doesn’t make it up there to atmosphere to form cooling clouds, so they say. This whole thing is a crock. People say, ‘It’s science!’ It’s not science. This is not even a ‘moral issue.’ It is a pure political issue. Have you heard what’s happened in Cleveland? They’ve had baseball games canceled because of snow. ‘The Boston Red Sox may have to cancel some upcoming games this week because of six inches of snow in the forecast, and with the ground crews still shoveling snow off the field at Jacobs Field, the Cleveland Indians decided it was time to head north to Milwaukee.’

They’ve got a retractable dome there. ‘The Indians moved their series against the Los Angeles Angels to Milwaukee’s Miller Park after a spring snowstorm wiped out Cleveland’s series against Seattle for the fourth straight day Monday. ‘I thought we were going to move it to North Dakota, but we got Milwaukee instead,’ joked Indians designated hitter Travis Hafner, a native of Sykeston, N.D. The teams will play a three-game series beginning Tuesday in a ballpark that has a retractable roof, unlike Jacobs Field. The opener and Wednesday’s game will be played at 7:05 p.m. EDT, with Thursday’s game scheduled for 1:05 p.m. While a snowy, rainy mix stopped falling Monday, the grounds crew was unable to get the surface in shape after three days of snow. About a foot of snow remained on the field Monday afternoon with workers shoveling it into small carts to be hauled away,’ and of course now everybody is going through the usual contortions, ‘Well, we need to open the season in these domed stadiums and in the West Coast, the southern climes. It’s senseless to have Tampa Bay open up in New York, for example. They should open at home, blah, blah, blah.’

The problem with that is that a lot of teams don’t want these extended road trips to start the season, and it all balances out anyway. They tried this in 1996 and ’97. They actually tried having a schedule that started with all the West Coast teams and the southern teams opening at home, for like a week to ten days and then they all moved north and they still had weather problems. Now, here’s the thing. This is quite normal. It’s quite normal for there to be snow in places like Cleveland and Boston and the northeast in April. I lived in Pittsburgh. I remember a game was snowed out in May in Pittsburgh back in the early seventies. It happens, and there’s nothing unusual about it. What is interesting to me is, that in all these stories about Cleveland moving places — and every ticket, by the way, is ten bucks when they go to Milwaukee’s Miller Park. Every ticket ten bucks because there’s no home crowd there, given the two teams playing, Cleveland and the Los Angeles Angels. That’s really strange.

Move the games to Anaheim. ‘You can’t do that! That would give the Anaheim team an unfair advantage.’ The schedule is too intricate to do this, but during all of this, I can’t find in any of the reporting on all the snowed-out baseball games anybody in the Drive-By Media questioning global warming. I just can’t. Now, you might say, ‘Well, why should they?’ Well, because of fairness and objectivity, because I will guarantee you, by the time we get to June or July, somewhere it’s going to be unseasonably hot, and we’re going to hear, ‘Global warming! Global warming! Global warming! Global warming!’ and it’s going to never end. Yet when there’s any evidence that would contradict the notion that we’re warming up uncontrollably and to the point of devastation, it’s left out. It’s totally ignored. I’ll tell you something else that’s wrong with all of this and that is the singular notion that there is only one thing associated with warming, and that’s destruction. That is patently absurd, too. Remember the Vikings, Leif Ericson and the gang? When they came across the Atlantic Ocean and discovered North America, they were only able do it because of a temperate climate in that age.

They couldn’t do it today, if they tried, in the kind of ships that they came over on. The seas are too rough. They discovered Greenland. They were going to plant crops. Scotland used to be farmland. It’s not anymore. It’s too cold up there now, but it used to be. These are cycles of warming and cooling that are constantly occurring on the planet. But most people’s historical perspective begins with the day they were born and most people think it’s never been worse in the case of anything, than it is at the time they are alive. I mentioned this yesterday., Newsweek International has a column by Richard Lindzen. He is a meteorologist. He’s the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has tenure, so he’s probably safe after writing this piece, but his point is there’s no such thing as a perfect temperature.

‘The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth’s climate history, it’s apparent that there’s no such thing as an optimal temperature — a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperature-wise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman’s forecast for next week. A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year’s report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.

‘A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what’s normal for weather and climate. There’s no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the US National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization, and the IPCC, which released the second part of this year’s report earlier this month. Indeed, meteorological theory holds that outside the tropics, whether in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing. In many other aspects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age.’ Are you listening to this, Rachel? Good. ‘When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short term fluctuations, the rate of sea level rise has been relatively uniform, less than a couple millimeters a year,’ and I frankly want to know how they measure that. What do you do? You go to high tide, low tide, and medium tide, stick a ruler down there on the beach? I’m being purposely facetious. Measuring sea level?

At any rate… ‘There’s even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century [sea-level rise] than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes… Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now.’ Yet people want to believe what they’re told by the National Weather Service wild guess people what’s going to happen in 2040 or 2045. They know not to trust what they say is again happen ten to 15 days out. ‘Much of the alarm over climate change is biased on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way.’ Speaking of that, Bill Gray out there at Colorado State University, really, really just jumped on Algore.

‘Doctor William Gray, the scientist known as America’s most reliable hurricane forecaster, is calling Al Gore ‘a gross alarmist’ for making the Oscar-winning documentary about global warming…. [F]or someone of Gore’s stature — he’s — quote — ‘a gross alarmist and doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s one of these guys that preaches the end of the world.’ That, Gray says, is doing, again in his words, ‘a great disservice.’ A spokeswoman said Gore was on a [carbon-burning] flight from Washington D-C to Nashville; he did not immediately respond to Gray’s charges.’ By the way, remember how we exposed the fraud and the hoax of that picture of two polar bears that are apparently ‘stranded’ on a melting glacier out there in the middle of the ocean? We exposed this a long time ago. This is an ice floe. It’s made by the sea. It’s a sea sculpture that’s made by the waves, and the polar bears are out there playing, and if you’ve been watching Planet Earth on the Discovery Channel you learn that polar bears can swim 60 to 100 miles. I was amazed looking at the footage. They swim like fish underneath the water. Well, not fish, but they’re swimmers, 60 miles.


There’s no way these poor things could be ‘stranded’ here on this. They weren’t. The whole thing was a hoax, and finally the Australian TV networks have exposed it. So this is not just something contained here in the United States, brought to the attention of this country by me. Now the Australian TV networks are illustrating the hoax involved in this so-called ‘stranded polar bear’ picture, and even in the headline of the story here they uses the word hoax — and that’s what the global warming alarmists do. They use hoaxes. They Photoshop pictures. They do a number of things to frighten you and scare you into thinking that this calamity is already happening as they say it will happen in 2040 or 2050 or whatever they’re guessing.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This