RUSH: I got a Global Warming Stack. Let me just titillate you with one of the stories in the stack here. This is from The Times of London. I’ll just give you a quote. Let me give you the headline then an excerpt of the story. ‘Walking to the shops ‘damages planet more than going by car.” That’s what it says right here. I’m holding this story in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
‘Walking does more than driving to cause global warming, a leading environmentalist has calculated. Food production is now so energy-intensive that more carbon is emitted providing a person with enough calories to walk to the shops than a car would emit over the same distance. The climate could benefit if people avoided exercise, ate less and became couch potatoes.’ This is not ScrappleFace. This is not The Onion. This is not a parody. This is the UK Times. It’s by Dominic Kennedy. Do you people realize the absolute total absence of anything intelligent, reasonable, or substantive in this whole discussion of climate destruction, weather, and the environment? So now you’d be better off driving. You contribute more to global warming walking to the mall than if you drove there.
RUSH: Let me get to the Global Warming Stack here. This stack today is just unbelievable. ‘A former member of the Clinton administration and current Senior Fellow at the virtual Clinton think tank the Center for American Progress, claimed Monday that global warming might have played a factor in the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis last week. Writing at Climate Progress, the global warming blog of CAP, Joseph Romm – who served as Acting Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy in 1997 and as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary from 1995 though 1998 – stated in a piece amazingly entitled ‘Did Climate Change Contribute To The Minneapolis Bridge Collapse?’ ‘I was skeptical at first, but after doing a Google search – and after NBC reported Sunday that National Transportation Safety Board investigators are ‘looking at everything’ including ‘the weather’ – I think it is a legitimate question to ask.’ Melissa Hortman of the Minnesota House of Representatives ‘speculated that 90-plus-degree heat Wednesday and the above-normal temperatures of the past two summers may have been a contributing factor,’ and said ‘You wonder if this bridge was built to withstand the massive heat we have had this summer.”
You’ve got to be kidding. We don’t build bridges that can handle 90-degree heat? ‘Some may object to even asking the question, ‘Did climate change contribute to the Minneapolis bridge collapse?’ My guess is those are the same people who deny that global warming is caused by humans or that it is a serious problem – the same people who inevitably say ‘we can adapt to whatever climate change there is.’ But, in my experience, those ‘adapters’ are actually not interested in finding out what the impacts of global warming are. The Bush administration has blocked research into the impact of climate change on this country and muzzled climate scientists from discussing key climate impact issues.’ This is just patently absurd, but this is how ridiculous it’s gotten. Global warming, they build bridges in Minnesota, can’t withstand two summers of 90-degree heat. By the way, there’s an interesting story out of Minnesota on all this.
Do you know that repairing this bridge and doing maintenance is very, very difficult because some of the work of the bridge was infested with spiders? These guys would have to go down over the edge and get underneath the roadway, and they’d have to get spider webs out of the way because they couldn’t tell the difference between spider webs and cracks. The pigeons are in there, pigeon guano all over the place, who knows what effect that can have, and also this. They said that when they had to close off a lane or two to repair this bridge now and then, that drivers would become sometimes abusive with the workers and throw things at them out the car for delaying their travels across the bridge. So this necessitated a reaction on the part of the repair workers and the maintenance workers who would often choose odd times to do the work, speed up their work and so forth to avoid the hassles and creating hassles for drivers and motorists. All in all, it is absurd to start speculating. We’re going to find out. If people would just wait, we’re going to find out what happened here. There will be a forensic analysis and examination here, and we will know what happened. The people just can’t wait, gotta move it, global warming now from a former Clinton administration official.
I already told you about the story from the UK Times. Walking to the mall damages the planet more than going by car. If you think this is a hoax or you think this is a satire, it is not. Here’s the money quote. ‘Walking does more than driving to cause global warming, a leading environmentalist has calculated. Food production is now so energy-intensive that more carbon is emitted, providing a person with enough calories to walk to the shops than a car would emit over the same distance. The climate could benefit if people avoided exercise, ate less, and became couch potatoes.’ How do you people believe this stuff? You people that believe this, I want to know, how does your brain work? What is it that makes you willing to associate yourself with literal glittering jewels of colossal ignorance?
Algore in Singapore said, ‘Research aimed at disputing the scientific consensus…’ and there we go again. There can be no consensus in science. It’s not science if there’s consensus. Not up for vote. ‘Research aimed at disputing the scientific consensus on global warming is part of a huge public misinformation campaign funded by some of the world’s largest carbon polluters, former Vice President Al Gore said Tuesday. ‘There has been an organized campaign, financed to the tune of about $10 million a year from some of the largest carbon polluters, to create the impression that there is disagreement in the scientific community,’ Gore said at a forum in Singapore. ‘In actuality, there is very little disagreement.’ Gore likened the campaign to the millions of dollars spent by U.S. tobacco companies years ago on creating the appearance of scientific debate on smoking’s harmful effects. ‘This is one of the strongest of scientific consensus views in the history of science,’ Gore said. ‘We live in a world where what used to be called propaganda now has a major role to play in shaping public opinion.”
So I consulted our official climatologist, Roy Spencer. I said, ‘What is this scientific consensus? Please explain this to me.’ Here is what Dr. Spencer wrote back. He’s at the University of Alabama Huntsville, former NASA, he’s a climate specialist specializing in precipitation, what impact it might have on global warming. By the way, precipitation is not in any global warming models. He wrote back and said, ‘The only survey of climate scientists I’m aware of is a survey of 530 climate scientists from 27 countries. Only 56% of these 530 scientists agreed that climate change is mostly the result of man-made causes.’ 56%. So Gore is saying that we are now voting on the whole concept of man-made global warming. Exactly right. We are voting, 56% is this consensus of scientists. How can anybody accept anything that 56% of scientists say? It ain’t science. It’s all politics. It’s religion. It is a hoax.
By the way, a little quick question here. What was the top US natural disaster? What’s the top US natural disaster, the greatest? The 1900 Galveston hurricane, 8,000 dead. The second greatest natural disaster, the 1936 heatwave, the Dust Bowl, 5,000 dead. The third greatest US natural disaster, the great Okeechobee hurricane, 2500 dead, 1928. The fourth greatest US natural disaster, the Johnstown flood in Pennsylvania in 1889, 2200 dead. And the fifth-greatest US natural disaster, Louisiana hurricane of 1893, before they were named, 2,000 dead. The top five greatest US natural disasters, 1990 and prior.