RUSH: Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut. Paul Shanklin is Algore, Ball of Fire, time for a global warming update.
(Playing of Ball of Fire.)
RUSH: From yesterday’s Global Warming Stack, from the Washington Times, John McCaslin, Inside the Beltway, reports that a ‘D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: ‘Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.’ The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention ‘great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones,’ and ‘at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.’ ‘This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s,’ says Mr. Lockwood. ‘I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all.”
Now, this is an interesting thing. We’ve talked about this, but you may not remember it, and I wish I could remember who did this. Two guys, their names escape me, but what they did was an analysis of media. I know Koko will find this and we can put it up on the website this afternoon when we update it for today’s content, but what they did was research the media treatment of climate change going all the way back to the 1800s. What they found was fascinating, that the whole notion of climate change could not be in the public domain were it not for a willing accomplice media, and every 25 years the cycle changes, from warming, to warning about cooling. It was a fascinating piece. This 1922 Washington Post story illustrates that that’s exactly what’s happened. So you can have a bunch of scientists at any time in history say, ‘Hey, we just did some research here and the glaciers are expanding, the world is getting colder.’ Remember 1979, TIME and Newsweek, ‘The coming ice age’? It’s about a little more than 25 years ago, but the cycle is starting to repeat itself, isn’t it?
So it was global cooling back then; now we’re into global warming. This has been the cycle; every 25 to 30 years, the media changes its tune. It’s all part of the narrative. It’s all about having something catastrophic on the horizon to report, just like they’re going nuts with these two storms. We have Tropical Storm Erin Burnett out there, Tropical Storm Street Sweetie, which is about to hit Corpus Christi. We have Tropical Storm Dean, hasn’t become a hurricane yet. It’s down there in the southern Atlantic, and the track on that one keeps changing. But the Drive-Bys are excited now, folks, we have catastrophe on the horizon, and this is something that excites them. I know people are starting to pound me out there for saying this whole global warming thing is a hoax. Let me clarify. We may be warming up. What is a hoax is that only rich industrialized nations are causing it, that it is manmade. I don’t think we have the ability, and I think it’s outrageous for people to claim with such vanity that we have such power on the one hand, and on the other hand we’re no more important than field mice. In fact, some people would say that for the earth to survive, we’d have to get off of it, or die. It’s a religion.
The whole thing is a political process and a political agenda, hiding behind the saving of the planet and so forth. I don’t know if it’s warming up or not, but I think it’s always warming or cooling. How do we know what the ideal temperature on the planet is? Who the hell are we? None of us have been around more than 85, a hundred years. And look at our vanity: ‘Why, it’s perfect right now. This is what the world was meant to be, and it’s changing, and it’s our fault.’ It’s just cockeyed. Hotter in the past, colder in the past, who’s to say what’s normal, natural, and ideal? We have to adapt to whatever happens, which is what we’ve done. We’re doing great things and the right things and keeping the climate clean or the environment clean. Every species has to adapt in order to thrive because it’s a constantly changing climate, a constantly changing environment. But we have all the vanity now suggesting that it’s just as it was supposed to be right here, and we, because we are here right now, are destroying it. I think, folks, that is sophistry.
Here, another interesting story: ‘Trees Won’t Fix Global Warming.’ Now, of course, trees are the linchpin to another hoax, and that’s carbon offsets. You don’t want to reduce your carbon footprint, i.e., your pollution? Fine and dandy, go out and buy some carbon offsets. There are a bunch of companies that will scam you into doing this, and you’ll pay them to go plant a bunch of trees, and then you can rest easy, you can keep polluting all you want, knowing full well that your carbon footprint is going to be absorbed because somebody’s out there planting trees for you. Well, guess what? ‘The plan to use trees as a way to suck up and store the extra carbon dioxide emitted into Earth’s atmosphere to combat global warming isn’t such a hot idea, new research indicates. Scientists at Duke University bathed plots of North Carolina pine trees in extra carbon dioxide every day for 10 years and found that while the trees grew more tissue, only the trees that received the most water and nutrients stored enough carbon dioxide to offset the effects of global warming.’ Only the trees that received the most water and nutrients stored enough carbon dioxide to offset the effects of global warming. ‘The Department of Energy-funded project, called the Free Air Carbon Enrichment (FACE) experiment, compared four pine forest plots that received daily doses of carbon dioxide 1.5 times current levels,’ and it made no difference. It didn’t make a hoot’s worth of difference. This is why I say all of this is a hoax.
Look at this from Live Science: ‘Irrigation Counteracts Global Warming.’ No! Irrigation is destroying the planet, I thought. ‘Irrigation isn’t natural; it’s manmade; God never intended it, nature never intended it. We’re destroying what was pristine and wonderful, Mr. Limbaugh.’ ‘Irrigation can counteract global warming on a local scale, a new study shows, but increasing demand for water is likely to curb that influence in the future, scientists predict. Scientists from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California showed that there was an irrigation-induced cooling in agricultural areas, based on observations of temperature and irrigation trends throughout California.’ Well, how about that? I got an idea, folks, let’s start irrigating Laurie David’s backyard. Let’s irrigate Brentwood. Let’s irrigate Bel Air and Beverly Hills. They care about global warming out there. They got the solution right in their backyards. Dig a ditch and put some water in it.
RUSH: By the way, one more global warming story here. This is from Reuters. Get this: ‘Australian scientists have discovered a giant underwater current that is one of the last missing links of a system that connects the world’s oceans and helps govern global climate.’ They just found this? Would somebody tell me how in the name of Sam Hill — and there was such a guy — how in the name of Sam Hill can they been predicting all this global warming when there’s been such a huge missing link that they just now found? ‘New research shows that a current sweeping past Australia’s southern island of Tasmania toward the South Atlantic is a previously undetected part of the world climate system’s engine-room.’ They just found it. What else don’t they know? See, I thought this was settled science. I thought it was settled and the consensus was there.