×

Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut! It’s time for a global warming update. Algore once again is portrayed vocally here by Paul Shanklin.

(Playing of ‘What a Horrible World’ Global Warming Update parody song.)

RUSH: The EIB Network here, Rush Limbaugh.

(Continued playing of song.)

RUSH: I wonder if we could convince the schools to play that song after they screen that lying piece of propaganda, An Inconvenient Truth. All right, we have big news in the global warming update today. First from Brussels, Belgium: ‘The government of Belgium’s French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported. Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. Beginning June 2007,’ that’s this year, for those of you in Rio Linda, ‘residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session. The local authorities plan to monitor compliance with the new tax legislation from helicopters…’ They are going to have helicopters fly over people’s backyards to see if they’re barbecuing and whether they played the 20 euro tax! Black helicopters are going to be flying over people’s backyards. They think a 20 euro tax is not going to limit barbecuing? It is going to raise money!

It’s like everything else about global warming. It’s designed to get you out of guilt and shame and the feeling that you’ve committed a sin, to give these governments money to keep conducting the sin, and then Algore, your buddy, says, ‘Well, I fly around in my private jet and I got this giant house, but I’m offsetting my carbon footprint because I’m buying carbon offsets and they’re planting trees to absorb all the carbon dioxide.’ He’s not reducing any of his electrical usage, and he refused to sign a pledge to do just that, yet in his stupid movie, he’s telling everybody: ‘You gotta cut back! You gotta live no more luxuriously than the average American!’ He was asked to take the pledge to do that, and he refused to do it, at a hearing on Capitol Hill. So barbecues in Belgium will now be monitored by helicopters for compliance with a new tax — and mark my words, there’s some commie libs in this country who are gonna think this is a fabulous idea. You mark my words on this.

We’re going to get stories on have everybody in southern California alone, lit up the charcoal briquettes at the same time on Friday and Saturday afternoon, the amount of pollution, global warming pollution put in the sky at the same time — and it’s going to become a crisis. Barbecuing will become a crisis. Mark my brilliant words on this. That’s how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that’s in the atmosphere comes from water vapor. Some of it comes from our exhaling. That’s what we exhale, and guess what, the trees and the greens and the grasses need it to live, and then they breathe in the carbon dioxide and they convert it to oxygen, and we can live! It’s a brilliant set up by God. So what we do in our natural existence, exhale, is now creating pollution. Now, folks, if you’re going to buy into this, there’s no hope for you. There’s literally no hope for you!

But even at that, manmade CO2 — even with all the SUVs, even with all the smoke stacks — accounts for 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Yet there’s Gore’s movie with this expanding envelope of CO2 choking, swallowing up planet earth, while the sun becomes less and less significant! It’s being blocked out and we’re going to die, and the polar bears are going to die and Greenland is going to melt, and Manhattan is going to be flooded (which wouldn’t be a bad idea), and all other sorts of calamities are going to happen, all because you do this (exhales). Now, do you actually believe that you are polluting when you breathe? I’m not talking about you people have hangovers. That maybe another matter. I’m just saying, this is absurd. You just watch. It isn’t going to be long before we get these detailed studies of how just in southern California, or someplace where they do a lot of barbecuing, if anybody lit up their grills… They’ll probably have stagger the days. You can barbecue on even and odd numbered days based on your license plate.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: A continuing story here, global warming update. There’s a great piece by somebody who calls himself (laughing) ‘Luminous Maximus,’ who is ‘a longtime observer of the electricity industry’ at the AmericanThinker.com on banning the lightbulb. Now, you laugh at this, but they’re working on this in North Carolina, a ban on the incandescent lightbulb in ten years, to ‘save the planet.’ Incandescent bulbs are causing global warming, so we gotta go get these corkscrew, curlicue things, look like white French fries, compact fluorescents.

‘In a few weeks the US Congress is likely to vote to phase out the standard incandescent lightbulb within a decade.’ If I were you people, I’d start hoarding lightbulbs. ‘Oh, no, Limbaugh!’ Yeah, I would. This is nutcase center. They’re going to ban the old, Thomas Edison lightbulb, so start hoarding those things. ‘The frantic race to see who can best appease the global warming alarmists will claim another victim, the friendly glow of the direct descendant of Thomas Edison’s filament-based light bulb. Why would the humble lightbulb, a staple commodity that has raised the standard of living throughout the world, be in the bullseye? It was the incandescent electric light bulb that abolished the tyranny of the night. Our 19th and 20th century ancestors believed it one of the greatest gifts of civilization because they had directly experienced life before electric lighting changed everything.

‘In 2002, former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld briefly reminded us of this blessing when he commented on the satellite imagery revealing the nighttime darkness in North Korea, but other than this brief moment, we seem to have forgotten what’ a blessing the invention of the lightbulb has been. ‘Ironically, the lowly lightbulb became one of the icons of the New Deal, forever connected with the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. The REA and the [Tennessee Valley Authority] enabled cheap electric power to be available everywhere, even on the remotest farms and ranches. And a substantial part of the American people fell in love with big government because it brought [the lightbulb], the rollback of the night, to all Americans. But today, more than anything else, the humble lightbulb is altogether another sort of convenient symbol for big government — a technology dinosaur, perpetrator of evil crimes against the planet. Stopping the wasteful use of kilowatts by American households in the war on greenhouse gases is the new battle cry of the lovers of governmental control over our lives.

‘There are about 4 billion conventional screw-in light bulb sockets all across America.’ Four billion of them! ‘[T]he vast majority are in homes and apartments. Incandescent light bulbs are in most of these sockets, with some 2 billion or more replaced every year. It is estimated at least $15 billion of electricity is consumed by these inefficient anachronisms, and that by replacing them with more energy efficient types of lightbulbs — primarily post-modern compact fluorescents — that $15 billion could be cut in half. We are told that as kilowatts could be reduced, we would need fewer nasty coal-fired power generating plants, while winning a major battle against global warming with little pain and even less effort. Everybody wins!’ by getting rid of Edison’s lightbulbs. ‘Well, not exactly. Once again, a nice-sounding theory overlooks significant details of the practical outcomes,’ and this is classic liberals.

They have these great intentions, but they never examine the consequences of their actions. ‘Energy conservation lobbyists conveniently overlook the obvious fact that household lightbulbs are primarily used at night — exactly opposite the time of day in which utilities experience peak load demands for daytime heating, air conditioning and commercial lighting.’ Folks, you let ’em take away your lightbulbs and the next thing they’re going to come get is your air conditioners, because if you think light lightbulbs are causing a problem, you have no idea. You know what one of the largest consumers of electricity in your house is, is your computer, and if you have servers and something? Those things eat up power. Your plasma TVs? I have 30 of them, and they’re going to tell me that I gotta get rid of my lightbulbs? So what’s really going on here? Follow the money. The lobbyists for the compact fluorescent crowd is on the way.

‘Utilities must build up their physical plant to meet the peaks,’ which happen in daytime! ‘and the capital to finance that equipment has to be paid for 24 hours a day. Thus, utilities will have to raise rates on the remainder of the kwhs we use for everything else, from washing machines to hair dryers to computers. Household power used by lightbulbs is actually dwarfed these days by major appliances and high tech consumer electronics — such as wide screen TVs, computers and video games along with internet servers, the biggest energy hogs besides cars and trucks. And since the new CFLs produce inferior light compared to incandescents, we’ll need more of them to read, shave, comb our hair and brush our teeth. Assuming literacy and personal hygiene are still hallmarks of [our country] after the global warming alarmists are done with their crusade to rid us of the blessings of the evil civilization that rapes Mother Gaia.

‘By banning the incandescent lightbulb Congress will forcibly remove a staple commodity from the marketplace, replacing it with products that are far more expensive, less reliable and more hazardous,’ because of the mercury in there, ‘notably the … compact fluorescent lightbulb (CFL). CFL lightbulbs have been around for well over a decade. Only recently have they come in enough varieties and flavors to capture about 10% of the available sockets.’ There are four billion of them out there, four billion sockets. ‘But they are still at least 5 times more expensive than regular incandescents, which if replaced in their entirety would cost consumers an extra $4 to 5 billion at the cash register. No doubt millions of Americans will enthusiastically embrace this … and be willing to pay extra to get it,’ because they’ve been convinced that they’re sinners and that they’re destroying the planet, and they’ll put any stupid-looking, crazy little lightbulbs in and go to bed at night confident and safe that they are saving the planet.

They’re a bunch of dork-idiots. ‘But millions more will not fare so well. This ban [on the incandescent bulbs] will be a tax on poor people…’ The poor and minorities will be hardest hit, here. They’ll have to come up with money they don’t have to pay for the new, compact fluorescents. How about retirees on fixed incomes? No longer will they have to choose between dog food and medicine. Now it will be a choice between dog food and medicine and light. (interruption) What, Mr. Snerdley? Yeah. Okay, I have to repeat history. We’ll have to subsidize people to get bulbs out of there and put these new fangled ones in, since we’re gonna take them out of their houses, and you people are going to be paying for the subsidy, otherwise old people are going to be having to choose between dog food, medicine, or lightbulbs.

How about ‘low wage earners working double shifts or two jobs along with the average Joes and Marys who live each week paycheck-to-paycheck. They don’t have cable TV to watch the Home and Garden channel, and can’t afford to replace their functional if drab table lamp fixtures, much less employ a green ideology-toting residential lighting designer. For these Americans, burdens come in large packages. Relief arrives less often, and then in small envelopes… Of course Wal-Mart is yet another enemy of the trendy affluent class that wants to dictate how the rest of us lead our lives. And guess where the extra purchase prices for these CFLs will wind up? In the pockets of Chinese manufacturers, because not a single [compact fluorescent bulb] is produced in the’ United States of America. Not one! ‘And it gets worse. As Chinese manufacturers add enough manufacturing capacity to produce ten times as many CFLs, they will need several new coal-fired power plants to run the new factories.

‘This comes on top of the already breathtaking pace today of construction in coal fired electric power plants in China — at a clip of one new plant every week. Don’t even think about asking about what kind of pollution control will be operating on those Chinese plants,’ because there won’t be any. ‘A tax on poor people in the US so the Chinese can add more coal fired power plants. Now there’s a bright idea… CFLs contain mercury…. Just a drop you say? How about up to 5 milligrams per lightbulb. If all 4 billion incandescent sockets were filled with CFLs we’d have 20 billion milligrams of mercury spread around every single US household. By the way, 20 billion milligrams is nearly 50,000 pounds. That 50,000 pounds of mercury amongst 300 million people, if indiscriminately thrown away, will eventually find its way to your favorite landfill and public drinking water supply.

‘Knock over a table lamp and shatter a CFL in your house, and you have a toxic waste situation on your hands right in the living room, bedroom or dining room.’ You gotta call the HazMat people! ‘On the other hand, at least half of all mercury emissions from coal fired power plants currently is captured by scrubbers, and clean coal technologies promise to eliminate 2/3rds of what remains. Not so for CFLs — which can’t operate without mercury. So there you have it. Congress will soon enact legislation to impose a tax on poor people that will directly pass to Chinese companies, contribute to lower literacy and less personal hygiene while making industrial policy that will increase greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and spread a hazardous heavy metal into the environment.’ That’s what we’re going to get with compact fluorescents, ten years ’til they ban the incandescent lightbulb, and that’s not an insignificant point… Not one of these things is made in America, and to fill the void left by the man of the incandescent these Chinese factories going to be built to the tune of once a week, and they’re coal-fired.

The Chinese don’t care about the pollution they’re putting up. They say, ‘Kyoto? (Raspberry!).’ It’s just typical, ladies and gentlemen, of the American left and the environmental movement, with all these so-called great intentions, the unintended consequences (or in this case maybe the intended consequences). This is another one of those circumstances we talked about all day, what is it about the American people that make them such dolts, sponges, to soak up all this stuff? I’m telling you, it’s easily explained. If day in and day out for 20 years you are inundated with how you are destroying the planet, and you are killing the polar bears, and you are creating global warming and you are creating sin, anything you can do to make yourself feel better such as one of those cockamamie lightbulbs, you’ll do it. Everybody wants to feel good. Everybody wants to matter. Everybody wants to contribute. Everybody wants to make a difference. Well, just remember: Hitler ‘made a difference,’ too.

RUSH: Time for some global warming news.

(Playing of The Crazy World of Arthur Brown’s ‘Fire’ Global Warming Update Theme.)

RUSH: The Crazy World of Arthur Brown. It hit the top of the charts in 1968. I used to play that song as a struggling, young disc jockey, star-of-the-future, in my second year in broadcasting, 1968 back in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Okay, Global Warming Update time. Some doozies today in the stack. First off, I know. I’ve been pummeled with e-mails from people who happened to see Newt Gingrich and John Kerry (who served in Vietnam), and their so-called debate on global warming yesterday. It was on C-SPAN. When I first heard that this was going to happen, I said, ‘Well, it’s about time,’ and I hate saying this (you have to understand, I hate saying this), but something happens to Newt when he gets up there face-to-face with these libs. It’s like make nice. It’s like kiss up. It’s almost like he gets star-struck in front of these people. Remember his joint press conference with Hillary on health care? He was on the program after that, and I told him I was a little incredulous at that. He said, ‘Well, forget partisanship. A good idea is a good idea.’

I said, ‘Well, that’s the problem. I’m not sure,’ but Kerry? He’s a sitting duck! It’s sitting duck time, and to sit there and agree with the notion that we’re in a crisis because of humanity, is to just (sigh) ignore the central political theme of this whole issue. So, like you, I was sad. It was just very sad. That’s about the best way I can characterize this. Now, one of the things during the entire effort of mine here to educate as many people as possible on the real truth of the political movement of global warming, has been to tell you that what this is all aimed at is you and your lifestyle and the entire American lifestyle, and by extension, the lifestyles of Western democracies in general, but the focus is on us. ‘We’re the bad guys. It is our excessive consumerism. It is our attempt to drive bigger cars that is the problem,’ they say, and that becomes the target. We’re supposed to roll back our lifestyles. We’re supposed to have less expectations for the future, because our actions as human beings — using our brains as God created to create longer life spans and a better standard and quality of life — has become the focus and target.

I’ve told you this over and over again. Looky here, from the UK Guardian: ‘Stop Shopping…Or The Planet Will Go Pop — In the week that saw Primark mania, Jonathon Porritt, the government’s green guru, says consumerism is now a lethal disease. ‘Many big ideas have struggled over the centuries to dominate the planet,’ begins the argument by Jonathon Porritt, government adviser and all-round environmental guru. ‘Fascism. Communism. Democracy. Religion.’ He lumps them all together. He’s a lib! Fascism. Communism. Democracy. Religion. These are the primary ills and evils of the world! ‘But only one has achieved total supremacy. Its compulsive attractions rob its followers of reason and good sense. It has created unsustainable inequalities and threatened to tear apart the very fabric of our society. More powerful than any cause or even religion, it has reached into every corner of the globe. It is consumerism.’ According to Porritt, the most senior adviser to the government on sustainability, we have become a generation of shopaholics. We are bombarded by advertising from every medium which persuades us that the more we consume, the better our lives will be.

‘Shopping is equated with fun, fulfillment and self-identity. It is also, Porritt warns, killing [killing!] the planet. He argues, in an interview with The Observer, that merely switching to ‘ethical’ shopping is not enough. We must shop less.’ This guy better watch out; he is going to lose female support here. The men will love it if he keeps this up. It’s what he says. He said, ‘Ethical shopping is not enough,’ meaning, buying Priuses and compact fluorescents. We gotta stop buying everything. We gotta stop buying all things. We gotta shop less! You think women want to hear that? Men might. H.R. is going to use that on Theresa tonight. ‘Hey, Theresa, your shopping is destroying the planet.’ Actually, turn this around and use it. All of a sudden, all of us deniers, all of us skeptics go home and tell our wives, our spouses. I, of course, have neither, but you can do it for me. You can go home, and you can say, ‘Honey, I just read the most amazing thing. I heard it on the Rush Limbaugh show today and he cited the source. It’s The Guardian in the UK. We gotta stop shopping. Shopping is killing the planet!’

Go tell all these parents that are watching Algore’s movie and coming home, ‘Oh, my God we’re killing the polar bears!’ Tell them, ‘No, it’s the shopping that’s killing the polar bears. We have to stop shopping!’ It’s what the guy is saying here. ‘There are, however, a growing number of dissenting voices such as the so-called ‘Froogles’, individuals who use the internet to seek a simpler lifestyle, and organisations and websites which urge people to kick the retail habit. Porritt, chairman of the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, has concluded that consumerism is central to the threat facing the planet, cannibalising its natural resources and producing the carbon dioxide emissions which result in climate change…. ‘I think capitalism is patently unable to go on growing the size of the consumer economy for any more people in the world today because levels of consumption are already undermining life support systems on which we depend – so if we do it for any more people, the planet will go pop,’ Porritt told The Observer.’

So, okay. Keep the poor, poor; make the rich as poor as possible, and save the planet. Now, Paul Ehrlich tried this and he is still a guru even though every projection and prediction he made was deemed to be wrong. The Population Bomb? He made the bet with Julian Simon. Julian Simon said, I’ll make you a bet that by the year 2000 or whatever his apocalyptic year was, we’ve got more of the following minerals blah, blah, blah, than we have today. Ehrlich said, ‘I’ll take that. I’m going to skunk you,’ and of course Ehrlich was dead wrong. We had more of everything. We had more abundance. We had cheaper prices on a number of things (factored for inflation, of course), and the reason was the good old supply and demand. When there’s demand, people are going to go out and supply it. (interruption) Yes, Mr. Snerdley, what’s the…? (interruption) Well, we’re not… (sigh) Snerdley’s question is, ‘How is society supposed to function if people don’t buy what they need?’ He’s not advocating the total end of shopping, but look, you’re asking me to analyze some guy rationally. This is a kook!

The point is, this is kooky but it’s being passed off as brilliance. It’s being passed off as insightful. It’s being passed off as enlightened — and it’s going to attract its fellow kooks here. So first they take away our big cars, then they’re going to take away the lightbulbs and we gotta get these little screwy things, then our plastic bags. LA is going to get rid of plastic bags in grocery stores. Then they’re going to get rid of hair spray, which they tried to do with the aerosol spray can. Now they want us to stop consumin’ or we all die. I’m telling you, folks, the environmental movement is the new home of displaced communists and their attack is on capitalism, pure and simple, if you just listen to them. You have to trust me. Meanwhile, ‘The groundhog’s prediction for an early spring is proving wrong in New York City. A cold front has kept temperatures about seven degrees below the historical average this month. Just ten days into April temperatures have averaged 42 degrees.

‘That’s about a degree warmer than the average for April of 1874 which was the coldest on record.’ So the bottom line is that New York temperatures rival the record for the coldest April since records have been taken, 1874. Baseball games are cancelled. You have a snowstorm in the upper Midwest today. It’s got all kinds of airports bogged down, Chicago O’Hare and others. Major League Baseball, having to cancel even more games. The Cleveland Indians moving games to Milwaukee where they’ve got a retractable roof there, so they can play the Los Angeles Angels. This is normal stuff. Snowstorms in April happen.

But the pièce de résistance today, ‘Sheryl Crow and Laurie David in a biodiesel bus traveling the country to raise consciousness on global warming,’ and there are numerous stories out there with quotes like this. This is Sheryl Crow speaking. ”Laurie and I just met in November and now we’re sleeping together,’ she said with a laugh. ‘Yeah, we’re sleeping on a bus in separate bunks.’ On a more serious note she told People magazine, ‘When I learned how serious global warming is, I wanted to do something to help.

”So when Laurie and I were talking about what we could do, well, my answer to everything is to get on the bus and take it to the people, in the true troubadour fashion,’ but what was she doing to be ecofriendly? ‘Well, I try to wash my clothes in cold water as much as I can. I turn off lights in rooms that I’m not using. I drive a hybrid. I’m getting solar panels for my house. To save water, I’m going to going to shower once a week,’ she joked, ‘like I did when I was a kid, on Saturdays.’ She also had her tour bus retrofitted to use ecofriendly biodiesel fuel. ‘We’re in a bus powered by vegetable oil so we’re craving french fries the whole tour.” It’s like Hillary’s bus tour for education, except Laurie David and Sheryl Crow in a bus tour across the country to (sigh) raise consciousness about global warming. The tour began at southern Methodist University in Dallas. (interruption) Yeah, I know it snowed the day before they got there. Snowing! (laughing) It’s a joke, except these people are treated as heroines. These people are treated as Paul Reveres. They’re riding across the country, and they’re sounding the warning, ‘The British are coming! Global warming is coming, and it’s going to kill us.’

‘I’m here because the more I learn about global warming the more I feel compelled to do something in my own way, whatever it is.’ Just do something. Whether it matters or not, just do something, and that’s the clarion call: Just do something. By the way, April is currently tracking as the coldest April in 113 years in the whole country, not just in New York. How does this square with global warming? ‘Well, Mr. Limbaugh, global warming is not primarily happening in the United States, Mr. Limbaugh. It is our actions in the United States, Mr. Limbaugh, that’s affecting climate in other places on the planet like Greenland and the arctics, and that’s the problem, Mr. Limbaugh. Nobody ever sad that we’re heating up America. It’s that we’re going to suffer for what we’re doing.’

I’m trying to warn everybody the best I can.

END TRANSCRIPT

*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.

RUSH: We’ve got a global warming update. Here is one of our three themes.

GOD OF HELLFIRE: I am the god of hellfire!

RUSH: I wasn’t ready for it!

(Playing of ‘Fire’ by the Crazy World of Arthur Brown.)

RUSH: The Crazy World of Arthur Brown. The Wicked Witch of Wherever melting because of global warming, destroying us all! It’s a pretty interesting stack of global warming stuff today, and I actually had this story last week because, as you know, I don’t do the global warming stuff every day because I don’t want people to get worn out on it. So the stack just gets bigger and bigger and bigger. ‘A rescue effort is under way to save hundreds of seal hunters whose boats have been stuck in a block of thick ice in the North Atlantic Ocean for more than a week. The hunters’ ships are stuck in a solid ice pack 140 miles long and 70 miles wide. Two huge storms trapped more than 100 vessels just as they were setting out for Canada’s annual seal hunt. ‘Many of the vessels have run out of provisions, fresh water, fuel in some cases,’ Canadian Coast Guard Capt. Windross Banton told ‘Good Morning America’ from his ship as he engaged in the rescue effort. Banton is trying to get food to more than 300 sailors and help their ships break free from the ice. ‘Right now, outside as far as the eye can see, there is nothing but a field of ice,’ he said. The biggest danger is the pressure the ice puts on the vessels.

‘The pressure can actually lift them out of the water. ‘The pans of ice and the pieces of ice are big enough and severe enough they could potentially crush the hull of the long liners,’ said the Canadian Coast Guard’s Brian Penney. Better weather conditions have now allowed several ships to be rescued. For some, it was in the nick of time.’ Now, get this: ”The last couple of days got scary there,’ said Rodney Gray, captain of the Cape John Navigator. ‘We were caught in ice that was getting very close to land. We never had control of anything. Wherever the ice went, we had to go.” (Gasp!) No! What did they think? Now, how can this be? The ice is ‘melting’ all over the place up there. We have pictures — even though they’re hoaxes, we have pictures — of polar bears stranded on a melting glacier and they can’t get off and they’re going to die and little kids all over the country are waking up their moms with nightmares. ‘I can’t sleep, mommy! I can’t sleep, because you’re killing the polar bears!’ So my solution here to save these guys would be: Don’t do anything. Just sit, wait, and let the ice melt. Ice is melting so fast that these polar bears are stranded on melting ice cubes up there!

Just sit tight. Let the impact of American global warming rescue you. They had no idea they were going to run into this kind of ice. There is a silver lining to the story. This means that the seal hunt ain’t going to happen, the annual Canadian seal hunt. You’ve seen that. They go up there and Billy club these little things to death — and of course that’s not part of global warming. So the kids in America don’t care about that, and they don’t see the pictures much but it says here that ‘an estimated 60,000 seals will be saved because of the deep freeze.’ Yet, we’re in the midst of global warming! This is from GOP3.com, a website: ‘Alternative Fuel Subsidies Cause Sober Germans, Starving Mexicans, More Pollution. — ‘Poor Mexicans rely on tortillas for their diet. And a lot of other poor people in a lot of other places rely on other foodstuffs made from corn. The problem is ethanol.” We’ve told you about this.

‘Now government subsidies for alternative fuels have caused a sobering increase in the cost of beer in Germany due to the unnatural shrinkage of barley production,’ over there. ‘Why is barely production lower and beer more expensive? The farmers are switching production so they can get more government alternative fuel subsidies,’ because if they plant all this rotgut that’s needed for these alternative fuels, they get more subsidies, more payments from the government. By the way, all this is leading to even more pollution! ‘The hyperbolic environmental soothsayers on the left and in the media have swayed our government into investing large sums of money into these technologies that have turned out to be counterproductive. When will we learn to trust the market? Shareholders and private citizens are best left alone to judge the correct production of a good, the heavy hand of the government only serves to distort the market and destroy any progress towards the end goal.’

By the way, this is a story that a lot of people are worried about: all these bees that are vanishing out there. ‘More than a [25%] of the country’s 2.4 million bee colonies have been lost — tens of billions of bees, according to an estimate from the Apiary Inspectors of America, a national group that tracks beekeeping. So far, no one can say what is causing the bees to become disoriented and fail to return to their hives. As with any great mystery, a number of theories have been posed, and many seem to researchers to be more science fiction than science. People have blamed genetically modified crops, cellular phone towers and high-voltage transmission lines for the disappearances,’ of the bees. ‘Or was it a secret plot by Russia or Osama bin Laden to bring down American agriculture? Or, as some blogs have asserted,’ I’m reading this from the New York Times, by the way, ‘the rapture of the bees, in which God recalled them to heaven? Researchers have heard it all.’ Everybody’s got an explanation. This could be a legitimate problem. This could be a greater crisis than any global warming threat that’s going on out there, I think. I’m going to have to double-check this, but I think Einstein said that if we lost the whole bee population, that civilization could only continue for another four or five years. I think Einstein said that. (Interruption) Wikipedia that, and see if I’m right about that. Well, if you can trust what’s on Wikipedia.

USA Today: ‘Al Gore Trains a Global Army — The stocky man with the soft Southern accent rivets the hotel ballroom crowd with his plea: ‘We are in a time of peril, so please allow me to explain a topic that has overwhelming importance in my life.’ Meet, no, not Al Gore, but Gary Dunham, 71, a grandfather from Texas who was the first of 1,000 Americans Gore trained to deliver his Oscar-winning An Inconvenient Truth slide show to schools, Rotary clubs and nursing homes around the nation. Two weeks ago, the last 150 of this hand-picked crew arrived [in Nashville] — paying their own way for everything but food — to go through a two-day seminar starring Gore but effectively led by Dunham and a few other graduates of the former vice president’s global-warming boot camp. To date, The Climate Project has drawn everyone from Wal-Mart workers to Cameron Diaz. And though the 1,000 mark has been reached, ‘we keep hearing whispers that (Gore) might do more,’ project director Jenny Clad says. ‘I wouldn’t call this final.”

Folks, do not underestimate these people. They’re out there. They’re out there getting these people — all these average citizens — revved up about a hoax, and they’re sending them out there as evangelists on this, after a two-day ‘boot camp’ with Algore. This is how you spread propaganda. This is also, to me, an indication that Algore’s people don’t think that the movie itself stands alone in its ability to get converts. There have to be evangelists out there. Even if I’m wrong about that, the fact that they’re just setting up these evangelists and so forth is proof positive that this is a political movement. It’s almost a religious movement, and these are preachers that are being trained. They call this a ‘boot camp.’ They’re going to Algore’s seminary, and they’re being given sermons, and they’re having the words written for them, and they’re out there proselytizing and preaching. You know, it’s like getting to the point I’m going to advance a notion: ‘Separation of earth and state,’ because this is nothing more than a religion, as I have so accurately portrayed and defined on previous editions of this program. So keep a sharp eye for one of these traveling minstrel road shows to come to your town. The Church of Global Warming with order understand a ministers coming to your town and your Rotary Club and your school with their slide show.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: All right, we did a quick Wikipedia check, and if you want to believe Wikipedia, which is… You never know who to trust out there. That’s why you can trust me. Wikipedia says that Einstein never said if we lose all the bees, we got four years to live. It’s widely attributed to Einstein, and the four- to five-year period is right, but it’s one of these urban legends. Einstein didn’t say it, just like there’s a whole list of ten things Abraham Lincoln supposedly said. He didn’t say them. A preacher wrote them, and they ended up in a pamphlet with a picture of Lincoln, and it got spread around. I remember the first five years of this program I must have gotten 13,000 copies of those things every day. ‘Rush, you’ve gotta read what Lincoln said!’ I tried to write them all back. ‘He didn’t say it. You’re falling for a hoax.’ Finally, I gave up. I just gave up.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Sue in Reston, Virginia, welcome to the EIB Network. Nice to have you with us.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Dittos times 18.

RUSH: Dittos times 18. Thank you very much. That’s very nice of you to say. I accept it.

CALLER: You’re welcome. I knew you would. I know you believe in a Creator, Rush.

RUSH: Yes, I do.

CALLER: And you know this new planet, this new planet that they found?

RUSH: Yes?

CALLER: I think that’s God’s gift. That’s God’s gift to us, because I think this is the new world, the new world, the perfect Utopia for the libs, and I say, ‘Let them sign up. Get ’em outta here. Let ’em sign up! That’s their world.’


RUSH: Well, they will be the ones that want to go. Of all the people that want to leave Earth and go colonize something else, it is a bunch of liberals, because they think we’ve destroyed this planet. It’s only a matter of time. As I said earlier, Stephen Hawking is out there saying if we don’t find someplace to colonize, we’re doomed. That’s it for us — and, of course, the liberals, they want to go out there and start all over. They have this pristine little planet, untouched by the filth of humanity. Give communism a real shot! Put it in a sterile set of surroundings where it doesn’t have any competition, and maybe communism would work. Have communes all over the place, communes on the spaceship! Hey, it’s only a measly 120 trillion miles away. That’s nothing in galactic terms. Yeah, it’s perfectly ideal, because the mind-set is we’re destroying this planet. As I said earlier, it’s going to require a lot more research, because if it is discovered that there is oil on this planet — because they’re saying it could support life. It may have some close, similar aspects to Earth. It may have a temperature that allows liquid water, temperatures that would be compatible with human life.
But if there’s oil on this planet, the libs will not go there. They won’t touch it! They’ve been there, done that. They know how oil can destroy a planet. They know how oil can destroy people. They know how oil can destroy and kill otters and all kinds of beasts, burden or otherwise, because oil is one of the evils of our existence. What would be funny is if there is oil there, these new colonists would be the last to arrive. Big Oil would be up there, and if these colonists ever did get there the first thing they’d see is oil derricks — and I’d kind of love for that to happen, just ruin it. We ought to go and do a movie about this. You know, a space movie about colonizing this new planet where Big Oil gets there first (laughing) set up all these capitalistic little towns for the workers to live in and you’ve got these namby-pamby Goonies. By the way, that’s my name for these evangelists that Gore is training to watch his slide show, to go out there and present it to Rotary Clubs. One hundred and fifty of these people, and they’re out there, go to camp Gore for two days and they get an indoctrination training on how to present his slide show that’s his movie on global warming, and I got a name for them: Goonies, combination of ‘Gore’ and ‘Moonies,’ and that’s exactly what they are — and, I know. I’ll betcha some of them listen to this program and (interruption).

Ah, yes, and they just think they’re doing the Lord’s work. They’re saving the planet! They’re (interruption). Yeah, Mr. Snerdley has a ‘serious question.’ What’s the serious question? I deal with (interruption). Do we think a space…? (interruption) Oh, Snerdley, don’t ask me that. You’re asking an irrelevant question. You’re the kind of guy that wants to destroy people’s dreams. You’re the kind of guy that wants to take away every fantasy and possibility about saving the planet and saving ourselves. You know what he just asked me? Snerdley just said, ‘Wait a minute. I have a question. Is space travel that would allow people to get from here to someplace 120 trillion miles away, are we close to that?’ If you ask that question, you may send people out to the drugstore for Paxil and lithium and Ritalin, all this. You’re going to ruin their days! I didn’t bring that up on purpose, Snerdley, because I have a responsibility here. There are fragile souls listening to this program who have desperate hope that we will be able to save ourselves by going to another planet. You’re throwing up a question and it’s like throwing ice cold water in their face, awakening them from a utopian dream. You are destroying, with that question, because of course we don’t. We have no way to get any number of people to Mars or the moon. (interruption) Do I…? (interruption)

Oh, will it be possible? Yes. As long as humanity on this planet maintains freedom, at some point it will be made possible. We will learn how to engage in travel of that length and distance. I think those kinds of things are possible. But I’m telling you what: it ain’t going to happen before global warming destroys the planet. I mean, if these people are right about global warming, we’ve got 50, 80 years and I will guarantee you we’re not going to learn how to take 120 million trillion mile space trips with a sizeable number of people — and if Big Oil ever figured out how to do it first, do you think they’d share the technology with the rest of us? They’d be launching these trips to this new planet at night when nobody knew it. They’d be up there for gazillions of years before they ever let anybody know they were there, find a pipeline back to earth. (Laughing.) Seriously, why ask me that question? You understand what this story represents to these people, Mr. Snerdley? Do you understand? They really believe we’re destroying the planet. This is a religion. We are in their last days! The rapture is but a few short years away. Salvation, the end of destruction! By forcing me to ask that question is forcing these people to face a reality that will change their faith, and that’s something I have never wanted to do on this program. I have never, ever wanted to destroy somebody’s faith, religiously, until global warming came along because it is a false religion. (Laughing.) It’s a phony religion. I’m happy actually, Mr. Snerdley, you asked me the question. (Laughing.)

END TRANSCRIPT

*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.

RUSH: Well, we haven’t done a global warming update in quite a while. The news has been accumulating, ladies and gentlemen. So, without any further ado, we get to our global warming update. Algore singing. Let ‘er rip!

(Playing of ‘Ball of Fire’ Global Warming Update theme song.)

RUSH: Sung by Paul Shanklin as Algore here, one of our Global warming update themes here at the EIB Network.

(Continued playing of song.)

RUSH: One more time, Algore.

(Continued playing of song.)

RUSH: I am holding something here in my hands I am not sure that I believe, even though I’ve read it. It’s a column by Alexander Cockburn in The Nation. Now, Cockburn is a big lib. The Nation is huge, huge, huge off-the-charts-nutcase lib. It’s a magazine that Katrina vanden Heuvel, or Hurricane Katrina vanden Heuvel edits. ‘Is Global Warming a Sin?‘ is the headline. ‘In a couple of hundred years historians will be comparing the frenzies over our supposed human contribution to global warming to the tumults at the latter end of the Tenth Century as the Christian millennium approached. Then as now, the doomsters identified human sinfulness as the propulsive factor in the planet’s rapid downward slide. Then, as now, a buoyant market throve on fear. The Roman Catholic Church sold indulgences like checks. The sinners established a line of credit against bad behavior and could go on sinning. Today a world market in ‘carbon credits’ is in formation. Those whose ‘carbon footprint’ is small can sell their surplus carbon credits to others less virtuous than themselves.’ He’s reporting on the carbon footprint scam. This is a liberal doing this!

‘The modern trade is as fantastical as the medieval one. There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide is making any measurable contribution to the world’s present warming trend. The greenhouse fearmongers rely on unverified, crudely oversimplified models to finger mankind’s sinful contribution — and carbon trafficking, just like the old indulgences, is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism and greed. Now imagine two lines on a piece of graph paper. The first rises to a crest, then slopes sharply down, levels off and rises slowly once more. The other has no undulations. It rises in a smooth, slow arc. The first wavy line is the worldwide CO2 tonnage produced by humans burning coal, oil and natural gas. It starts in 1928, at 1.1 gigatons (i.e., 1.1 billion metric tons), and peaks in 1929 at 1.17 gigatons. The world, led by its mightiest power, plummets into the Great Depression and by 1932, human CO2 production has fallen to 0.88 gigatons a year, a 30 percent drop. Then, in 1933, the line climbs slowly again, up to 0.9 gigatons. And the other line, the one ascending so evenly? That’s the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, parts per million (ppm) by volume, moving in 1928 from just under 306, hitting 306 in 1929, 307 in 1932 and on up. Boom and bust, the line heads up steadily. These days it’s at 380. The two lines on that graph proclaim that a whopping 30 percent cut in manmade CO2 emissions didn’t even cause a 1 ppm drop in the atmosphere’s CO2. It is thus impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from people burning fossil fuels.

‘I met Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D., the man who drew that graph and those conclusions, on a Nation cruise back in 2001,’ Oh, wouldn’t that have been a fun boat to be on? ‘and he remarked that while he shared many of The Nation’s editorial positions, he approved of my reservations on the question of human contributions to global warming as outlined in columns I wrote around that time. Hertzberg was a meteorologist for three years in the U.S. Navy, an occupation that gave him a lifelong mistrust of climate modeling. Trained in chemistry and physics, a combustion research scientist for most of his career, he’s retired now in Copper Mountain, Colo., but still consults from time to time. Not so long ago, Hertzberg sent me some of his recent papers on the global warming hypothesis, a thesis now accepted by many progressives as infallible as Papal dogma on matters of faith. Among them was the graph described above, so devastating to the hypothesis.’ Well, I’m loving this! Here’s a liberal in The Nation talking about how global warming is nothing more than a religion. Now, here’s the nut of this: ‘As Hertzberg readily acknowledges, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased about 21 percent in the past century. The world has also been getting just a little warmer.

‘The not very reliable data on the world’s average temperature … show about a 0.5 degree Celsius increase between 1880 and 1980, and still rising. But is CO2, at 380 ppm in the atmosphere, playing a significant role in retaining the 94 percent of solar radiation that the atmosphere absorbs, as against water vapor, also a powerful heat absorber, whose content in a humid tropical atmosphere can be as high as 20,000 ppm? As Hertzberg says, water in the form of oceans, snow, ice cover, clouds and vapor ‘is overwhelming in the radiative and energy balance between the earth and the sun. … Carbon dioxide and the greenhouse gases…’ I’m going to read the quote from what he’s saying here. Compared to all the water in whatever form it is, and compared to the vapor, ”carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases are, by comparison, the equivalent of a few farts in a hurricane.’ And water is exactly that component of the earth’s heat balance that the global warming computer models fail to account for.’

And who told us this? Roy Spencer, University of Alabama-Birmingham, who is a ‘denier.’ He is a dissenter in the global warming religion. They don’t even model precipitation or water in any form because they can’t. As Roy Spencer told us, we don’t even know how much precipitation falls in whatever form daily on the Earth. We don’t know. It’s impossible to know because we’re not everywhere where it happens, and we don’t have instruments. So the amount of carbon dioxide that we are creating is nothing compared to what the complexity of this creation — i.e., nature — is putting into the atmosphere each and every day. ‘We’re warmer now because today’s world is in the thaw that follows the recent ice age. Ice ages correlate with changes in the solar heat we receive, all due to predictable changes in the earth’s elliptic orbit around the sun and in the earth’s tilt. As Hertzberg explains, the clinical heat effect of all of these variables was worked out in great detail between 1915 and 1940 by Milutin Milankovitch, a giant of Twentieth Century astrophysics,’ and he goes on and on and on and says, ‘The human carbon footprint is of zero consequence amid these huge forces and volumes, not to mention the role of the giant reactor beneath our feet: the earth’s increasingly hot molten core.’

He says, ‘Next: Who are the hoaxers and what are they after?’ That’s the next piece that Alexander Cockburn is going to write. This was in The Nation 4/26 issue. He’s totally, totally debunking it, and proving that it is a religion.

(story) ”Visitors to the Gaia Napa Valley Hotel and Spa won’t find the Gideon Bible in the nightstand drawer. Instead, on the bureau will be a copy of ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ former Vice President Al Gore’s book about global warming.’ The Gaia Napa Valley Hotel and Spa putting Gore’s book in their nightstands! It’s a religion, I’m telling you! They’re taking the Bible out of there, and they say it’s a hip and trendy thing to do. It’s one that’s actually ‘good for the planet.’ By the way, Glenn Beck has another one of his specials tonight on global warming on CNN Headline News at eight and ten o’clock. The last one he did, ‘Obsession,’ was on Islamofascism and this sort of thing. He’s got another big one coming tonight on CNN Headline News exposing the hoax that all of this is.

You know, one of the biggest — (sigh) I don’t know, what’s the word? Dupes — in all this is that sad sack Prince Charles. ‘Climate Change Battle is Like World War II,’ he said. He ‘compared the challenge of tackling climate change to the Allies’ struggle in World War II during a speech to business leaders Tuesday. Addressing representatives from firms including Barclays Bank, British Airways and Rolls-Royce…’

This is not new. We’ve all heard this. (Gasp!) ‘Climate Change Hits Mars — Mars being hit by rapid climate change. It’s happening so fast the red planet could lose its southern ice cap.’ The problem is, there aren’t any people there. (Gasp!) How can this happen?

New York Times, April 29th: ‘Carbon Neutral is Hip, but is it Green?’ The New York Times wrote a piece exposing the fraud of this whole carbon offset program. The Financial Times was first to do this. I thought it would never hit the Drive-By Media, but it has. The article is devastating to the whole thing.

Finally: ‘Hurricane forecaster William Gray said Friday that global ocean currents, not human-produced carbon dioxide, are responsible for global warming, and the Earth may begin to cool on its own in five to 10 years.’ He’s ‘best known for his annual forecasts of hurricanes… [he] said increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere won’t produce more or stronger hurricanes.’ He said there are cycles. He’s getting more and more agitated with the hoaxers and with the people who have made this a religion. Now, once again, here’s somebody else saying it’s water. If you want to talk about what warms and cools the planet, what about water?

This from the Financial Times. We didn’t have a great chance to talking about this in great detail, but their story on carbon credits talked about how the thing is such a phony-baloney, plastic banana, good time rock ‘n’ roll thing that the prices for them are falling because nobody wants to buy them. It’s all falling apart right around ’em, and it’s being reported in the margins here of the Drive-By Media. Nevertheless, it is happening.

Meanwhile, Algore is still out there. He’s just trashing Canada for their policy on carbon emissions. He says it’s not going to accomplish anything. He’s still campaigning for the Nobel Peace Prize. At any rate, folks, you can be confident: the whole global warming thing — man-made global warming — is a pure, unadulterated hoax. It is religion based, liberal based, and its design is to make you feel guilty and sinful so that you will pay higher taxes and change your lifestyle, transferring more and more power to the, quote, unquote, State to tell you what you can and cannot do. It’s happening all around: ‘Can’t smoke here. Can’t smoke there. Can’t use trans-fats.’ It’s getting absurd, and it’s all in the name of making sure we never die.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: By the way, I have a good new name for Algore. We gotta cement the fact that this global warming hoax is a religion. So from now on — and this is appropriate, folks. This is highly appropriate. I may slip for a while, because it’s been a habit to call him ‘Algore’ for all these years, but from now on, Nobel Peace Prize nominee Algore shall be referred to as ‘L. Ron Gore’ on this program. (Apologies to Tom Cruise.) It’s L. Ron Gore as in L. Ron Hubbard. (Sighing.)

RUSH: Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut. Trumpet fanfare. It’s update time, and it’s time for Algore. This is ‘Ball of Fire’ sung by white impressionist Paul Shanklin.

(Playing of Ball of Fire update theme.)

Let’ er rip out there. Algore.

(Continued playing of song.)

Revving up for us one more time.

(Continued playing of song.)

That’s Algore, ‘Ball of Fire,’ as sung by white impressionist and satirist Paul Shanklin. Did you see the story out of Canada, this kid has finally gone public. He’s been forced to watch ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ four times at school. He’s a high school student. ‘Why am I having to watch this four times?’ He had to watch the movie four times. It’s happening all over the northern hemisphere, propagandizing kids.

‘Experts Predict Scorching Summer.’ Now, I know some people are going to read this in USA Today. ‘Oh, no, bad!’ Folks, ever since I can remember, it has been hot as hell in the summer. It’s why it’s called summer. I can remember playing Little League baseball, Babe Ruth league baseball, hot as hell in southeast Missouri. It’s a swamp in the summertime, high humidity, worse than it is in parts of Florida. When I was a kid, people, ‘Seems like the Earth is getting closer to the sun.’ It’s always been hot in the summer. ‘Experts predict scorching summer. As the Memorial Day weekend beckons…’ this is another thing for you to be fretting over, in panic and maybe even in fear of. ‘…federal climate scientists predict drought will intensify in much of the West this summer and persist in the fire-scorched Southeast despite recent rain.’

They do get one thing right here, lightning sparked 70% of the wildfires in the west. Also tomorrow, big, big day for the Drive-Bys, the National Hurricane Center will announce its hurricane forecast. ‘Other forecasts envision more storms than normal. The Climate Center says that tropical storms can break droughts quickly but cautions that is unlikely in the southeast because rainfall deficits exceed one foot in many areas.’ Now, we are in the southeast. And finally, ‘Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week. Man’s contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn’t change the climate if we tried, he maintained. ‘We’re all going to survive this. It’s all going to be a joke in five years,’ he said. A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it. ‘It is time to attack the myth of global warming,’ he said.” Now, Augie’s in New Zealand. He obviously doesn’t know that I’ve been doing that for about 15 years, but we welcome him now to the movement. Four times this kid has had to watch An Inconvenient Truth.

By the way, I didn’t know this. They named some rabbits, some bunnies after Hugh Hefner, way back some time ago, and they’re in Florida, in Big Pine Key, and the population of the Hefner rabbit, the Hef bunny is dwindled by about 50% in the past two years. You know who’s wiping ’em out? Pussycats.

RUSH: Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut. We have some global warming news, and here is white satirist Paul Shanklin as Algore.

(Playing of Ball of Fire.)

One more time there, Algore, let ‘er rip.

(Continued playing of song.)

That’s former vice president Algore portrayed vocally by white satirist Paul Shanklin. This is pretty big news here. The NASA administrator, Michael Griffin, I don’t know if this guy is a dittohead or not, but if not, he could be. He appeared on National Republican Radio — you know the libs are starting to call it that? They think NPR has gone right, it’s getting less bold on the left. Some guy somewhere called it National Republican Radio. Where was that, Salon.com I think. My memory is vague, but anyway, Michael Griffin, NASA administrator appeared on NPR and he told them that while he has no doubt that a trend of global warming exists, quote, ‘I’m not sure it’s fair to say it’s a problem we have to wrestle with.’ In an interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep that aired today, administrator Griffin said, ‘I guess I would ask which human beings – where and when – are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.’

That is a brilliant point. As long as the Earth has been around, billions and billions of years, who are we to say that the way it is right now is perfection for everybody on the planet. This drills one of the biggest holes in the whole hoax of global warming that there is. The vanity, the assumption that the Earth as it is now is precisely perfect, has been, should be, and that any change from this point is bad and that we are causing it, how do we know that the so-called perfect climate of the Earth is now, for all the people of the planet? How do we know that the climate 30 years ago or a hundred years ago — the point is, there is no perfect climate because it’s always changing. The Earth is constantly heating and cooling. To arbitrarily say, ‘Today,’ when we have this political/religious issue that we’re trying to infuse everybody’s minds with, ‘this is perfect, any change from here is bad,’ when nobody can possibly know this.

‘The comments come at a difficult time for the Bush administration, which is undergoing pressure from other members of the G8 club, which under the current chair of Germany is pushing for global action on CO2 emissions.’ Speaking of CO2. Get this. Roy Spencer sent this to me yesterday, Dr. Spencer, our resident expert, climatology, University of Alabama Huntsville. He said, ‘Rush, people try to scare you by saying that humanity pumps 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, and it sounds like a big number.’ You know, Gore’s out there saying this in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, 30 billion tons of CO2. Thirty billion tons. That’s bad. Dr. Spencer’s writing a book that’s due out sometime in the fall about some of this, and he said, ‘I came up with the following illustration of how little CO2 there really is in the atmosphere and how little humanity produces. While Gore is out there saying that there are 30 billion tons of CO2 being pumped by human beings into the atmosphere each year, the current constitution of the atmosphere is this. It contains 38 molecules of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of air.’ Folks, that’s nothing. ‘Thirty-eight molecules of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of air, and it would take humanity five years to increase that number from 38 to 39. So every five years we add one molecule of CO2 to each 100,000 molecules of air.’ And yet this is how the left sells stuff, 30 billion tons, CO2, and now Germany and the G8, they’re saying, ‘Well, we gotta stop CO2 emissions. We’re pumping 30 billion tons.’ It’s not a factor. Thirty-eight molecules for every 100,000 molecules of air. Anyway, congratulations, Michael Griffin, great comment. There’s some other things that he said here as well. But that’s the main point. Who are we to say that it’s perfect now?

RUSH: Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut — trumpet fanfare means an update’s coming, and you guessed right, Paul Shanklin here as Algore, Ball of Fire.

(Playing of Ball of Fire song.)

Who’s listening now, really, that’s the big question.

(Continued playing of song.)

All right one more time there, Algore, let ‘er rip.

(Continued playing of song.)

Ah, you may have heard about this already, but you haven’t heard what I think about it. The City of Denver is gearing up to fight global warming. This is from the Rocky Mountain news today. ‘Denver is gearing up to fight global warming, and residents may soon be asked to make personal sacrifices to help save the planet. Their goal is the equivalent of taking 500,000 cars off the road. The new plan is aimed at making Denver a national leader in reducing gas emissions that have been linked to global warming, giving a major push to alternative energy, stepping up recycling and changing building codes to encourage energy conservation. But the proposal also contains some ideas that may be unpopular, such as penalizing heavy users of electricity and natural gas and basing auto insurance premiums on the number of miles traveled. … Much of the city’s plan involves finding ways to encourage energy conservation by mandating efficiency standards for new construction and setting standards for older homes that would be enforced when the home is sold. The city also would give incentives for car pooling and the use of hybrids,’ ten-dollar-a-month trash would be something they’re thinking of doing. They’re claiming that their era of denial now is over. ‘Denver is joining a host of cities that are taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including Seattle, Portland and Chicago.’

The Kyoto accord fell apart. Have you noticed the Drive-By Media is not talking about what happened in the G8? They drove right on by. They didn’t stop, they didn’t report, and do you have any idea why? Because Putin had his lunch handed to him by George W. Bush, and so did the Kyoto accord. The Kyoto accord standards were supposed to go into effect in 2012 and the nations that have signed it said, ‘All right, we’ll move it back to 2050.’ Well, wait a minute f this is so serious, if we’re on the cusp of destroying ourselves, how can we wait ’til 2050? It just got blown away. So while reason is asserting itself in a number of places, people who live in Denver are not going to put up with this. It is just hilarious and absurd at the same time to believe that cities, individual cities of people can affect the climate, can affect the weather. It’s not possible. We don’t have this kind of power. Now, if somebody wants to say, ‘Well, Rush, they’re just trying to clean things up out there, less pollution.’ Well, fine, but it’s still ridiculous. But they’re not saying it to clean up pollution. They’re doing it to reduce carbon dioxide footprints and to affect the climate. This is audacious in its arrogance and conceit.

Meanwhile, the truth about Denver. This is a story from Channel 7 news and it’s from June the 8th, so just three days ago. They had the coldest June morning in over 50 years last Friday, the coldest June morning in 50 years. There was frost out there and then they come up with this global warming stuff shortly after it. In fact, you go to the National Weather Service forecast office and look up Denver, go to climate records and so forth, you’ll find that nine of the 12 warmest years for Denver since records have been kept, were before 1955. This is sheer idiocy. This is what liberals do. Somebody sent me a note. ‘Rush, you need to synthesize for people the definitions of liberals and conservatives, because the difference is just too complicated.’ All right, let me give you a very simple one. Liberals want to run everybody’s life. Liberals want to run your life and everybody else’s life. Conservatives have no interest in running yours. We want to be in charge of our own, and you can do what you want to do, but liberals have to run your life. This story out of Denver is a classic illustration of how most people, as far as liberals are concerned, don’t have the slightest idea how to live responsibly, to do things right, and so government has to step in and take over.

RUSH: All right, got a Global Warming Stack here, folks. Let’s move right on. One of our three rotating global warming update themes. Paul Shanklin as Algore, Ball of Fire.

(Playing of Ball of Fire song.)

The EIB Network, El Rushbo here, serving humanity.

(Continued playing of song.)

One more time, Algore.

(Continued playing of song.)

We have some fabulous global warming news here today, starting with this from the French News Agency. The headline: ‘Climate Change Behind Darfur Killing.’ Do you realize this? That the genocide and the big murdering, killing going on in Darfur is because of global warming. This is according to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. He said that the slaughter in Darfur was ‘triggered by global climate change and that more such conflicts may be on the horizon.’ This is in an article that was published on June the 16th. ”The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change,’ Mr Ban said in a Washington Post opinion column. UN statistics showed that rainfall declined some 40 per cent over the past two decades, he said, as a rise in Indian Ocean temperatures disrupted monsoons. ‘This suggests that the drying of sub-Saharan Africa derives, to some degree, from man-made global warming,’ the South Korean diplomat wrote. ‘It is no accident that the violence in Darfur erupted during the drought,’ Mr Ban said in the Washington daily.’ Whew.

Just when you thought it couldn’t get stranger, just when you thought — it actually gets stranger after this story. But when you thought it couldn’t get stranger, we can all breathe a huge sigh of relief. Well, because for a while there, you know, I thought it was barbaric Islamofascists killing off the blacks and Christians in a religious-based genocidal frenzy. Thank God it was just climate change causing. The Washington Post published it, that’s right. It’s one thing for the UN secretary general to write it, yep, they published it. Of course, why wouldn’t they publish it? It’s part of their agenda. Of course, who’s causing global warming? The United States. And what’s the United States? A racist superpower, and guess who’s suffering? People in Darfur. But seriously, folks, you can rest easy now because the idea that Islamofascists were killing off the blacks and Christians in Darfur in a religion-based genocidal frenzy has been just thrown out now by the UN. It’s global warming. It’s climate change. It makes me feel better. (interruption) Well, we could extrapolate, that’s true, all the genocide, like Rwanda. That probably had to do with global warming, too, we just weren’t smart enough to know it. Actually, maybe the death of the gorillas, the Jane Goodall babes out there. We had this big story about Rosie the gorilla that died during the Rwandan genocide, global warming.

Up next — think it can’t get any stranger? (Laughing.) ‘How Farm Odors Contribute to Global Warming: New Research Happening in NYS.’ This is priceless. ‘You can definitely smell it, but you can’t see it. The United States Department of Agriculture has released reports stating that when you smell cow manure, you’re also smelling greenhouse gas emissions. That will be the focus of new research that might happen right here in the Southern Tier. Agriculture Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, Mark Rey, was in Corning Wednesday morning at the Big Flats Plant Materials Center to annouce the award of nearly $20 million in Conservation Innovation Grants to fund 51 research projects across the country designed to refine new technologies helping dairy and other agricultural producers cut back on their greenhouse emissions and cash in on governmental incentives for the research.’

Well, you know how this works. You give these guys money for the research, and they better come up with the right answer. But may I spread a little ozone on this and dilute the odor. Here’s the quote. ‘The United States Department of Agriculture has released reports stating that when you smell cow manure, you’re also smelling greenhouse gas emissions.’ Now, what would they be talking about? Come on, folks, put your thinking caps on. When you smell manure, greenhouse gas emissions are happening. What are you smelling? Yes, Mr. Snerdley, we’re smelling poop, but what is the ingredient there that they claim is a greenhouse gas? Methane. Correct. Thank you. Broadcast engineer gets it. We are smelling methane. There’s only one problem. Methane doesn’t smell. Methane is odorless. Carbon dioxide has no odor. It is odorless as well. So when reporters report on science, you can almost always count on it being wrong. The pollutant in the poop is not identified here, so if it’s not methane, what they are telling us is that barnyard animal poop is causing global warming.

Now, folks, they can do all the research they want, and short of corks, there’s nothing they can do to stop this, and of course that wouldn’t work because we’d get rid of the livestock eventually. They couldn’t get the cork out themselves. You think it can’t get any stranger in the global warming — (Laughing.) Check it out, folks, methane has no odor. I have checked with scientists on this. I’ll tell you why they’re picking on the cows, because cows, steers produce beef, and the militant vegetarians are part of the global warming crowd. They’re part of the militant environmentalist wacko crowd, and of course we have to clear-cut forestation to provide grazing areas for cows, so this is an assault on cows. It all makes perfect sense. Once you understand this — well, the question that we all have, if it’s just cow manure, what about horse manure, chicken manure, dog manure, cat manure? Something that really stinks is cat manure, I mean gee whiz. I’m telling you. The pigs, what are you going to do with the pigs? What if the pigs take a walk here? Pigs are supposedly smart, when they see what’s happening to all the cows, they’ll burst out of the pens.

Now, I want to address something else that is happening out there, these massive floods that are taking place in Texas while there are droughts in a lot of parts of the country. We’re having a drought in southeast Florida. We got pretty drenched today, but we are supposedly 40 inches light, 40 inches down. We’ll get it back at some point, but we are down. I got a note from the official climate scientist of the EIB Network, Roy Spencer, who is at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Remember now, Dr. Spencer’s specialty, he’s a climate scientist, his specialty is precipitation, and his belief is that all of these global warming models that are predicting doom and gloom are irrelevant because they do not factor precipitation, because we have no way of measuring it on a daily basis, where it falls and how much. So here’s a little lesson on floods and drought. When we hear of a flood or a drought, it is not, it is not due to the atmosphere suddenly producing more rain or less rain. In reality, the total amount of rainfall occurring over the earth is very nearly constant year to year, simply because the total amount of surface evaporation, the source of the rain, is nearly constant year to year. The amount of water in all forms on this planet is what it is. It’s how it gets distributed that differs.

So when floods or droughts occur in some region it’s simply because the movement of weather systems from west to east has temporarily stalled, and so the wet and dry portions of those weather systems stall. Now, rather than spreading out the rain state by state as they move along, they sit and they dump it in one spot if a weather system causes a block of a passage after weather system, or some high stops a low, low stops a high, whatever. These things happen, and they’ve been happening since the beginning of time. Right now, Texas is in effect stealing much of our rainfall here in the east. Texas is getting more rain than it needs. The southwest is getting less rain than it needs, but the total amount of rainfall stays about the same. I’m mentioning this because so many people have not been educated in basic science, that they actually believe that floods, why, we got more rain than ever. We do not have more rain than ever. We just don’t have it distributed the same as it’s been in previous years.

Floods and droughts are completely normal, they have always occurred, and they will always occur. They’re bad news, I mean there’s no question floods and droughts are bad news, but you need to quit blaming them on the latest scientific fad, whether it’s global warming or global cooling or even global staying the same. I wouldn’t be surprised if the global warming thing bombs out. What will happen next is not global cooling, they will say, ‘You know what, the climate isn’t changing. We got global staying the same and that’s bad because the climate right now is producing all these droughts and floods and so forth, these extreme storms, tornadoes and hurricanes,’ they’ll do whatever they need to do.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: This is an editorial from Investor’s Business Daily on June 22nd. ‘Climate Change: The problem with warming predictions may lie in how we measure the present. Can we say that 2006 was the warmest year ever when the temperature is being measured mere feet from air conditioning exhaust? We are all familiar with the scenario. Junior wants to stay home from school so he holds a match under a thermometer and then runs to mom to say he has a fever. We don’t think it’s deliberate, but something similar may be happening with our weather-monitoring methodology. In January, the folks at the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration trumpeted the ‘fact’ that 2006 was the warmest year ever recorded in the continental United States. This was based on daily temperature data gathered by NOAA’s National Climactic Data Center and the 1,221 or so weather observation stations it monitors around the country. Where these stations are and what is in the vicinity can make a difference.

‘NOAA admits that stations have been moved and modernized as technology and the locales change. They provide input to the computer climate models that warming alarmists use to predict the day after tomorrow. Bill Steigerwald of FrontPageMagazine.com reports on an enterprising former TV meteorologist in Chico, Calif., Anthony Watts, who wondered about the accuracy and reliability of these stations and a system that has been in use since the early 1900s. So Watts and a few volunteers decided to check a few of them out, about 40 so far. They found one station in Forest Grove, Ore., that stands just 10 feet from an air conditioning exhaust vent.’ You know how hot the air is coming out of one of those. ‘Another station in Roseburg, Ore., is on a rooftop near an AC unit. In Tahoe, Calif., one is near a drum where trash is burned. … Warnings of imminent climate doom are based on computer models that are often based on agreed-upon assumptions and fed a relatively small portion of the immense number of variables that affect weather and climate. One of those variables is temperature, and it needs to be measured accurately. Otherwise, as the computer geeks say: garbage in, garbage out.’ So I just continue to be amazed each time I learn something new about all this global warming stuff, how we measure meteorological data and how that forms the baseline for whatever predictions of doom exist out there.

RUSH: From the Las Vegas Review Journal, a columnist here, ‘There are some, who, lacking the ecstatic thrill of any other faith-based religion, wish to believe that the earth is in the early stages of an unprecedented climatic change which will see temperatures soar…’ by the way, do you know what? This morning at 10:30, 11 o’clock, it was 68 degrees in New York. Overnight low tonight will be in the mid-fifties. This is July!

Algore’s got his stupid first concert on July 7th. He’s going to be at the one in New Jersey. Anyway, this column, and I’ll give you more details of it when I have a little bit more time after the break here, but it makes the point that this fanatical religion of global warming is just getting out of control. The idea of protecting our environment’s gotten way out of control. Now there seems to be no limit on what is land worthy of being protected and what isn’t. Every single little acre of land, if touched by evil white man, will contribute to global warming. They are getting out of control.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: From Oslo — now, this is the place where they hand out the Nobel Peace Prizes. Of course, I am a Nobel Peace Prize nominee. Get this. This is how absurd this whole global warming thing has gotten. ‘Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, talk show host Oprah Winfrey and ex-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan are best suited to champion work to fight climate change, a 47-nation opinion poll said on Monday. The three were most picked by more than 26,000 Internet users from a list of more than 20 politicians, actors, singers and soccer players to highlight links between celebrities and the environment before Live Earth pop concerts on Saturday…. Gore was chosen by 18 percent of people when asked to pick up to three people from the list as the most influential to ‘champion efforts to combat global warming.’ … In other countries, Annan was top with California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Clinton in China. In Germany, Annan was paired with Mandela while in Britain, entrepreneur Richard Branson led with Irish singer Bob Geldof.’

So the pop culture and the people who portray it and dally in it, dabble in it, choose these people — Gore, Winfrey, and Kofi Annan — as the best team to lead on explaining climate change. This piece is from the Las Vegas Review Journal ran yesterday: ‘There are some who, lacking the ecstatic thrill of any other faith-based religion, wish to believe that the earth is in the early stages of an unprecedented climatic change which will see temperatures soar, the polar ice caps melt, rising sea levels flood our coastal cities – … all because we insist on driving petroleum-fueled private automobiles and using electricity generated by burning coal. Burning that stuff releases into the atmosphere large amounts of carbon dioxide, you see, a ‘greenhouse gas’ which contributes to the ongoing warming of the planet. Now, this is almost entirely nonsense. The planet is currently warming at a rate of perhaps one degree a year, part of an ongoing cycle of global warming and cooling which … has been ongoing for millions of years.’

One of the reasons I like this piece is because I have said so much of it on prior occasions, but the real impact here of this piece, the real point — and it’s a great point — is this: ‘Last weekend, however, the Review-Journal ran an editorial ridiculing the radical Greens for fighting a pipeline needed to transport drinking water to Las Vegas from east central Nevada by using their usual [straw dog] – insisting the plan would damage some obscure minnow in some pond in Utah. ‘It appears that the RJ editorials have hit a new low,’ wrote one of these characters. ‘The childish, blind-eye editorial in Sunday’s paper was pathetic. Apparently whoever wrote (and approved it) feels that man is the only thing on earth worth saving … and damn the environment if it gets in their way!’ So now ‘the environment,’ as used by these zealots, no longer means ‘the environs of mankind, which make mankind’s life healthier and more enjoyable,’ … Rather, the term has been skinned and cured, turned into sheep’s clothing and draped over a lurking wolf. The term is now used to mean ‘pristine nature…”

That’s another point that I have made over and over and over on this program. We are predators. We are not part of nature. Man is not part of nature. All we do is destroy. The fact of the matter is that we are as much a part of nature as is any other living organism, and every living organism alters the environment in order to thrive. It must! Environmental change is called ‘destruction’ when man engaging engages in it but when a bunch of beavers chop down a bunch of trees and damn up a little brook, ‘Oh, look at those cute little beavers! Why, isn’t that cute? Isn’t it wonderful how nature operates.’ My cat goes out there and catches a lizard, plays around with it, and the lizard dies, ‘That’s nature, Mr. Limbaugh! That is a wonderful thing.’ If I go out and catch a lizard and it dies, I have intruded on nature. My cat does it, and ‘It’s a beautiful thing, Mr. Limbaugh.’ I, by the way, don’t go out and catch lizards. They’re our little buddies down here. They eat the insects. In fact, I rescue them from my cat all the time. The cat goes nuts, too. It doesn’t understand what I’m doing. The cat thinks it’s bringing me a surprise. I say, ‘Punkie, drop the lizard,’ and she’ll drop it and start pawing it. It will dart around, and she goes right after it. So I have to hold her back, while trying to pick up the lizard, and then what’s funny is I’ll open the sliding door; I’ll take it outside and dump it in the grass.

I’ll come back in and she’s still smelling the floor where it was, trying to figure out where it went, because she can still smell it but she can’t see it. It’s not there, and that’s sort of fun. I have just interceded in nature there, haven’t I? I got in the way of my cat doing what it’s instincts tell it to do: go after and play with the lizard. She doesn’t actually try to kill them, it just happens, you know, paws them around and they probably die of shock or what have you. So we’re just natural born predators, but here’s the point. If we are really in the process of warming up the planet like crazy, and we’re doing it in a way that’s going to cause all this destruction. When you start talking about the polar ice caps melting, that’s huge. When you start talking about sea levels rising, whatever they say from day to day, ten feet to 17 feet to 20 feet, and flooding Long Island and Manhattan, I don’t see those people leaving. Property values there going crazy, but what do we do? What’s the solution to it? Well, the liberal solution is raise taxes, have huge government, and restrict your freedom; make you drive cars you don’t want to drive, but none of the solutions actually involve cooling the planet, do they? Has Algore or Oprah or Kofi Annan ever come up with a way to cool the planet?

If we’re warming the planet, don’t you think we can cool it? If we can do one, we can do the other — and if we’re really warming it to this dangerous degree, then isn’t it incumbent upon all of us to do what’s necessary to cool it? No, liberals are not talking about any such solution. They just want bigger got there, higher taxes, less freedom and liberty for people. But how could you cool the planet? You’re saying, ‘Well, come on, Rush, don’t be silly. You know we’re not warming it; how could we cool it?’ Well, there is a way. Go back and look at incidents in the past that have led to the planet getting colder, or areas of the planet getting colder, because things that have happened. We got records 200 years. We can find these instances. How about this: if you Google in your search engine ‘Year without a Summer,’ you will learn that from April 5 to 15 in 1850, Mount Tambora on the island of Sumbawa in the Dutch East Indies, which is the modern day Indonesia, blew up. This mountain literally blew up and it ejected 40 cubic kilometers of volcanic ash. That’s more than twice as much as the 1883 explosion of Krakatoa, into the upper atmosphere. There have been other volcanoes that have done this, Mt. Pinatubo and so forth, and you know what happened? The sun couldn’t get through all the garbage, so it didn’t get nearly as hot.

The planet cooled wherever this cloud of ash and sulfur and everything that had been thrown out of that volcano was, and as it traveled around the atmosphere it was, you know, dark days, cloudy looking days, dense smoke, but the planet got a cooler — and of course this was nature. You might say these are all pollutants that it ejected and belched out of the top of the volcano, but it’s all nature. So the columnist here in the Las Vegas Review Journal says, ‘[I]if anyone believes the earth is warming catastrophically and that we need to do something, the only PROVEN solution is to start throwing as much crap into the atmosphere as we possibly can, right now,’ that would be the effect. ‘Clean nuclear and natural-gas-fired power plants must be shut down and immediately replaced with coal plants burning the softest, dirtiest coal… ‘Smog inspections’ will take on a new meaning as our cars will be checked regularly to make sure each is pouring up the densest cloud of black smoke and carbon particulates possible,’ and life-saving black ‘soot. Since every little bit counts, we may also have to make tobacco-smoking mandatory for everyone above the age of 10. ‘Global warming is a crisis, [folks]. It’s time we all set aside our selfish desire to keep our yard furniture free of drifting soot… and share the sacrifice! Share the sacrifice. Think globally; act locally! Do your part! Pollution – wholesale, massive, sooty pollution – is the only answer!’ That’s what’s cooled the planet in the past. Well, it’s one of the things that has. There have been other of course climatic things that have made it happen, but those are things we could do, really do, to counteract global warming. None of them are ever suggested by the people who promise us a catastrophe in a few short years.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here’s Fred in Bemidji, Minnesota. You’re next. It’s great to have you with us, too.

CALLER: Rush, you are the man.

RUSH: Yes, sir.

CALLER: I am glad to talk to you. And I want to say that I consider you one of the true sources of news in our country, in spite of what the mainstream media says. I think that in most cases, they don’t know the difference between news and garbage. I listen to you.

RUSH: I appreciate your saying that because I think you’re exactly right. I think in the three hours of this program, we tell people more about what’s going on than they do. They’re agenda-driven and I have an agenda, too, in the sense that I’m trying to expand the number of conservatives, the number of people who understand it, believe it, and are able to explain it to others. They’ve got an agenda, too, which forces them to leave out a lot of stuff that doesn’t make the grade. In fact, I probably have a couple examples in my stack today. I’ll try to find one or two of them after I finish your call.

CALLER: What I called about is in reference to your talking about the environmentalists continuing to push the idea that we need to leave the land untouched, that that’s the only realistic and proper way to do it, and I’m wondering how that foolishness is going to allow us to grow the additional 300,000 acres of corn that they want grown so that we can substitute that for fossil fuels?

RUSH: You know, it’s an interesting question, and the answer to it is this. When liberals and environmentalists start defining and are in charge of land use, then of course it’s good because they are good people, and they are not destructive. And of course the pursuit of ethanol is to save us from global warming. So they’ve got a good motive. They have good intentions behind them.

CALLER: So you can destroy the land if you have good liberal intentions, that’s the rationale?

RUSH: Not only that, you can destroy the black family; you can destroy prosperity for a lot of people; you can destroy everything you want, as long as you have good intentions behind it. As long as people are unwilling to judge the results of your destruction and will be won over by your good intentions, absolutely.

CALLER: Well, to me what is foolishness is that much of this is driven by emotion rather than the search and the consideration of what I would call true truth or true facts. You know, most anything can be called a fact now if somebody says, ‘Well, I think this is true, so that makes it a fact.’ Well, it does not. It just makes it spin or creative lying or whatever you want to call it. Truth is more difficult than that.

RUSH: Well, of course and the truth is easily side-stepped in the advancement of an agenda. As far as the liberals are concerned, it’s never too early or late to rise above principle.

CALLER: Yeah. Well, I wanted to just throw in there that too many of our leaders are pushing this foolish idea that a bad plan or a bad bill or a bad idea is better than doing nothing, and I think that that is completely wrong —

RUSH: Well, it’s illogical on its face. To do something worse than what exists or do nothing at all, who in the world would say that doing something worse than the current is good? But then you’ve gotta get into the argument of saying, ‘Well, is it really worse?’ Well, any open-minded person looking at what this bill would have done would have to conclude, yeah, it’s worse. It’s far worse.

CALLER: Well, this is why I started out saying you in fact are a true news source, because you bring a quantity and a quality of truth to the discussion that seems to be painfully missing from most mainstream and I would agree Drive-By Media.

RUSH: Well, I appreciate that. I’m glad you noticed. You’ve made my day because we say we’ve been doing the Drive-By Media’s job for them for decades here. They gave up on it a long time ago, especially when they became aware that they lost their monopoly. They have made it abundantly clear that they have chosen sides with the Democrats. My buddy, Evan Thomas here who says I have more power than President Bush, actually said going into the 2004 campaign — you’ll remember this when I remind you — he actually said that mainstream media support of John Kerry would be worth 15 points in the election. That’s coming out of the closet and admitting it, and he’s one of the chief editors at Newsweek magazine. All right, I appreciate that, Fred, very kind, you are.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: James in Cleveland, you’re next on the EIB Network, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Rush, Day One dittos, ultraconservative alternative fuel vehicle manager here at a Honda and Toyota dealership, and I just wanted to let you know that I’m driving natural gas Civic. It runs on natural gas. It’s about a buck a gallon coming out of your house. You can pump it right from your house, and I want to tell you about E85. I don’t think it’s worth it. It takes more fuel to make it. It could be part of the problem.

RUSH: Wait a second here! Wait a second. Do you enjoy your job?

CALLER: I love my job.

RUSH: Maybe we better stop this conversation right now. (Laughing.)

CALLER: (Laughing.) We don’t sell E85s at our dealership, but the thing about E85 is —

RUSH: Hold, hold it. Hold it just a second. By the way, slow down a little bit, because your phone quality is not the best. I’m having a little trouble understanding you. It’s not your fault. But what is an alternative fuel vehicle manager?

CALLER: I handle the vehicles that run either hybrid, which isn’t really considered a[n] alternative fuel, but I would handle the natural gas Civic.

RUSH: Are you a salesman? Are you management?

CALLER: Salesperson, salesperson/manager for the alternative fuel —

RUSH: This is even more incredible! So you sell these things and you’re calling us saying you drive one and it doesn’t work?

CALLER: No, no, no. I drive a natural gas Civic that works great. I don’t drive an E85 vehicle. I drive a natural gas Civic that runs perfect. You could fill it up at your house. You —

RUSH: Oh. Oh, you do like the natural gas vehicle. It’s the hybrid that you’re not crazy about?

CALLER: Nope, I’m crazy about the hybrids, too. It’s the E85, the ethanol car. Everybody is pushing ethanol. Everyone is pushing the corn. Everyone is pushing that. That’s not an efficient fuel.

RUSH: The ethanol car is what you’re criticizing?

CALLER: Yes. Well, I’m not necessarily criticizing it. I think it’s overly hyped. Let me explain to you how I explain it to people. You can’t win a war just a Marine, okay, but you can win a war with the Marines, Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force, and the National Guard. E85 is just one portion of winning the war against, you know, dependency on foreign oil. Believe me I’d much rather drill in the United States, get our own oil from here, but that’s not going to happen, so we need to come up with alternatives, and E85…

RUSH: See, that’s where I disagree with you. I totally disagree with you. It won’t happen if we choose this alternative army you’re saying of these worthless and as far as I’m concerned. Well, shouldn’t say that. I’m never going to buy one.

CALLER: But they’re not at all worth it.

RUSH: I’m never going to buy a natural gas. I’m not going to buy an E85 car. I’m not going to buy a hybrid. I never, ever will buy one. I will risk fines. I’m not going to buy junk, buy stuff I don’t like. But the more people who do, the more we are delaying actual production of our own energy. We are not going to grow an expanding economy to the extent the American people demand it, with defensive cutbacks with alternative fuels and vehicles like this when oil is still the fuel that runs everything. We’re not going to do it. It’s not going to happen.

CALLER: I’m not asking for cutbacks. I’m not asking for anything. I’m just asking basically, if you have… Your house I’m sure has natural gas running the range. You cook on that big stove of yours, I’m sure with natural gas, right?

RUSH: Yeah, it runs a couple of things. It runs the barbecue pit, and the pool heater, the cooler and so forth, yeah, but not much else. Not much else.

CALLER: You’re using an alternative fuel and you’re saving… You’re actually doing something you don’t even realize. You’re actually using an alternative fuel.

RUSH: Natural gas is the alternative fuel?

CALLER: Yes.

RUSH: Oh, it’s —

CALLER: (Unintelligible)

RUSH: When you’re talking about alternative to internal combustion engine, yeah. But natural gas is as plentiful… Tthere’s nothing alternative about it. It’s as in as much use as oil is for different reasons.

CALLER: Right, exactly. But you can get natural gas from different sources. You can get it from… I don’t want you to think I… Believe me, I’ve got a Nixon tattoo on my arm, I’m so conservative. But I see that there’s other alternatives we have besides giving those people across the pond there our money and they’re giving it to terrorists so that terrorists can kill us. And I know people that are over in Iraq, and I know people in the military, so I’m pretty up on what’s going on. But my main concern was calling you about E85, and what I wanted to tell you right now is that every sixth row of corn is dedicated to ethanol right now. Only 10% of your gasoline that you put in your tank, at the most, at most is two or three percent, but the most ethanol that’s in your gasoline at your corner gas station, not E85 specific, which is 85% ethanol, every sixth row is dedicated to that 10%. So if we’re going to switch over to 50% E85, we don’t have enough land to grow this. Now the environmentalists are finally realizing this. I go to these meetings and everything. I listen to these people. They go on and on.

RUSH: Yes, we do. We’ve got plenty of land. We’ll just have to convert some other crop to grow corn.

CALLER: Well, no, but there’s other ways to do it. What I’m saying is if they want E85 so bad, E85 is just part of it. We can still use gasoline. We can still use, diesel fuel, but if we can cut the gasoline use and not have to give those people over there so much money, that’s fine. You know, I would rather drill here in the Gulf. I’d rather drill off the coast of California.

RUSH: Let me tell you what the flaw in your argument is. I understand, once again, your desire to not contribute to terrorist graduations and regimes with the purchase of foreign oil.

RUSH: Now, remember, you’re talking to a conservative here — a very, very conservative person.

RUSH: You could be Hillary Clinton and I’d tell you the same thing here. If we don’t buy it, somebody will. You have got to understand: oil is the fuel of the engine of the world economy, and there is nothing that is going to change that dramatically, in your lifetime or mine or hundreds of years from now. It isn’t going to happen.

CALLER: I graduated from that class, Rush. I understand that completely.

RUSH: Well, so then your dabbling around in all this stuff is just cosmetics to make you feel better. You can drive around an E85 car and think you’re burning corn. You can drive around thinking you’re driving a natural gas car and make yourself feel better, but it’s not depriving any oil-rich sheik of his money.

CALLER: I don’t do it to make myself feel better. I do it because it’s a challenge. It’s a challenge to win, and I think there are other alternatives than gasoline.

RUSH: Well, independent that. Sometimes I try to live with the thermostat at 72 instead of 70. I understand challenges and trying to do my part, but I know that when I keep my thermostat at 72 instead of 70, somebody’s making up for what I’m doing. It all balances out. This is just… You do feel better doing it. Admit it, that’s what you’re trying to do! You’re trying to accomplish something, too. You’re accomplishing a lot here. You’re engaging in a challenge. You think you’re overcoming the obstacles of the challenge. You feel good about what you’re doing. There’s nothing wrong with that.

CALLER: Well, I do feel good about what I’m doing and when I drive a Prius or when I drive a Honda Civic and I’m getting 600 or 650 miles out of a tank or a mid-size Camry or a mid-size Highlander SUV I’m still beating the system. I’m still coming out with more money in my pocket, even though I get a tax credit, and I’m still coming out with more money in my pocket. When I have to drive 620 miles on one tank of gas…

RUSH: That’s great. That is just great. If that matters to you and you’re doing all that, that’s great, but do not think while you’re doing all that — I don’t want to disappoint you or ruin the day here, but don’t think that all these things that you like are happening, that — you’re changing the world scheme of energy.

CALLER: But more money in people’s pockets because they’re spending less on gas, that means they’re going to buy a better car. That means they’re going to buy more food at the grocery store; they’re gonna buy more clothes.

RUSH: If they could buy a better car, they gotta buy something other than the kinds you’ve been describing.

CALLER: Well, Honda and Toyotas are the best cars — rated some of the best cars in the world as far as the way they’re built and they’re reliability. They’re much more reliable than a Mercedes or BMW. You can look that up on the Internet, anywhere.

RUSH: Yeah, you could look anything up on the Internet, and it’s still not going to deprive the sheiks of their oil revenue. Somebody’s going to buy it.

CALLER: I understand that, Rush, but you know what? If we quit buying from the sheiks, believe me, they’re going to be in a panic, because we are their largest customer.

RUSH: We can’t stop buying

CALLER: I understand that.

RUSH: The sheiks… By the way, who do you think we boy the most oil from?

CALLER: Well, we boy the most oil from Canada and Venezuela.

RUSH: Canada. Who’s number two?

CALLER: I believe it’s South America and then Russia is three, I think.

RUSH: Mexico.

CALLER: Well, South America, Mexico.

RUSH: Mexico, and that’s Central America.

CALLER: Oh, that’s right.

RUSH: Hell, it’s North America.

CALLER: I didn’t mean to…

RUSH: — and then Venezuela is number four.

CALLER: Yeah, I didn’t mean to group the Latinos. I’m sorry. I mixed them up.

RUSH: Now, that’s a situation. You know that that little dictator down there, that little pig-faced dictator owns 15% of US refining capacity or has financial interests in it? I mean, you can sit there all day worry about the oil sheiks and so forth, but we got this little megalomaniac down there who’s rattling sabers, trying to by submarines from the Soviet — well, the old Soviet Union, from the KGB. As somebody described him over the weekend, he’s Castro on steroids. Anyway, look, I appreciate the call out there, James, and if you love those cars, that is fabulous! If you have good fortune selling them, and you have people that to want buy them, that’s absolutely great. I’m not being critical of that. But I don’t want people to lie to themselves and tell themselves that, you know, you’re depriving Sheik Abdullah Whatever of another gold rimmed palace over there in Riyadh.

RUSH: Cheyenne, Wyoming. This is Julie. Julie, welcome to the EIB Network.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. I haven’t talked to you for about 15 years. That’s when we first heard you. We lived out in California at the time, and we want you to change the subject a little bit because we want to have you become the first recycler of some of your great stuff, and that is Gorbasms. Instead of doing for, you know, Gorbachev, we want you to turn it into a Gore-basm, you know, all this Earth First stuff and the global warming stuff. We want you to start using it again.

RUSH: That theme?

CALLER: Yeah, the theme!

RUSH: Now, that’s a tempting idea, start making fun of Gore by recycling update themes and putting them into different subjects and so forth, but I don’t know. The Gorbasm theme, it’s just so perfect for Gorbachev and the old Soviet Union and so forth, but I like the idea. I think it’s a clever idea to recycle update themes. I’ll think about that. I really will. Julie, thanks much, I appreciate it.

Thinking of Gorbasms and so forth, have you seen this? ‘Scientists on the US Pacific coast are increasingly observing emaciated gray whales in what they fear is a sign that global warming is wreaking havoc in the whales’ Bering Sea summer feeding grounds. The scientists fear that the same phenomenon is cutting back reproduction in the Pacific whale population to the point it could be facing a new crisis, after recovering in the mid-1990s and graduating from the endangered species list. ‘The gray whales are migrating later, not going as far north, and are producing fewer calves,’ Steven Swartz, head researcher with the National Marine Fisheries Service told AFP.’ How do these people know this? Do we have sensitive instruments? Do we have submarines? Somebody tell me! Are we down there counting the number of these things? Are we watching every birth? Do we know where every gray whale on the face of the earth is? Well, do we know where every gray whale UNDER the face of the earth is? Do we know how many there are?

They’re losing weight. The headline is: ‘Warming Causing Gray Whales to Lose Weight.’ Frankly, folks, that’s insane. Warming causing whales to lose weight? This is actually good news. We all want to lose weight! If it’s causing the whales to lose weight, maybe you and I will lose weight because of warming. But do we know? I received a note from Roy Spencer today, the climate specialist, University of Alabama at Huntsville. He said, ‘The one thing that they can’t model…’ and his expertise is in precipitation and the effect that it has on warming. It’s not in the models, either, because we don’t have accurate measures of daily rainfall in all the world. We cannot tell ourselves — we cannot learn, we do not know — how much it rains where, everywhere on this planet. We do not know, and if you don’t know that, and if precipitation is a factor in global warming, then the models that are showing us all this stuff is worthless. Another thing is clouds. If you want to send a meteorologist into a tizzy, ask them about clouds. Ask them what the cloud cover tomorrow is going to be anywhere, and they can’t tell you. Do you know how little is known about clouds? Now, Roy’s note to me said that if there were a just 1% change in cloud cover on a consistent basis, the impact on temperature on the surface would be affected pretty profoundly.

But since we can’t measure cloud cover, either — you can look at it on the satellites and so forth, but we can’t predict it. We know what causes clouds, but we can’t make one when we want to, and we can’t move them around when we want to. We can’t get rid of them when we want to. It’s a giant mystery. So do we know how many gray whales are out there? Do we know how many calves are being born? I want to see the proof of this. How could it be that just ten years ago in the mid-nineties they ‘graduated from the endangered species list’ and now all of a sudden they’re threatened again? What the hell happened here? Global warming wasn’t happening ten years ago? It had to be happening. They’ve been warning about it since 1979 when they threw aside the global cooling crisis. This is the kind of stuff that shows up in the news. ‘Oh, mommy! Mommy, mommy, mommy! It’s the gray whales (whining) babies! What are we going to do, it’s our fault.’ People run around saying to these kids are gonna worry. There are going to be gray whale cartoons now. If there’s a scientist out there that can tell me that there are cold, hard factual numbers on the numbers of gray whales, and where they are, and when they’re having babies, and how many they’re having, and which babies are making it and which babies are not — are they having any abortions? Does every gray whale mom want to give birth? How do we know any of this for sure? Maybe we did, but this story does not tell us. They just have the scientists asserting this. They’re getting smaller; they’re not traveling as far north, and they’re not having as many calves. Why, it must be true. It’s in the Drive-By Media!

RUSH: It’s time for a global warming update. Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut! Algore and Ball of Fire.

(Playing of Ball of Fire update theme.)

RUSH: It’s the Rush Limbaugh program and the EIB Network. I’m talking here so other stations can’t steal my song.

(song continues)

RUSH: Yes. I noticed this. The name of the group here is Rare Earth. The tune is from 1968, is called Get Ready. The Temptations did this song, and this is a Motown group, one of their sub-labels. I have the most incredible story here. This is actually from a couple days ago on July 14th. It’s Newsweek, published on the MSNBC website. The headline is, ‘After We Are Gone.’ The subhead is, ‘If humans were evacuated, the Earth would flourish.’ This is a serious story about how great the planet could be again if we were just all wiped out, and it focuses on a guy who’s trying to accomplish that and deals with it genuinely and seriously! Let me read you a few short excerpts. ‘The Second Coming may be the most widely anticipated apocalypse ever, but it’s far from the only version of the end times. Environmentalists have their own [vision] — a vision of a world not consumed by holy fire but returned to ecological balance by the removal of the most disruptive species in history. That, of course, would be us, the 6 billion furiously metabolizing and reproducing human beings polluting its surface.

‘There’s even a group trying to bring it about, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, whose Web site calls on people to stop having children altogether. And now the journalist Alan Weisman has produced, if not a bible, at least a Book of Revelation, ‘The World Without Us,’ which conjures up a future something like … well, like the area around Chernobyl, the Russian nuclear reactor that blew off a cloud of radioactive steam in 1986. In a radius of 30 kilometers, there are no human settlements — just forests that have begun reclaiming fields and towns, home to birds, deer, wild boar and moose. Weisman’s intriguing thought experiment…’ Intriguing thought experiment? Intriguing thought experiment! This is a lunatic. Somebody that needs to be institutionalized is being given credibility by the Drive-By Media. His ‘intriguing thought experiment is to ask what would happen if the rest of the Earth was similarly evacuated — not by a nuclear holocaust or natural disaster, but by whisking people off in spaceships, or killing them with a virus that spares the rest of the biosphere. In a world with no one to put out fires, repair dams or plow fields, what would become of the immense infrastructure humans have woven across the globe?

‘In a matter of days or weeks, nuclear power plants around the world would boil off their water and melt into vast radioactive lumps. Electrical power would fail, and with it the pumps keeping New York City’s subways from flooding; in a few years Lexington Avenue would collapse and eventually turn into a river. Lightning-caused fires would blow out the windows in skyscrapers, and concrete floors would freeze and buckle. A few centuries on, steel bridges would fall victim to rust and the inexorable assault of vegetation taking root in windblown clumps of soot. Masonry structures would last the longest, although the next ice age would wipe them out, at least at the latitude of New York, and bronze sculpture, Weisman estimates, would still be recognizable 10 million years into the future, probably the last recognizable artifacts of our civilization. And what of the biosphere? Unless global warming has already progressed beyond the point of no return, it would eventually recover much of its diversity and richness. Contrary to widespread belief, cockroaches would not take over the world if there were no one around to step on them: tropical insects, they wouldn’t survive their first winter without central heating.

‘Rats and dogs would miss us the most, it seems — the former for our garbage and the latter our protection from bigger predators. Feral cats, on the other hand, would do quite well: there would be plenty of birds for them to eat. Elephants would once again have the run of Africa, and the oceans would be filled with fish as few alive have ever seen them. Much of the world would come to resemble … well, the Korean demilitarized zone, where no one has set foot for more [50 years], now a mecca for Korean bird watchers. Sound appealing? Well, it did to Weisman, too, when he began work on the book four years ago. And ‘four out of five’ of the people he’s told about it, he estimates, thought the idea sounded wonderful. Since we’re headed inexorably toward an environmental crash anyway, why not get it over cleanly and allow the world to heal? Over time, though, Weisman’s attitude toward the rest of humanity softened, as he thought of some of the beautiful things human beings have accomplished, their architecture and poetry, and he eventually arrived at what he views as a compromise position: a worldwide, voluntary agreement to limit each human couple to one child.

‘This, says Weisman — who is 60, and childless after the death of his only daughter — would stabilize the human population by the end of the century at about 1.6 billion, approximately where it was in 1900.’ I don’t know that he’s a commie. I never heard of this clown. All I know is that he’s got a book, and Newsweek is treating this as legitimately as they did these wackos and the director who made the movie about assassinating Bush. A virus that wipes us all out? It’s going to happen anyway. Global warming is going to wipe us out, right? Why not do it painlessly and quickly and come up with a way that will spare every living organism but humanity? I have warned you people about this for 18 years. This is where these people have been headed, and the thing is, they’re not laughed out of the room. Can you imagine if I, on this program, suggesting wiping out four and a half billion people? Can you imagine what the reaction would be? Oh, yes, you can. I certainly wouldn’t be treated with respect and credibility, and no one would be intellectually curious to examine this idea. But this guy comes along and does it… How does a guy write a story like this? Writing about some clown that wants to kill him, wipe him off the face the earth — and this Weisman guy, the subject of the story, acts like he’s not even part of the human race. ‘They,’ ‘you,’ but never ‘us,’ in his words.

RUSH: Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut! We’ve gotta get to the Global Warming Stack here.

(Playing of What a Horrible World.)

RUSH: I wasn’t through intro-ing here.

(Playing of What a Horrible World.)

RUSH: He just can’t be quiet, this guy.

(Playing of What a Horrible World.)

RUSH: That’s our buddy Paul Shanklin as former vice president Algore and What a Horrible World. All right, here we go. The first item in the Global Warming Stack today is a column in the Australian Herald Sun. It’s by Andrew Bolt, and he’s talking here about how convenient for the new prime minister of Great Britain, Gordon Brown. He’s newly installed, and, all these floods are over there. He can blame global warming! ‘How handy global warming is for the battling politician. Take Britain’s new and nervous Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. He’s got thousands of British houses now drowning in flood water, with soggy citizens ready to make someone pay. These furious voters could, for instance, ask their politicians why they let so many houses be built on old flood plains. They might demand to know why the country’s Environment Agency was so slack in maintaining flood defences. And they certainly are bitching about the Government’s slow rescue efforts.’ Have we been here before? Hurricane Katrina. ‘So how does Brown escape? He blames global warming: ‘Obviously, like every advanced industrial country, we’re coming to terms with some of the issues surrounding climate change.’

‘Brilliant! From potential scapegoat to noble prophet. It’s been done before, of course. Australian premiers blamed global warming rather than admit they’d failed to build new dams over the past 20 years to water their growing cities. But few have been quite so brazen as Brown – or drawn attention so clumsily to a rather big problem with the computer models on which so much global warming theory is based.’ Here’s the problem: ‘You see, the weather isn’t quite behaving as those models predict. For a start, Britain should be baking, not drowning. All the models actually forecast not summer floods in Britain, but summers ever drier. Hear it from the warming spruikers at Britain’s Hadley Centre, who warned: ‘Winters will become wetter and summers may become drier across all of the UK.’ … But which global warming preacher can resist blaming any bit of wild weather on man and his gases? The heatwave in southern Europe? ‘Consistent with man-made climate change,’ said European Union environment bureaucrats. Our Gippsland floods? Just what you’d expect from climate change, tut-tuts our don’t-blame-me Premier. Hurricane Katrina, which helped to drown New Orleans in 2005? For Al Gore it was so emblematic of global warming that he stuck it on the poster for his movie An Inconvenient Truth. Yet the weather just refuses to behave as the activists’ pet global-warming models insist. …

‘[Y]ou see the problem, don’t you? That’s sure not an explanation to excite an activist, or excuse a politician who’s in deep water. … If you must blame something, blame the jet stream that remains stuck over Britain, when normally it’s pushed back over Scotland by winds from the Azores.’ We discussed this a couple of days ago. The jet stream is just further south than it should be. The models didn’t predict any of this, and we can’t move it up. We don’t know how to move the jet stream up. By the way, yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, I had a story for you that the temperature here where we live in south Florida is cooler than normal, whereas in other parts of Florida the temperatures are rising, although not all parts of Florida, but it’s been cool here. It’s cool in Northeast again here today. It’s all over the place. Temperatures are wacky and they’re cooler than they should be. I took credit for this yesterday by highlighting the huge carbon footprint that I am making, on purpose, to help put pollutants into the air because we know that when nature does that, we cool the climate. So I have a pretty large estate and I’m running all the things that I have in it. I’m running the pool cooler 24 hours a day. The thermostat is 68 degrees in every room in every house. The lights are on a lot. I even air-condition my garages, folks! Ab-so-lutely. I’m not about to take a shower, get dressed walk out for dinner at night and get into a sweaty, hot garage, sweaty.

Besides, I gotta protect my cars. So, yes, big carbon footprint, and a friend sends me a note that says, ‘I don’t know why it never occurred to me before, but you, Rush Limbaugh, are actually do more to support alternative energy sources than the vast majority of Americans. Your disproportionate use of energy through supply and demand helps push prices hire which then makes alternative sources of energy more competitive in the marketplace.’ So I am doing the Lord’s work even though and while I am satisfying my needs. Do you understand this, Mr. Snerdley, or did we lose you here? I’m using all this energy, and it’s driving the price up. (interruption) No! I’m placing a huge demand on the existing supply. Supply and demand. My command is extraordinarily high compared to the average Floridian, so I’m using the supply, increasing demand. The price is going up, which makes alternative fuels look even more attractive. I’m helping. Oh, but wait! Sorry. I take it back. From LiveScience.com: ‘Renewable Energy Not Green — Renewable energy could wreck the environment, according to a study that examined how much land it would take to generate the renewable resources that would make a difference in the global energy system…. The results, published in the current issue of International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, paint a grim picture for the environment.

‘For example, according to the study, in order to meet the 2005 electricity demand for the United States, an area the size of Texas would need to be covered with wind structures running round the clock to extract, store and transport the energy. New York City would require the entire area of Connecticut to become a wind farm to fully power all its electrical equipment and gadgets.’ It’s a hoax as well, this renewable energy garbage. Oh, by the way, in Peru, ‘at least 70 children have died during a spell of freezing weather in the Andean regions.’ It’s a cold snap that is unheard of, and 70 children died. Big story also out of Nevada: ‘Nevada is among the states with the most dramatic increase in average temperatures in the last 30 years according to a new study that examines the impact of global warming across the country.’ So what did I do? I went to the National Weather Service, and I got a little bar graph here of the average Las Vegas maximum temperature by decade. And guess what? The 1940s featured the highest average temperature for Las Vegas from the forties through the nineties. The forties and fifties were higher than the eighties and nineties, average temperature in Las Vegas. Keep in mind, folks, it’s all BS out there on this global warming business. It’s a wild guess. It’s a political issue. It’s a religion. It’s a hoax. Don’t believe any of the fearmongering.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I left one story out of the global warming report — accidentally. From to Los Angeles Times: ‘You take public transportation to work. You use energy-saving lightbulbs. You turn off the air-conditioner when you’re not home.’ By the way, I don’t do that either. The air conditioners stay on all the time. There’s too much stuff in there to protect. I’m not going to let the humidity down here destroy it; same thing with the garages. I do turn off the pool cooler when I’m not around. I do do that. I have to have the thing on. But beside that, the federal government will still come to your aid if you still feel guilty that you are not doing enough. ‘For years, companies have been allowed to compensate for greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing carbon offsets or pollution credits. These are vouchers for investment in alternative energy sources, tree planting, and other,’ scams. That’s my word, not the LA Times’. ‘Now the idea is spreading to individuals with the Forest Service’s announcement yesterday that it will be the first federal agency to offer personal carbon offsets through an initiative called the Carbon Capital Fund. ‘We came up with the idea because everybody is looking at what they can do in terms of climate change,’ said the president of the National Forest Foundation, a nonprofit partner of the Forest Service.’ Whenever you read ‘nonprofit,’ think ‘liberal,’ nine times out of ten. ‘The money goes to a restricted fund for projects on national forests.’ So, if you had any doubt that this whole thing is a scam, now the feds want to take your money in the process. This is a voluntary tax that they hope that you will come up with.

RUSH: All right, it’s global warming time, folks. Incredible Global Warming Stack. Here is Algore.

(Playing of What a Horrible World.)

RUSH: Oh, no. Oh, no.

(Playing of What a Horrible World.)

RUSH: All right. Let’s get right to it. The purpose of the global warming update, by the way, is to illustrate the folly, the fraud, the deceit, the hoax, behind the whole scientific claim that humans are destroying the climate and causing it to change. We’ve discussed Heidi Cullen. She is the info climate babe at the Weather Channel. The New York Times did a profile on Ms. Cullen yesterday. ‘Into the Limelight and the Politics of Global Warming,’ and in case you’re wondering, she’s a big manmade global warming believer — yep, it’s happening — and she proposed once the decertification of TV meteorologists by the American Meteorological Society if they didn’t believe global warming, which caused me to call her a ‘Stalinist’ which she was asked about in this piece. In case you’re wondering, how does this woman get this job — she’s never been in TV before; she’s never worked in TV; she was a researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder. She got a phone call from an executive at the Weather Channel, which she auditioned for a program on climate and global warming that producers were contemplating. She was a climatologist. She had a doctorate from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, but she was dubious. She rarely watched television. She had never even seen the Weather Channel.

So they asked her, why did you decide to do this? What do you do here? How do you come to your views? ‘I’ve become a media junkie,’ she said. ‘I read far more widely now than when I was a researcher. Also, I watch a lot of TV, which means all the news programs, ‘Frontline,’ even ESPN, which I watch to learn how to write punchy leads. I also listen to NPR, check out Greenwire and troll the scientific journals like Science, Nature and Geophysical Research Letters.’ She’s a Drive-By news junky! It will do it to you every time. No wonder she buys into this global warming stuff. They asked her later on in the story, ‘Rush Limbaugh accused you of Stalinism. Did you suggest that meteorologists who doubt global warming should be fired?’ Cullen: ‘I didn’t exactly say that. I was talking about the American Meteorological Society’s seal of approval. I was saying the A.M.S. should test applicants on climate change as part of their certification process.’ What she said was that if they didn’t believe it, that they shouldn’t be certified, and if you’re not certified, a television station is not going to hire you. So it’s six of one, half dozen of another. From Kansas:

‘As August arrives, Wichita has recorded zero days this year of temperatures reaching 100 or more. None. Zip. Nada. Wichita hasn’t made it this far into a summer without reaching 100 since 1928. Herbert Hoover was president and the technological innovation sweeping the country was something called radio. Extreme heat has been about the only thing missing from the weather this year,’ and this is the case at a lot of the Midwest. I have all these cities put into my iPhone, and I check the weather every day. I’m amazed at how cool it’s been in Kansas City and in Cape Girardeau where I grew up, and in St. Louis, and how cool it’s been in the Northeast.

In fact, ‘A Summer Like No Other,’ is the headline to a story here: ‘Never before in recorded history have there been less sunshine in Oslo in July, according to Statistics Norway. Clouds blocking the sun also brought exceptionally much rain, making this July the wettest in 67 years.’ The month of July was cool. Nobody is going to the beaches. What is this? Europe is supposed to be baking, not flooding with global warming, according to the models and according to the movies and all the documentaries. By the way, the genie is now officially out of the bottle. One of the things I have told you over and over again is that the primary purpose of the United Nations, the primary reason it exists is to fleece the United States. It is made up of a lot of Third World thugs and dictators, otherwise socialists and liberals, who resent the fact that there’s such a great disparity in prosperity in this country versus other countries of the world, and we are to be made guilty for it and we are to give our money up. ‘Climate change alarmism met the infamous oil-for-food scam at the UN Tuesday.’ This is from our buddies at NewsBusters. ‘If you had any questions regarding why the UN has been the point man on driving global warming hysteria throughout America and around the world, they were all answered. In fact the genie was let out of the proverbial bottle by this Reuters headline: ‘UN Climate Change Meeting Aims at Rich Countries — The first UN special session on climate change focused on the world’s rich countries on Tuesday, as policy makers urged long-standing polluters to shoulder much of the burden for cutting greenhouse gases.”

There it is! The United Nations admits it. They’re not hiding it, just like liberals in this country are becoming more emboldened each day to share with us what they really think. This is nothing more than a fleece, a power grab, and they hope to make it succeed by making you feel guilty of sin for ‘destroying the planet’ with your extravagant lifestyles — and if they accomplish that, then you’ll go along with having your taxes raised and money going to the United Nations.

From the Times Online in the UK: ‘Motorists wanting to buy an environmentally friendly car should choose a diesel model and forgo energy-draining luxuries such as air conditioning, according to a government campaign that ranks vehicles according to their carbon emissions. The Department for Transport,’ i.e., the government, ‘is making an unprecedented intervention [in the UK] into the new car market today by telling drivers which are the ‘greenest’ models in each class…. The only petrol car is the Toyota Prius hybrid…’ Everything else they’re recommending is diesel. The underlying message is that a diesel car is the best option to help to save the planet, unless you can afford a hybrid. A diesel car will typically…’ Do you realize how idiotic this is: to save the planet, diesel is the best? Don’t buy a car with air-conditioning? Do you realize that there are kook wackos that eat this up, and then they go out and do this and then they start demanding you do it, too, because that’s who liberals are. They’re not content to live and let live. You have got to do everything they do. You have to eat what they eat. You have to say what they say. You can’t say what they don’t agree with or they’ll shut you up or try to. Political correctness, hello? Anyone? Now you have to go buy a diesel car, because if you don’t, we can’t ‘save the planet.’ It’s getting more and more outrageous. Now, I actually think I’m very optimistic about this. I was talking about this with Mr. Snerdley and some other people the other day. I think in three to four years, we can stop this. I think in three to four years, this can be illustrated to enough people in this country and the world, exactly what a hoax this whole thing is and what its real purpose is.

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.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

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 heat wave, 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.

RUSH: Dadelut! Dadelut! Dadelut! Dadelut!

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

RUSH: This is Paul Shanklin as Algore, on the EIB Network. It is a Global Warming Update. Okay, folks. Unbelievable in the UK Guardian today: ‘The Earth Fights Back — Never mind higher temperatures, climate change has a few nastier surprises in store. Bill McGuire…’ I guess that’s their stupid idiot reporter, ‘says we can also expect more earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides and tsunamis,’ because of global warming. Ladies and gentlemen, there is literally no scientific basis for such claims. Zilich. Zero. Nada. We’ve had tornadoes. We’ve had earthquakes. We have had tsunamis. We have had volcanoes. We’ve had volcanoes form the country! Earthquakes formed the world, the Continental shelf. It’s been going on since God created the place. The idea that global warming is going to increase them or have any effect on them at all is spurious. It is obscenely incompetent. It is journalistic malpractice to talk about these kinds of things, and I wish I had more time to analyze this in greater detail, but I don’t.

RUSH: Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut. Trumpet fanfare. Time for an update, touch on some global warming news here. Paul Shanklin is as Algore.

(Playing of Ball of Fire spoof song.)

RUSH: There you have it. That’s Algore, Ball of Fire, one of our three rotating global warming update themes. An amazing story here from Reuters. This is so full of See, I Told You Sos. I mean, try the headline: ‘Scientists Try New Ways to Predict Climate Risks.’ Yes, you heard correctly. ‘Scientists are trying to improve predictions about the impact of global warming this century by pooling estimates about the risk of floods or desertification. ‘We feel certain about some of the aspects of future climate change, like that it is going to get warmer,’ said Matthew Collins of the British Met Office. ‘But on many of the details it’s very difficult to say.” What the hell does that mean? We feel certain about some of the aspects of the future, like it’s going to get warmer, but on many of the details, it’s very difficult to say, which means they don’t have a clue. Which means they don’t know. ‘The way that we can deal with this is a new technique of expressing the predictions in terms of probabilities,’ Collins told Reuters.

‘Scientists in the U.N. climate panel, for instance, rely on several complex computer models to forecast the impacts of warming this century, ranging from changing rainfall patterns over Africa to rising global sea levels. But these have flaws because of a lack of understanding about how clouds form, for instance, or how Antarctica’s ice will react to less cold. And reliable temperature records in most nations stretch back only about 150 years.’ It’s every argument I have made to not listen to these people. We don’t have the slightest idea how clouds are formed. Nobody can predict what the percentage of cloud cover is gonna be unless you have a big front coming through and you know you’re going to be overcast. On a day-to-day basis, they can’t do it. They know the process, but they don’t know how big they’re going to be, their altitude, they know nothing. ‘Under new techniques looking at probabilities, ‘predictions from different models are pooled to produces estimates,” meaning the flawed research we get from one model is going to be combined with the flawed research from another model. We’re going to come up with probabilities based on what both of these flawed models say.

‘The approach might help quantify risks for a construction firm building homes in a flood-prone valley..’ If a flood-prone valley is flood-prone, they already know the risk. It’s like people building homes on the beach. You know that it can happen; there’s going to be a hurricane. People still do it. They’re willing to take the risk. ‘Collins said uncertainties include how natural disasters out of human control affect the climate. A volcanic eruption, such of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, can temporarily cool the earth because the dust blocks sunlight.’ Another See, I Told You So. Now, here’s what’s interesting about that passage to me. They admit that a volcano is out of human control. Well, tell me, if a volcano is out of human control, then how the hell is anything else involved in the weather in human control? Somebody tell me this. ‘Man is destroying the planet, Mr. Limbaugh! There’s no question about this. There’s been a documented consensus of scientists.’ Then the pièce de résistance, David Stainforth of Oxford University in England: ‘Climate science is a very new science and we have only just begun to explore the uncertainties. We should expect the uncertainty to increase rather than decrease’ in coming years as scientists work to understand the climate. That would complicate the chances of assigning probabilities.’ Now, wait a minute. We’ve heard from a bunch of groups. There’s no question anymore, scientific consensus, it’s there. These guys say there is going to be even more uncertainty in the future, more and more uncertainty. The more they learn the more they realize they don’t know.

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.’ Weeell, 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.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

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.

RUSH: How many of you people have seen Algore’s movie? We talked about this, by the way, before the movie came out. This mysterious current, the Gulf Stream and other related currents in the Atlantic, and they cycle warm water up north, and they keep Britain moderately temperate. The climate is moderate. It doesn’t get too cold, doesn’t get too hot, and if this current ever stopped, why, it could wreak havoc on Britain. Of course, in the Gore movie, this current is stopping, and it’s slowing down, and it may be disappearing, and this is because of global warming. But we have new information, ladies and gentlemen…

(Playing of What a Horrible World.)

RUSH: … that says it’s just normal. ‘Scientists,’ by the way, say this.

(song continues)

RUSH: That’s Paul Shanklin as Algore, ‘What a Horrible World.’ That’s a takeoff, of course, on Louis Armstrong’s great, great song, ‘What a Wonderful World.’ Now, don’t confuse this story with the story we had yesterday. The story we had yesterday on ocean currents was scientists just discovered a new one in Australia. They never knew it was there, and my gosh, it’s making all kinds of impact on global warming, but we didn’t know it was there! Well, if they’re just learning about it now, is it in their computer models? Obviously not. This story deals with an entirely different current. ‘A massive ocean circulation pattern that plays a crucial role in shaping the world’s climate may not have been slowing down over the last few decades as scientists previously believed. This according to a study released yesterday. The perceived slowdown had been considered alarming support for computer predictions, that global warming would disrupt the planet’s heat regulation. In a single year of measurements published in today’s issue of the journal Science, the scientists found enough normal variation in the pattern to suggest that previous studies were premature in asserting a long-term trend.’

That should be ‘panic,’ long-term panic. They’re trying to create a long-term panic here. We talked this current. It’s like a conveyor belt in the ocean, and it takes warm weather across the Atlantic north towards the British islands, and then circulates it back down from Florida in that area, and it takes warm water north and brings cold water south, and they thought this current was slowing down and even stopping. It would have had a dramatic effect if it was right. It would have a dramatic effect, particularly on the weather in the British islands. But it’s not slowing down. It’s a normal circulation. So a panic was created over nothing. I think I’m right — I usually am right when I think I’m right because I’m usually right even when I think I’m wrong, but I think I’m right on this. I think this current gets a lot of play in Algore’s movie. (interruption) It does? Thank you. Snerdley, did you see it? Oh, okay. He rented it. This is an LA Times story, and they don’t mention the Algore movie in this story, but there is a version in the Associated Press that does talk about it.

Now, here’s a question: When will scientists ever learn? This stems from the arrogance and conceit that human beings are capable of. These scientists see some change in nature, and then fret over it being a long-term trend. If you have a template out there (a narrative, if you will) that man is destroying the planet by warming the climate, and we’ve only got a few short years to stop this, and then you see something that you think is a change in nature that’s never, ever happened before — which, of course, is not possible. There is nothing that can happen in nature that has never happened before, but our arrogance and conceit makes us think, ‘Maybe it’s happened before but they’re worse more than ever because of us!’ So they see this change in the current, and then they fret over it being part of a ‘long-term trend’ that they turn into a panic. First we were told that a 30% reduction in water flow in the North Atlantic current in the last 50 years could mean a mini-ice age for Europe. ‘Oh, my God! Oh, my God, no! An ice age! Oh, no!’ Now the scientists tell us, ‘Never mind. We found that the strength of the current can actually fluctuate by a factor of eight over a single year.’

It’s Emily Litella time here. ‘Never mind.’ Folks, you need to have an age-old attitude about this stuff as global warming science. ‘Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.’ Fool me three times, you must be a scientist.

RUSH: There was a record cold high temperature in New York City yesterday. I want to caution everybody on this, because I don’t want there to be a panic out there. It was a record cold high temperature, like 59, 58 degrees. That cannot, just by itself — I have it on scientific authority here — that cannot by itself be blamed on the coming ice age, but it is consistent with the kind of cold events that we can expect to become more common as the new ice age approaches. It’s throughout the northeast, too. Connecticut was even colder. But I don’t want to hear anybody on this bandwagon here, ‘See, the ice age is coming.’ It’s not indicative of that, but as the ice age does approach these events will become more common. What’s causing the ice age is global warming. What causes everything?

Speaking of which, honest to Pete, folks, this is from a physics website, PhysOrg.com. ‘Scientists Confirm Long-held Theory About Source of Sunshine.’ Scientists and physicists ‘have made the first real-time observation of low-energy solar neutrinos, which are fundamental particles created by nuclear reactions that stream in vast numbers from the sun’s core.’ Essentially, ladies and gentlemen, what we all learned in the first grade, maybe even sooner, has been confirmed by America’s physicists. The sun and its nuclear explosions produce sunshine. It has been firmly established by physicists and scientists. And for the rest of today’s global warming update, dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut, we turn to Paul Shanklin as Algore ripping off Johnny Cash.

(Playing of Ball of Fire.)

Paul Shanklin, white comedian, as he’s been called by media critics of this program, as Algore there with Ball of Fire. All right, this is from Der Spiegel: ”Norway’s Moose Population in Trouble for Belching.’ The poor old Scandinavian moose is now being blamed for climate change, with researchers in Norway claiming that a grown moose can produce 2,100 kilos of carbon dioxide a year — equivalent to the CO2 output resulting from a 13,000 kilometer car journey. Norway is concerned that its national animal, the moose, is harming the climate by emitting an estimated 2,100 kilos of carbon dioxide a year through its belching and farting. Norwegian newspapers, citing research from Norway’s technical university, said a motorist would have to drive 13,000 kilometers in a car to emit as much CO2 as a moose does in a year.’

How are they going to blame this on America? We have our own cows here with methane production, it’s America’s fault because we eat beef, but we don’t consume moose. (interruption) Just hang on here just a second. I’m going to deal with this in my own way, Mr. Snerdley. I know you don’t believe it, it’s a crock, but even if it’s true, we can dispel it. Let me try this. Do not the environmentalist wackos and animal rights people say that the activities of plants and animals tell something about how nature works and wouldn’t the earth be a much cleaner, less polluted place if we weren’t here, or if there were fewer of us, and if we didn’t live in such advanced ways, without so much industrialization, driving around, smokestacks and all that? Okay, they do. They tell us all this. They tell us primarily that American civilization, western civilization, advanced, free societies are creating all of these horrible problems that are leading to global warming and climate change. Now, a moose is an innocent beast placed here to be a cartoon character for us, or in some cases a beast of burden, in some cases a national animal for the country of Norway. Now all of a sudden scientists, who are trying to tell us it’s our SUVs and automobiles, now say it’s a national animal of Norway that’s causing far more destruction to their climate.

Do they not also tell us that the activities of plants and animals, that’s pure nature, right? Pure, 100% nature. They provide the checks and balances that the natural world has that helped to make the earth a more habitable place. Now all of a sudden they’ve targeted cows, because that’s a beef industry, but we don’t eat moose. We Americans don’t. I don’t know what they do over in Norway. Now, if this is all true, all of this methane that the moose produce obviously means that Mother Nature intended it, and Mother Nature does not destroy herself! Mother Nature must have intended for this to happen. Where is Norway, folks? It’s up there near the Arctic Circle. It is cold up there. Maybe Mother Nature is doing this to help warm up the frigid place. Mother Nature is cold. Mother Nature is warming herself with moose gas. Well, doesn’t this make sense? The moose, innocent animal like every lovable animal and plant in the world, just is the essence of nature, the essence of innocence, so it’s out there producing all this methane, gotta be a reason for it. Has to be a reason for it. As I say, it gets pretty chilly up there in Norway. I think this is the only environmentally friendly conclusion that we can draw. Mother Nature is just trying to warm herself up. Mother Nature could kill the moose and use the coat as a jacket or something, but no, Mother Nature is not going to destroy the moose.

How about the dinosaurs? Can you imagine? You want to talk methane, I wonder if they gassed themselves into extinction now that this report has come out? This is absurd. The idea that cars were destroying the planet, and now it’s a moose, does anybody want to really try to intellectually follow these people? It just gets more and more ridiculous each and every time these people come up with some finding, like these clowns at the physics place that have discovered the long-held secret to the source of sunshine. It’s the sun! Who would have thought it?

Now, from LiveScience.com. It’s getting close to back to school. I hope your parents’ credit cards are still working here, kids, after you’ve gone out there and gotten ready to go, but for those of you who haven’t done the back-to-school-shopping yet, I have some tips for you, some environmentally friendly back-to-school tips from the World Wildlife Fund. They want to keep your backpack green as you head back to school. Here are some of the tips. Get this.

‘Number one: See if there are things, such as pencils and pens, left over from last year that can be used this year in school, rather than buying new.

‘Number two: Look for school supplies — folders, notebooks, staples — made of recycled materials. Using recycled products helps save landfill space and cut pollution. The EPA has found that recycling reduces water pollution by one-third and air pollution by 75 percent.’

I don’t know how you recycle staples. I guess you get the staples that came in stapled documents. You take the staple out with a staple puller. You know how to do that? And then when it comes time to recycle the staple, I guess you get a hammer and try to hammer the staple into the stack or you just take one hole at a time for each side of the staple per page. Let’s say you’ve got three or four pages that you need to staple — we ought to do a video demonstration of this, I can show how this is done. You take a staple that you pulled out of a previous document, and you take it one page at a time, you take one end of the staple and you hammer it in. Make sure you got a Band-Aid and some hydrogen peroxide hanging by when you stab yourself doing this.

‘Number three: Try finding back-to-school deals on the web. Ordering school supplies online or by phone saves you a trip to the store as well as the fuel needed to drive from store to store.

Never mind that if you order online, a jet’s going to bring it to the airport near your house and a big van is going to be then delivering it to your house. (Laughing)

‘Number four: Look for the FSC label on pencils and paper. Many paper products are made from trees specifically grown and harvested for papermaking, thus sparing delicate rainforest ecosystems. The Forest Stewardship Council certifies that wood and paper products are grown and managed responsibly.

‘Number five: Purchase supplies with minimal packaging. Packaging makes up about a third of the garbage that piles up in landfills.

‘Number six: Brown bag meals and avoid plastic.’

See, if kids follow this, we might not have found that decapitated woman’s head in Alligator Alley the other day. No criminal is going to decapitate somebody and put their head in a brown bag. This could lead to problems solving crime. But they still say it. ‘Brown bag meals and avoid plastic. Pack school lunches in brown, unbleached, recycled paper bags whenever possible. And if your child has a favorite superhero, there’s a good chance the character is printed on a re-usable lunchbox.’

‘Number seven: Prepare lunches,’ for your little crumb crunchers. Who does this? There’s a school lunch program; a school breakfast program. Who the hell is packing lunch for kids anymore? (interruption) You do it? Okay, well, then if you do that, use local produce, it says here. ‘Be aware of the distances food travels and the emissions necessary to ship and truck it there. Although broccoli is grown at nearby farms, the ones that shoppers pick up at the supermarket traverse an average distance of 1,800 miles.

‘Number eight: Refill water bottles. Don’t throw them away.

‘Number nine: Look for laptops made by companies working to reduce their global emissions.

‘Number ten: Walk or bike to school, not only to get exercise but also to benefit the environment.’

So there you have it. Global warming update today, the environmentally friendly back-to-school tips, all designed to pollute the minds of you and your kid.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: So let’s review, folks. We got a moose burping; we got a moose farting; we got cows farting. There’s a whole lot of crap going on out there. I also want to know what kid, what normal kid, eats produce, especially for lunch at school? And, of course, walking to school, that’s increasingly difficult in this country because of busing.

END TRANSCRIPT

*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.

RUSH: Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut. I usually do the global warming update in the third hour, so I’m going to do it in the first hour today. Wait ’til you hear some of this stuff.

(Playing of Ball of Fire.)

That’s our buddy Paul Shanklin as Algore in one of our three global warming update themes, Ball of Fire. From the Wall Street Journal yesterday: ‘Israel-Bashing,’ and climate hysteria in the European parliament. Now, get this. The only thing that matters here is the last paragraph of this story by Daniel Schwammenthal. ‘There was Clare Short, a member of the British Parliament and Secretary for International Development under Prime Minister Tony Blair until she resigned in 2003 over the Iraq war. Claiming that Israel is actually ‘much worse than the original apartheid state’ and accusing it of ‘killing (Palestinian) political leaders,’ Ms. Short charged the Jewish state with the ultimate crime: Israel ‘undermines the international community’s reaction to global warming.’ According to Ms. Short, the Middle East conflict distracts the world from the real problem: man-made climate change. If extreme weather will lead to the ‘end of the human race,’ as Ms. Short warned it could, add this to the list of the crimes of Israel.’ Israel, by wiping out the Palestinians, is distracting people from the real problem facing the earth, global warming.

In Tokyo: ‘A Japanese government website crashed Wednesday as people raced to take up an offer of a half-price McDonald’s hamburger in exchange for pledging to fight global warming. The Japanese unit of the US burger giant Tuesday offered a Big Mac for 150 yen (1.3 dollars), about half the normal price, to anyone demonstrating a commitment to preventing climate change. People were asked to check up to 39 boxes on a form they could download from the environment ministry’s website, each listing a way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions blamed for global warming. ‘We started seeing a rise in access yesterday and it surged this morning. We are now trying to restore the system.” So apparently people recognize this for what it is. All I gotta do is check off some boxes on a form, I get a Big Mac for half price. All I gotta do is pledge to do something. Just the idiocy, the asininity of all this continues to know no bounds.

‘Global Warming Could Mean More Heart Problems, Doctors Warn.’ This is from the Associated Press, Vienna. ‘Global warming may be forcing polar bears southward and melting glaciers, but it could also have an impact on your heart. Doctors warn that the warmer weather expected with climate change might also produce more heart problems. ‘If it really is a few degrees warmer in the next 50 years, we could definitely have more cardiovascular disease,’ said Dr. Karin Schenck-Gustafsson, of the department of cardiology at Sweden’s Karolinska Institute. On the sidelines of the European Society of Cardiology’s annual meeting in Vienna this week, some experts said that the issue deserved more attention. It’s well-known that people have more heart problems when it’s hot.’ It is? Whatever happened to all these heart attacks shoveling snow?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Bill in Reading, Pennsylvania, we go back to the phones. Welcome, sir, I appreciate your patience. Hello.

CALLER: Thanks, Rush. I’m glad you’re back. I’ve been wanting to get to you, but you were away for a week and whether you’ve caught up with the fact that Fox News looks like they’ve gone over to the other side on the global warming, their Fox News radio at the top of the hour has been showing and Shepard Smith has done this with his segment, pointed out how about the green in order to combat global warming, and also the local TV channels, for example, Philadelphia Channel 29, has picked up on that, and they’re broadcasting that as a marketing thing —

RUSH: Well, wait, wait, wait, 29 of Philadelphia, is that a Fox affiliate?

CALLER: Yes, it is.

RUSH: Okay, well, I gotta tell you, this is corporate-wide. This is not just the Fox News Channel. You remember not long ago the press release came out about ’24’ was going green, was going to go environmental friendly. I got e-mails from people, ‘Oh, no, Kiefer Sutherland is going to be shooting SUVs while driving hybrids?’ No, no, no, no. They’re just going green in the production techniques. They’re going to use different light bulbs and they’re going to try to neutralize their carbon footprint. This is nothing more than a PR blitz coming from Fox corporate for who knows whatever reason. Look, I’ve talked to people at various automobile manufacturers. They can’t make the cars they want to make because of CAFE standards. They gotta make these little dumpers out there, these little V4s and V2s; these things that are little bubbles out there that you drive around and risk your life because the government is mandating all these mileage standards. I said, ‘Screw it, why don’t you build what you want?’ They said, ‘We can’t. We can’t offend the customers.’ What do you mean, offend the customers? ‘Well, the customers think that global warming is happening, and they want to protect the environment so we can’t alienate the customer base.’ Jeez. You know, everything’s out of whack here.

It’s sad because the whole thing is a hoax, and the whole thing is ridiculous, and the whole thing is irrelevant. I’m not saying we don’t pollute, but we clean our messes up better than any country or population in the world. We’re very conscious about it, and I’m not saying warming isn’t happening, but I’ll damn well assert that man’s not responsible for it because we don’t have that kind of power. If you want to think you have that kind of power because you want to think you matter then you go right ahead, but I’m telling you right now, whether you drive a V4 or a bubble car or a monster V12, it doesn’t make one iota’s worth of difference to the climate of the world, not one, folks. It can’t possibly. What if everybody was? Everybody is! All these jets are flying around, the space shuttles, all the rockets that we launch, all the satellites, it’s so patently absurd to think that we have this kind of power. Anyway, so the Fox corporate edict has covered everything from Twentieth Century Fox, and it’s probably a News Corp-wide thing as well. The attempt here is to present to the audience the idea that Fox is eco-friendly and doing what it can do to save the world and save the climate. Obviously they made a political calculation, a business calculation that’s going to sell. I, frankly, don’t think that putting out a press release saying that ’24’ is going to be totally carbon neutral in its production is going to get ’em one-tenth of one rating point. I think it’s totally asinine and totally silly, but it’s going to make ’em feel better.

All those suits in the corporate suite at Fox out in Hollywood — and I’ve been there and I’ve seen it — they’re going to feel all better about themselves. It’s not going to matter a hill of beans to the ratings of even one of their shows. In fact, it will harm, if they put these techniques — they’re not going to do this, don’t misunderstand, this is an example — but if they actually get dialogue in some of these shows, serious dialogue about, ‘I don’t think we should take the SUV, Jack, might be too much of a carbon footprint. We’re already going to be blowing up some terrorists out there; let’s take the hybrid.’ If they did that seriously, and not as a comedy bit, it will hurt ’em. But the idea that this is going to help ratings-wise is silly. It’s a PR thing. So don’t blame this Fox News Channel going green. This is how these things happen, folks. But I actually think the global warming phenomena is over. In fact, I got a story here that’s from NewsBusters today. The BBC has canceled some big Algore global warming show because of the failure of his Live Earth. The Live Earth concert was such a disaster, such a ratings and commercial disaster, that the BBC is canceling a Gore environment show.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here’s the story. This is NewsBusters, Brent Bozell’s media watchdog site. They watch the libs out there on the web. On July 12, NewsBusters asked, ‘Did Live Earth’s Flop Reduce Media Interest in Global Warming?’ By the way, you have to throw in here the fact that DiCaprio’s movie has flopped, too. If there were all this really hepped-up emotion about global warming — if people were really, really worried about it — this story that I have here and the moving flopping, they would not be happening. I just think they’ve overplayed their hand. I think they panicked. They are not interested in debating anybody. You know, the people that believe in this stuff will not debate people like me who don’t. They just want to shut us up. They call us ‘deniers’ and all of that. Anyway, the BBC ‘has scrapped ‘Planet Relief,’ a proposed day-long special about climate change, specifically citing the failure of Al Gore’s international concerts as one of the reasons for the cancellation.’

The UK Times online says this: ‘The BBC announced today that the project has been scrapped. Negative reaction to this summer’s flop Live Earth concert, promoted by Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, was cited as a factor.’ The BBC actually reported this. ‘Viewers told the BBC to present the debate around climate change in an informed and rigorous manner. They did not want to be lectured by wealthy pop stars and celebrities. The BBC said: ‘BBC One aims to bring a mass audience to contemporary and relevant issues and this includes the topic of climate change. Our audiences tell us they are most receptive to documentary- or factual-style programming as a means of learning about the issues surrounding this subject, and as part of this learning we have made the decision not to go proceed with the Planet Relief event. The BBC promised instead to ‘focus our energies on a range of factual programmes [sic] on the important and complex subject of climate change. This decision was not made in light of the recent debate around impartiality.”

Now, you can look at this one of two ways. The BBC is a bunch of commie leftists, folks. There’s no question about it. So they could be saying, ‘Okay, the Gore flop is actually hurting the cause, and we can’t do it this way. We believe in the cause, and we want this cause to be spread around the world. We want people to buy into this, and we can’t keep using these flops as spokesmen for it, so we’re going to go out and put together our own truthful documentaries that contain our liberal bias and lies, because we, the BBC, have credibility and these pop stars and flops do not.’ I think that’s partially true, but there was a story I had in yesterday’s stack, and this was heartwarming to see, too. The British people, in a recent poll, say they are becoming very suspicious about the real purpose of all this global warming talk. They think it’s just a disguised way to raise their taxes — and guess what? They are right! That’s exactly what it is, that and more. It’s a control mechanism. It has all the elements of a major religion. It’s got its Garden of Eden: pristine planet. It’s got original sin: pollution. It’s got redemption and salvation: drive a Prius; drive a hybrid; sell your house and live in a tree; take your own bags to the grocery store — all this other rotgut, stunned stuff. ‘If you do that, we will absolve you of your sin if you agree to pay more taxes and let us control your lifestyle so that you don’t do any more damage to the planet,’ and that’s exactly what the whole thing is about: liberalism in disguise, and these British citizens are figuring it out. I’m telling you, we’re going to beat this back. I don’t want to beat it back too soon. I want the other for another seven years or so. A seven-year cycle on this kind of issue is a good thing. Experience guided by intelligence tells me that. Plus, I want Roy Spencer to continue to have a job, who’s the official climatologist here at the EIB Network.

RUSH: Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut! The global warming update.

(Ball of Fire theme song.)

RUSH: Gonna rev it up one more time here.

(Song continues)

RUSH: That, of course, is Paul Shanklin — well-known ‘white comedian’ — and his Algore impersonation. (laughing) That’s one of our three rotating global warming update themes. I have three global warming stories today. There’s a press release today from EarthTimes.org. It actually comes from the Hudson Institute. Now, the way this starts here is key to understanding. ‘A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun’s irradiance. ‘This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850,’ said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery. Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate. …

‘The names [of 500 scientists] were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, the co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book. The researchers’ specialties include tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites…’ Do you know the difference between a stalagmite and a stalactite? Well, you go into a cave, either an underwater cave or in Arizona out in the Old West, and a stalactite is like a piece of rock that’s in the form of a cone upside down, and it hangs from the ceiling in a cave. A stalagmite is the same thing on the bottom. They call a stalactite a ‘tite’ because it’s gotta be tight up there to avoid gravity’s pull. So they’re studying those things, and they’re studying ‘lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics.’ The bottom line is this. They just went out and they studied all of the scientific writings, and they found 500 scientists who dispute the consensus of the 327 scientists that the global warming crowd cites. I’m reminded every time I see something like this of the story that was done by these two guys that studied the media since 1888 found that every 25 years the media changes its tune. We’re either global cooling or global warming. Every 25 years there’s a new cycle. It’s been that way since the late 1800s. So it’s just more fodder for this, but nobody’s denying that there’s some warming taking place out there, but man-made is the crux of the left’s argument on this, for the reasons that we’ve gotten into.

From the UK: This is terribly disappointing to me, and if you want to know why the Labor Party keeps winning elections over there, let me tell you why. ‘The conservatives in the UK will propose banning plasma televisions and other energy-guzzling electric goods in a report to be unveiled next week. The proposals target white goods likely fridges and freezers as well as TVs, personal computers, and DVD players that use too much energy or operate on standby. The ideas come from a conservative group set up by David Cameron to develop policies to protect the environment. Although the measures to make household electrical appliances more energy efficient are not binding on Mr. Cameron, they are thought likely to be warmly received by the Tory leader.’ Well, hell, yes, they will be! Guess who gets to control what is in their houses over there now? No more plasma TVs. But here is the real pièce de résistance in this story. Get this. This conservative group in the UK ‘will also suggest scrapping gross domestic product as a measure of the nation’s success in favor of a model that measures people’s happiness drawn up by the Friends of the Earth.’ The conservatives in the UK are doing a total sellout. They’re going to get rid of the gross domestic product as a way to measure the economic output and productivity and growth of the UK, the country, and the economy, and instead adopt a model that measures people’s happiness, drawn up by Friends of the Earth?

‘Under the proposal, a cap could be set on the energy use of each electrical appliance and those exceeding limits could be banned from sale in the UK.’ The left is the left, ladies and gentlemen. We hear about the energy bill, finally, in our global warming update. The energy bill is a waste. It’s typical of the legislation that’s coming out of this Congress. Like the ethics reform bill does not reform ethics. Nothing that they do works. The immigration bill was a sham. The energy bill does not do what we need to do. If we need to find new sources of energy, go get it! Lessen our dependence and so forth. From the Weekly Standard: ‘One of the key issues that Congress will need to address when it returns in September is legislation to restrict energy production in the U.S. It’s not framed that way, of course. The legislation being considered is ostensibly supposed to help produce more energy, but that’s not the effect it will have. Among the myriad problems with the House bill for example, is that it allows anyone ‘harmed’ by global warming to bring suit against any federal agency that fails to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions as required in the legislation. Plaintiffs are specifically authorized to recover $1.5 million, and to be compensated for legal fees win or lose, as long as the court determines it to be ‘appropriate.” This is in the energy bill. Essentially, ladies and gentlemen, you will be paid to sue the government for global warming violations. You will be paid a million and a half dollars plus legal fees if the judge sees fit, if this provision remains and if the president were somehow to sign it into law. So here is an energy bill that’s designed to… It’s not even, as they say in the story, designed to ‘increase our output of energy.’ That’s a faux pas. But it’s going to end up restricting energy production, because can anybody say ‘trial lawyers’ here, ladies and gentlemen?

RUSH: Get a load of some of these Global Warming Stack headlines today! ‘Clothesline Regulation Hangs the Environment Out to Dry.’ This is from Bend, Oregon. This is about a woman who hung her clothes out to dry to save energy and now she’s facing legal action because it’s an upscale neighborhood, and they don’t want clothes hanging out there in the backyard. She’s just trying to save the planet to make herself feel good and not use the dryer. ‘Fertilizing Oceans with Iron May Combat Climate Change.’ I can’t wait to talk about this. ‘Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas than Oil or Petrol.’ Think corn here. We’ve caused a food panic in Mexico, and Italy, and Germany, and for what? Only to make matters worse! But we’re not supposed to ever examine the results of liberal do-gooderness. No, no, no! We’re only supposed to examine their intentions and their good hearts. Get this: ‘The Amazon Rainforest More Resilient During a Drought.’ The Amazon rain forest, also known as the jungle, ‘greened, it grew faster and absorbed more CO2, confounding another global warming model…’ In a drought, it got greener. It exposed and absorbed more CO2. Yes, the details are coming up. ‘World Leaders Tell US to Put Climate Before Budget –The United Nations is proposing an international court to try ecological crimes on the basis that nature should have a right to take us to court. The United Nations should establish such a court.’ I kid you not, folks. It’s all in the Global Warming Stack coming up.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut! That’s the trumpet fanfare. That means, folks, it’s time for a global warming update.

(Playing of The Crazy World of Arthur Brown update theme song.)

RUSH: The Crazy World of Arthur Brown and the Wicked Witch of the East melting because of global warming. All right, here’s the news in the Global Warming Stack. From Bend, Oregon. ‘A Bend woman is facing possible legal action for hanging her laundry out to dry. Susan Taylor, who lives in the upscale Awbrey Butte neighborhood, says she’s trying to do the right thing for the planet by stringing up her family’s clothes,’ rather than using the dryer. ‘But in doing so she’s violating rules meant to keep up appearances in her subdivision, which means she might become a martyr in the so-called right-to-dry movement. The trouble began last spring after Taylor, 55, decided to do her [silly] part…’ I added ‘silly,’ of course. It’s not in this Drive-By Media report. She decided to do her silly ‘part to address global warming by stringing up her family’s clothes between the pines behind their 2,400-square-foot house.’ How in the hell can you have something as tiny as a 2,400 square foot house in an upscale neighborhood? Anyway, ”This is the right thing to do with what’s going on with our climate,’ said the part-time nurse, standing beside her Toyota hybrid sedan. But neighbors soon complained. In June, Taylor got a letter from the neighborhood’s developer, Bend Brooks Resources Corp., saying she was violating Awbrey Butte’s covenants, conditions and restrictions. The development’s rules require that clotheslines, as well as garbage cans and lawn cuttings, be ‘screened.” Well, what is a devoted environmentalist wacko ‘trying to make a difference,’ to do now? She’s following the edicts from the Algore movie and from all the other silly advice places that she gets, hanging clothes out to dry to save electricity. She’s just trying to do the right thing. You gotta applaud that. She’s trying to make a difference. It turns out there’s a violation of covenants. So she’s finding out what it’s like to deal with these people. These homeowners associations can be little communist countries, you know, self-contained. They really can. But you know that going in if you read the covenants. Like, there were homeowner associations out in Sacramento. You could not have a car visible in the driveway or on the street. ‘How do you have people over? How do you throw a party? How do you do it?’ I never got the answer to that, other than: ‘We don’t.’ Maybe you charter some buses and bring ’em in, have a central parking lot somewhere down at the commune grocery store.

Get this from the UK Times Online: ”Fertilising’ Oceans with Iron May Combat Climate Change — Scientists are considering a plan to combat climate change by dumping millions of tons of iron into the ocean to alter its chemical make-up. They believe the iron could act as a ‘fertiliser’, promoting the growth of tons of plankton that would soak up carbon dioxide from the surrounding sea water. When the plankton died, their bodies would sink into the deepest waters and sediments, where the carbon would be locked up indefinitely. The theory, known as ‘ocean fertilisation’, has long caused controversy among marine scientists, many of whom doubted that it could work. This week leading researchers will meet at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts for a scientific conference to discuss the idea. … Dr David Santillo, a senior scientist at the Greenpeace research laboratories at Exeter University, said iron fertilisation was a foolish idea. ‘There is no proof that the plankton blooms result in carbon being locked into sediments,’ he said. ‘Adding iron on such a scale will also damage natural ecosystems.”

Folks, forget all that. There’s just one thing that you have to know. How many of you have flown over the Pacific Ocean, or flown over the Atlantic, or flown over the Caribbean, or the Gulf of Mexico? How many of you have flown over one of the Great Lakes, for crying out loud? (I know it’s freshwater.) Do you think we’ve got enough iron to put in the ocean to make a piddling’s worth of difference? The next thing you know, these same people are going to say we need to flood the seas with freshwater to dilute the brine and the salt content so that that water could be drinkable. I actually had somebody ask me this once. I live here on the beach in Florida. We get a lot of great thunderstorms out there over the Atlantic. They’re gorgeous to watch, and sometimes they have these great lightning shows, and when they’re most beautiful is when it’s not raining [where you are]. You’ll be out on the deck and you can watch those thunderstorms in the daytime when you can see all the rain out there.

I actually had somebody ask me once, ‘Do you think that that rain today is reducing the salt content of the ocean?’

I, looking at this person, said, ‘You cannot be serious. You literally can’t be serious.’

Well, in this person’s eye, the horizon was only so big. The ocean didn’t look that big and that thunderstorm looked huge.

I said, ‘Have you ever heard of the saying, ‘a drop in the ocean’?’ So it’s the same principle with putting iron in there. We have a bunch of paranoid idiots running around trying to solve a problem that we can’t solve. It may be warming, but who says it’s even been bad, one degree? One degree in 100 years? Yip yip yip yip yahoo — and it may be good. (sigh) How do we know?

This is funny.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: From the UK Times Online: ‘A renewable energy source designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is contributing more to global warming than fossil fuels, a study suggests. Measurements of emissions from the burning of biofuels derived from rapeseed and maize have been found to produce more greenhouse gas emissions than they save.’ Can we just use the word ethanol, please? Rapeseed and maize? People in Rio Linda will have no clue what this story is about unless I’m here to translate this for them, which I happily do. So here we go again. We have caused a food panic in Mexico because of the tortillas; food panics in Italy and Germany because shortages of corn are driving price — well, not shortage, but the demand is driving prices up, only to make matters worse. Doesn’t matter, folks, we are never to examine liberals’ results, no, only their good intentions.

RUSH: All right, we got a Global Warming Stack. Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut. Get to it.

(Playing of The Crazy World of Arthur Brown.)

The Crazy World of Arthur Brown, the wicked witch of the east, from the Wizard of Oz and our global warming update theme, one of three that we rotate here. All right, from today’s UK Daily Mail. Headline: ‘Wrap Up, it’s Going to be a Very Cold Winter,’ warns the Met Office. ‘Time to dig out your coat, prepare to don your hat and scarf, as forecasters have warned that Britain should brace itself for cold temperatures this winter. There’s already a chill in the air. It looks like there’s more cold weather on its way. Although the Met Office’s official forecast predicts this winter will still be warmer and dryer than average, some extremely cold snaps will mean temperatures far lower than last year, the second warmest winter since records began in 1914.’ This doesn’t quite fit the pattern here, does it? Warning people to get ready for cold temperatures in the midst of a global warming scare?

This is the big news today, and this is oh-my-God big news. The atmospheric chemists had even convinced a number of unbiased climate scientists that we understood stratospheric ozone completion. It now turns out — and this is a story from the journal Nature.com. It turns out that a key chemical reaction that was part of the theory that manmade chemicals are causing destruction of stratospheric ozone has been found to be almost ten times weaker than assumed. As a result, at least 60% of the stratospheric ozone loss in recent decades can no longer be explained. However, the last paragraph of this story illustrates quite plainly that these scientists are nevertheless circling the wagons around the Freon ban saying they still think that manmade chemicals are to blame in some way even if they don’t understand the mechanism. So the faith of the disciples of Freon destroying the ozone remains unshaken, despite the fact that we can no longer explain 60% of the ozone depletion in the stratosphere. Yes, there are biased scientists out there, and these in this story in Nature are a number of them.

I really want to try to emphasize what has been learned here and what’s happened. We have banned Freon. We banned a number of other things that scientists just knew were leading to the destruction of the ozone hole, and you remember the scare involved. We were all going to get skin cancer. It was going to grow, and grow, and grow; we were destroying the ozone. I can remember at the time, folks, we couldn’t if we tried. There is no way we could destroy the ozone. How come the hole fills in periodically? Even before we banned the Freon, the hole would fill, then it would open up. ‘Yeah, but it’s getting bigger every time it opens up.’ It fills up! I’m a layman on this stuff, but common sense interceded. You know what creates stratospheric ozone is the sun. You talk about a chemical reaction, the sun creates it. There’s no way we could deplete it. It’s made every day. Now we find out that the main culprit — how many times has this happened in health issues or science issues where they’ve told us, for example, eat oat bran to clean you out, make you healthier, don’t do this and do that, and how many times years later have they had to revise it?

Coffee was going to kill you. Nicotine was great because it may prevent you from getting Parkinson’s. On the other hand, the mechanism to get it into your body, cigarettes, is going to kill you, over 40 years maybe. We have these health scares each and every day, these science scares. Now after banning Freon — and I gotta make this point about this, too — we never used to have foam insulation dropping off the solid rocket boosters on the shuttle launches and putting nicks in the shuttle and the heat-resistant tiles, which led to the explosion on reentry of one of those. We came up with a whole new way and refrigerant because of Freon, because of the ozone depletion, because NASA is a government agency and NASA had to do this and that, look like they cared, and we ended up putting human beings — the shuttle crew — at risk. We subordinated their safety to environmental concerns that now turn out to be wrong, hugely wrong. We upset the whole air-conditioning business. We threw it upside down by having to get rid of Freon and come up with some new mixtures.

Now after all of this time, they finally admit that we can no longer explain 60% — I’ll bet you it’s even more than that, I say in a nonscientific comment. Even after they say that we can no longer explain 60% of the ozone depletion in the stratosphere, they, the scientists who came up with all this circle the wagons around a Freon ban, and they say as scientists, ‘We still think manmade chemicals are to blame.’ They just concluded their own research that shows 60% has nothing to do with what they first thought, (paraphrasing) ‘but we still think there’s still something going on up there, still.’ So even though they’ve discredited themselves, they will not discredit themselves. This is who we’re dealing with. We’re dealing with political ideologues and activists.

It’s like this James Hansen story with George Soros that the Investor’s Business Daily unveiled on Monday, and this story’s got some legs now. It’s starting to show up on the Fox News Channel. They’ve been hyping this all day. James Hansen accepted — while working for NASA, and I didn’t think this was possible, I didn’t think this was legal — James Hansen, who is the lone voice, the man the Bush administration is trying to censor and silence, because he’s out there preaching the gospel on manmade global warming and destruction of the planet. Well, it turns out he’s being paid 720 grand by George Soros to say it, and who knows what the $720,000 is paying for. Is it paying for access to shows for Hansen to get on? Is it paying for marketing lessons and strategy lessons for Hansen to utilize?

Now, I don’t know what the law is on this but Hansen needs to be drummed out of NASA today. It was back in 1971 through ’75 James Hansen was predicting global cooling, and the coming ice age. I am told with these models you can predict whatever you want and make the case because these models are so flawed. But make no mistake about this, even though James Hansen has been unmasked, and even though these people that read us the riot act and lied to us on phony science that Freon was destroying the ozone in the stratosphere, even though these guys run masked and even though Hansen is unmasked, there have been real economic damages that have already really occurred because of James Hansen’s academic dishonesty, while using his NASA credentials, and resources, I would bet, to coerce governments and pursue people that, unless socialism is instituted the world will burn up, and it’s all being bought and paid for by George Soros, about whom we must ask, what is his intent?

It appears that Soros has as his intent the destruction of this country and its traditions and institutions as we have known them. So while we’ve unmasked Hansen, he’s still done a lot of damage already. Sort of like a spy, a CIA double agent or an FBI double agent who’s been feeding damaging information to the Soviets: Catch him after 30 years, but how many people died in the process? How much gobbly gook BS has found its way into official government proposals around the world to attack the United States and the western societies, the wealthy ones, and say it’s up to you to come up with the money to pay for all this, to fix the planet because you have destroyed it.

If you think I’m making that up, right outta the AP today, Josef Hebert: ‘Dealing with global warming will be painful, said John Dingell, chairman of a committee in the House that deals with it. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won’t like — a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners. ‘I’m trying to have everybody understand that this is going to cost and that it’s going to have a measure of pain that you’re not going to like,’ Rep. John Dingell, who is marking his 52nd year in Congress, said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press. Dingell will offer a ‘discussion draft’ outlining his tax proposals on Thursday, the same day that President Bush holds a two-day conference to discuss voluntary efforts to combat climate change.’

The whole thing is a hoax. It’s based on frauds. It’s based on people masking themselves as to who they really are, fraudulent science to boot. And now here comes the Democrats right on cue, and, I told you, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax. The UN hasn’t even gotten in on this yet. This is all about separating us from our money based on the fact that we’re causing this, we’re to blame, we’re trying to make everybody think that we are sinners and we need absolution. Accepting these tax cuts as an admission of guilt is the objective here.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: One more global warming story, folks. This is from ABC.net, Australia [and also reported worldwide by outlets like Reuters]. ‘Gaia Scientist….’ These are the wackos that think that the earth is goddess and that’s what they call it. ‘A series of giant pipes in the oceans to mix surface and deeper water could be an emergency fix for the Earth’s damaged climate system. Professor James Lovelock, whose Gaia hypothesis that Earth is a kind of super-organism composed of living and non-living elements has fuelled controversy for three decades, thinks the stakes are so high that radical solutions must be tried — even if they ultimately fail.’ In fact, in liberalism, the more you fail, the higher your awards, the more your accolades and honors, because you ‘tried.’ At least you cared. You want to rise to the top of the liberal movement in the Democrat Party, do something and fail. This guy says, look, it’s so drastic out there, we gotta try this — and, even if it fails, we gotta try it. ‘[H]e proposes vertical pipes’ that’s straight up and down, for those of you in Rio Linda, ‘100 to 200 meters long and 10 meters wide be placed in the sea, so that wave motion pumps up water and fertilizes algae on the surface. This algal bloom would push down carbon dioxide levels and also produce dimethyl sulphide, helping to seed sunlight-reflecting clouds.’

Wait a minute. I’ve gotta give you one more thing. ”If we can’t heal the planet directly, we may be able to help the planet heal itself,’ Lovelock, of the University of Oxford, and co-author Chris Rapley, from London’s Science Museum, said.’ Well, I don’t know that anybody has listened. Nobody has listened to this guy for 30 years; that’s the point. He’s been proposing this for 30 years. More interesting to me about this, is the idea is clearly lunatic. Where do we put these 100- to 200 meter long and ten meter wide pipes? How many? There aren’t enough lead mines. The lead that would be necessary for this is… How do you anchor ’em? I don’t even want to get into that. That’s still not what interests me most. What interests me most is: ‘If we can’t heal the planet directly, we may be able to help the planet heal itself.’ Now, the vanity and the arrogance in that relies on this silly assumption that the climate as it is today is perfect, or it was a degree centigrade ago. ‘It was perfect, and we somehow have to hold onto this.’ Folks, it’s not in our purview. It’s not our job, and we have no control over it. The earth doesn’t need a bunch of manmade junk, pipes in the ocean to protect and heal itself, because the earth is not sick! These people are.

RUSH: It’s time — dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut! — for a global warming update. This is a good one and it makes another point that I’ve been making for many, many moons here. Sing it, Algore!

(Playing of Ball of Fire global warming update theme song.)

RUSH: All right. On this program, over the course of the recent past, one of the ways I’ve attempted to alert people to the real truth behind manmade global warming is that it is a hoax being presented as a religion. The only difference between global warming and any other major religion is that its god is tangible. (It’s the earth.) Otherwise everything in every major religion is present. You’ve got the Garden of Eden (i.e., the pristine planet). You have taking the bite out of the apple, sin, disobeying — and that is what? Cutting down trees! It’s driving SUVs and so forth. You’ve got destruction, destroying the planet which leads to what? The apocalypse! You have fear, which is a fundamental part of many religions: scaring you into behaving a certain way or else you are going to hell. Global warming has fear: ‘You’re going to destroy the planet! Your kids and grandchildren will have nothing. You will burn in hell on the surface of the earth because of global warming.’ It’s got guilt. As you know, many major religions get what they want with guilt. They guilt people into behaving: ‘Do this, do that.’ This is the same thing: guilt for driving SUVs; guilt for having your air-conditioning on; guilt for having too large a ‘carbon footprint’; guilt for not buying carbon offsets, all this — and it has salvation: accepting the blame.

You are responsible for destroying the planet, but you can be absolved from this ‘sin’ if you agree to higher taxes and roll back your lifestyle — and let others in positions of government tell you what to do and when to do it and where you can live and can’t live and how big your house can be, and all these things. That’s how you absolve yourself of the sin. You can also go around and buy little cars that won’t make a bit of difference in the environment, but you will feel better and you will be absolved of your sin. You can carry your own little bags to the grocery store rather than using paper bags or plastic bags. You will not be making one bit of a difference to the earth’s climate, but you will feel better because you will be told you are saving the planet and preventing the apocalypse. You can be told to do any number of these things. You can change your light bulbs to compact fluorescents. You can use ethanol — which is causing rising prices and food shortages all over the world — but you can feel better about that because you are somehow polluting less, and then you can start criticizing people who don’t believe this and you can become an evangel! You can become a preacher! You can become a priestess — and you can condemn the sinners who are not paying attention. Every aspect of every major religion is right in the middle of global warming.

Global warming is nothing more than a disguised liberal plot to advance their politics, just like Mrs. Clinton’s SCHIP program for kids is a Trojan horse to get us into universal health care on the guise that we’re only doing it ‘for the children.’ So global warming is simply a masked and camouflaged way to get liberals to where they want to be: power over as many aspects of your life as possible. So with that as the setup, I have a story that I’m holding here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers (shuffling paper) from Cybercast News Service. Headline: ‘Religion Must Be Destroyed, Atheist Alliance Declares — Science must ultimately destroy organized religion, according to some of the leading atheist writers and intellectuals who spoke at a recent atheist conference in Northern Virginia. God is a myth, and children must not be schooled in any faith, they said, at the ‘Crystal Clear Atheism’ event, sponsored by the Atheist Alliance International. … While most attendees on Friday night were adamant that God was a myth, the convention, attended by hundreds of people, brought into focus a divide among atheists as to their identity as a movement and the nature of the enemy they faced.

‘In his speech, [Oxford professor Richard] Dawkins portrayed a black-and-white intellectual battle between atheism and religion. He denounced the ‘preposterous nonsense of religious customs’ and compared religion to racism. He also gave no quarter to moderate or liberal believers, asserting that ‘so-called moderate Christianity is simply an evasion.’ … While Harris said he believed science must ultimately destroy religion, he also discussed spirituality and mysticism and called for a greater understanding of allegedly spiritual phenomena. He also cautioned the audience against lumping all religions together. … [H]e noted that radical Islam was far more threatening than any radical Christian sect, adding that Christians had a right to be outraged when the media treated the two religions similarly.’ Now, what’s this got to do with global warming? If you get rid of ‘organized’ religion — and they’re not going to succeed, but this is who these people are. If you get rid of ‘organized’ religion, it sets the stage for unorganized religion, which is what global warming is. I forget the brilliant… It might have been Chesterton, G. K. Chesterton, who said, ‘If you don’t believe in God, you can be led to believe anything.’

If you don’t believe in God, you have no meaning in your life, and you will thus search for meaning, and you will find it anywhere. Most people, even atheists, want religion of some kind in their life. Hello, global warming, as a substitute — apparently unrecognized and not even organized — religion. Yet it is. So you can set the stage for more people, if the atheists were to ever get their way, of establishing global warming as an unofficial religion that does force people to behave in religious ways just to a false god: the earth, a tangible god. By the way, there’s another thing, another character that all major religions require, and the same thing can be said of manmade global warming, and that characteristic that both require is ‘faith.’ Because, when you get down to it, nobody can prove their religion is true. That’s why there is faith, and that’s why faithful people frighten those who have no faith, because faithful people realize there’s something larger than themselves. The global warming people essentially are atheists. You cannot believe in the God of Creation and believe manmade global warming. You just can’t. You might run around and say, ‘I don’t want to destroy God’s creation.’ God’s laughing at you. You can’t! He could, but you can’t. You can’t create it; you can’t destroy it. You might be changing it. We adapt to it. We have to adapt to it. Every living thing has to adapt to nature in order to thrive.

Yeah. Well, we build homes on the ocean. Guess what hurricanes are going to do? We adapt. So we build deep foundations. We gotta get shutters. We do a number of things. We put on concrete roofs. We adapt. They say we’re ‘destroying the planet’ when we do this. They all require faith. Faithful people know there are things larger than themselves. The global warming religion crowd, there’s nothing larger than themselves and what they say and what they think. By the way, we had a story last week that scientists — it’s a major story, by the way — after ten years finally concluded that the chemical reaction they thought was taking place in the stratosphere leading to the ozone ‘hole’ was not happening, that 60 to 70% of the ozone hole could not be attributed to the chemical reaction that they thought. What did we do? We got rid of Freon. We got rid of spray cans and so forth, aerosols. We’ve wrecked the shuttle program by making every launch a deathwatch because we can’t use Freon. It was all for nothing. So here’s the second story in the global warming stack: ‘Ozone hole over Antarctica shrank by 30% this year compared with a record loss in 2006, said the European Space Agency today.

‘Ozone, a molecule of oxygen, forms a thin layer in the stratosphere, filtering out dangerous ultraviolet, UVB, sunlight, that damages vegetation, can cause skin cancer and cataracts. The protective layer has been badly damaged by manmade chlorine-based chemicals.’ No, it hasn’t. Who wrote this? This is the French News Agency, a bunch of idiots. It has not been damaged by those things. We now know this. It opens and closes, and we can’t explain it. It’s the sun that makes ozone, folks. We couldn’t destroy it if we wanted to. We’d have to put the sun out to destroy ozone. So God invents the sun, creates the sun. It’s a big ball of fire. It’s a giant nuclear reaction that’s going nuts out there. There has to be something protective in our atmosphere or there can’t be life. You think it happened by…accident? Ozone protects us from frying. Of course, it gives them the opportunity to scare us all: ‘We’re all going to fry because we’re destroying the ozone!’ See how it works? You commit sin, especially the big corporations who invented Freon and the big corporations who invented aerosol spray cans. ‘Yeah! They’re striking the planet! They want to kill everybody including their customers.’ Then you are told you can’t use these things because you are absolved of sin. You go out and preach against them and you are part of the religion and you don’t even know it.

RUSH: Global warming news, dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut. It’s been awhile since we’ve played any of the three songs in our global warming rotation, so let’s go to number one. Paul Shanklin, ‘a white comedian,’ as Algore, doing Johnny Cash.

(Playing of Ball of Fire update song.)

RUSH: That’s our global warming update theme, one of three. This is from Florida State University and their climatological division up there. ‘Unless a dramatic and perhaps historical flurry of activity occurs in the next nine weeks, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole for tropical cyclones.’ Historically inactive! ‘During the past 30 years, only 1977, 1981, and 1983 have had less activity to date than this year. However, the year is not over,’ they say hopefully. Now, we have this little rain event down there near Puerto Rico and so forth. It’s dumping lots of rain, ten to 12 inches, but it’s going to be curving out over the way. It’s never going to become anything more than a tropical storm. According to forecasts, it’s not going to become a hurricane. So this is the fifth storm this year; we had five last year, and a total of ten since Hurricane Katrina. The point here is that the global warming crowd predicted Hurricane Katrinas year, after year, after year after 2005 because sea surface temperatures had risen, and, of course, man was baking the planet and these catastrophic storms were off the charts. So people have been predicting this, and they have been dead wrong. We’re going to post this story at RushLimbaugh.com, because there are just a couple of fascinating charts here that show this lack of activity.



I was out in Las Vegas over the weekend for the annual Prostate Cancer Foundation charity golf tournament, and I had some downtime after playing golf on Saturday morning, and I had my trusted little iPhone with me. So I went back to the massive suite in the golf villas area in which I was happily ensconced and staying. I decided, ‘I’ll call up and just take a look. I haven’t had a chance to look at any websites today.’ So I’m cruising around, and I see tropical storm… No! I take it back. The television was on, and some meteorologist was going berserk about the possibility of a hurricane. So I said, ‘Oooooh.’ That’s when I went to the website and I look at the models for this thing, and they had it getting nowhere near us here in South Florida, according to the models. I just started thinking how excited they are. I started getting warning e-mails from meteorologists. ‘We might have a storm brewing out there, Rush! It may be headed to Florida! You might be…’ The weather community is so desperate for a hurricane. They are so desperate. (laughing)

It’s like even these guys at Florida State who released the story that this is an historically inactive year, ‘Unless a dramatic and perhaps historical flurry riff activity occurs in the next nine weeks…’ The season runs to the end of November. Then they close it out with saying this is — other than past 30 years, only 1977, 1981, 1983 have had less activity — but the year is not over. Hopefully, dot, dot, dot, dot. We could actually use some of the rain from this tropical storm. I wish this guy with the granulated tire idea would go seed some granulated tires into this storm and steer it back our way. Do you realize what ten to 12 inches would do for Lake Okeechobee? It would end the stupid drought down here. We could start watering our lawns and all this sort of stuff. Winds, I think, are going to get to 50 miles an hour.

Other global warming news: ‘Rising temperatures could wipe out more than half the earth’s species in the next few centuries, according to researchers who published a study last week linking climate change to past mass extinctions. The study analyzed fossil records, temperature changes over 500 million years, and found that three of the four biggest extinctions, defined as when more than 50% of species disappeared, occurred during periods of high temperature.’ So, wait. Wait, wait. ‘Five hundred million years…three of the four biggest extinctions…defined periods of high temperature’?

So there’s nothing new about what’s happening now. I mean, how can we have all these extinctions with no talk of manmade global warming 500 million years ago? ‘The upper end of the forecast rise would heat the earth close to the temperatures of 250 million years ago when 95% of all animal and plant species became extinct.’ Of course, that would mean liberal idiodictus would probably fade away and conservo erectus would hang around — the two new species for humanity predicted by some British guy. Here’s another idea on how to cool the globe. This is a guy, Ken Caldeira, a scientist at the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology. Folks, this was in the New York Times. This is an op-ed. It is not a spoof. It is not satire. ‘Despite growing interest in clean energy technology it looks as if we’re not going to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide any time soon. The amount in the atmosphere today exceeds the most pessimistic forecasts made just a few years ago. It’s increasing faster than anybody had foreseen.’ Yeah, and the temperature rise is negligible! That’s for another moment. ‘Even if we could stop adding the greenhouse gases tomorrow, the earth would continue warming for decades and remain hot for centuries. We would still face the threat of water from melting glaciers lapping at our doorsteps.

‘What can be done? One idea is to counteract warming by tossing small particles into the atmosphere above where the jets fly. This strategy may sound far-fetched, but it has the potential to cool the earth within months. Mount Pinatubo, a volcano in the Philippines that blew up in 1991, shows how this works. The eruption resulted in sulfate particles in the stratosphere that reflected the sun’s rays back to space and as a consequence the earth briefly cooled. If we could pour a five-gallon bucket’s worth of sulfate particles per second into the stratosphere it, might be enough to keep the earth from warming for 50 years. Tossing twice as much sulfate up there could protect us into the next century. A 1992 lottery for the National Academy of Sciences suggests that naval artillery, rockets, and aircraft exhaust could all be used to send the particles up. The least expensive option might be to use a fire hose suspended from a series of balloons. Scientists have yet to analyze the engineering involved but the hurdles appear surmountable.’ So we’re going to pollute our way out of it! This is what I said way back when. Pollution is what cools the earth. Mt. Pinatubo was pollution. This guy has resorted to this. They’re getting desperate. Hoses, fire hoses attached to balloons? That’s a huge hose, and how many hoses are you going to need? Hoses! Sorry.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: There’s one more story here in the Global Warming Stack, and this is from James Lewis at the American Thinker. And no offense, Mr. Lewis, this is something I’ve been saying for many, many moons. The headline says it all: ”Earth Climate is Too Complex to Predict.’ Science magazine just published a critical review of climate models by Professors Gerald Roe and Marcia Baker of the University of Washington, Seattle. It is echoed in the New Scientist magazine (October 25). As New Scientist puts it, ‘Climate is too complex for accurate predictions.’ It is evident that the climate system is operating in a regime in which small uncertainties in feedbacks are highly amplified in the resulting climate sensitivity. We are constrained by the inevitable: The more likely a large warming is for a given forcing (i.e., the greater the positive feedbacks), the greater the uncertainty will be in the magnitude of that warming.’

That’s just science lingo. But what it means is that ‘After hundreds of millions of dollars spent on climate modeling, and decades of screaming headlines, we have no more certainty today about Global Warming prediction than we did decades ago. What’s more, that is a provable inherent limitation of the data and models.’ That means this is a scientific scandal. The earth is way too complex, the atmosphere, to try to predict this.

They’re going nuts there on Fox, this tropical storm. They have the cone barely touching this in Florida. Now, we’re not in the main track area, but they’re moving it a little west. We could get this. Oh my, the local TV stations are going to do stories on going to the store to get wood to board up your windows, and make sure you get plenty of water, get all of your prescriptions filled. They can’t wait for this stuff, disaster, disaster and pestilence and death right around the corner lurking in the Caribbean hopefully heading our way.

RUSH: We’ve added a fourth song to our global warming update rotation. Paul Shanklin, a well-known white comedian and song stylist and impressionist. Here is Algore, I Started a Joke.

(Playing I Started a Joke)

RUSH: That’s such a great song, I Started a Joke by the Bee Gees. It’s a great song for the mentally disturbed, but nevertheless a great song, and that’s Algore’s cover. All right, the Global Warming Stack today. Try this headline: ‘Drought Makes Amazon Rainforest Greener.’ Drought would be global warming, because everything is global warming — and listen to the lede here. ‘Droughts, paradoxically, seem to make the Amazon rainforest even greener, a new study suggests, giving scientists hope that global warming’s effects on the lush South American ecosystem won’t be quite as bad as has been predicted.’ Some of you scientists out there, will you tell me the last time you dealt with ‘hope’ in coming up with a hypothesis or proving one. Giving scientists hope? The Bali conference starts today, the global warming conference. The story here from the New Zealand Herald comes close to winning the Dan Rather Award for Objective Journalism. ‘Rich countries are rapidly increasing the pollution that causes global warming to record levels despite having solemnly undertaken to reduce it, three devastating new official reports reveal.’

It goes on and on. Look, these people, we talked about this last Friday, are flying all kinds of private jets over there. They have to ferry a whole bunch of them to another island, empty, leaving a huge carbon dioxide footprint — and the dirty little secret is nothing will come out of this other than a plan to tax rich countries who have signed on to Kyoto who have not met their standards because they’re impossible to meet, by design. By the way, this new Australian prime minister who just replaced John Howard is going to sign onto Kyoto. We will be one of the last remaining big-time Western democracies not to sign on to it. The dirty little secret, folks — as I am wont to say — is that this is a world governed by the aggressive use of force. Ours is also a world propelled by fossil fuels. Period. Nothing is going to change that, certainly not in the foreseeable future.

All of this is simply a pipe dream. Removing emissions, eliminating them, carbon feetprints, all these things, are just absolutely meaningless. Fossil fuels propel this planet and its economy. How many of you have heard that global warming is going to lead to increased numbers of deaths? Actually, there has been a fall in weather deaths. ‘Green scientists have been accused of overstating the dangers of climate change by researchers who found the number of people killed each year by weather-related disasters is actually falling.’ They have been screaming hysterically at us for ten years now that there’s going to be a huge increase in deaths from weather-related disasters, mostly poor women and children, obviously. Now research shows that deaths from ‘weather-related disasters’ peaked in the 1920s and have been declining ever since, and the numbers are even more profound than that when you get specific. Also, divorce is now being blamed for contributing to global warming. I kid you not.

RUSH: Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut! Trumpet fanfare, time for an update, an incredible Global Warming Stack today. Here’s Paul Shanklin, well-known white comedian, as Algore: I Started a Joke.

(playing I Started a Joke song)

That makes me chuckle. ‘I showed them my slides.’ So we had this new prime minister elected in Australia, Kevin Rudd, and one of the first things he did, said, (paraphrasing) ‘We’re going to sign on to Kyoto. This global warming is a problem and we’re going to sign up.’ Last night, Kevin Rudd, prime minister of Australia, ‘did an about-face on deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, days after Australia’s delegation backed the plan at the climate talks in Bali. A government representative at the talks this week said Australia backed a 25-40 percent cut on 1990 emission levels by 2020. But after warnings it would lead to huge rises in electricity prices, Mr. Rudd said the Government would not support the target.’ In other words, this socialist, which is what he is, said, (paraphrasing) ‘I am not going to sign on to something that’s going to destroy my economy. It’s just that simple.’ So they’re out.

In one of the most absurd stories on global warming I’ve ever seen, and that’s saying something because most of them are: ‘Australian scientists are trying to give kangaroo-style stomachs to cattle and sheep in a bid to cut the emission of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming,’ by virtue of the expelling of gas. Kangaroo gas expelations do not contain methane, and as such, they are considered eco-friendly. You could say eco-friendly kangaroo farts, ladies and gentlemen, could help global warming, according to scientists. Thanks to special bacteria in their stomachs, kangaroo flatulence contains no methane, and scientists want to transfer that bacteria to cattle and sheep who emit large quantities of the harmful gas. When I see stories like this, I know it will never happen, I just have this fantasy that one of these days God’s going to show up in a totally believable way and tell these people, ‘Stop messing around with what I did here. Who the hell do you think you are, messing around with my kangaroos and my cattle and my sheep? Keep your hands off of them.’

If this keeps up, God’s going to end this planet, folks. It’s got to be an embarrassment for him up there to look down and see what’s going on here, despite the efforts of some to talk sanity into this. ‘Athol Klieve, a senior research scientist with the Queensland state government, said, ‘Fourteen percent of emissions from all sources in Australia is from enteric methane from cattle and sheep.’ I don’t even know what to say. It’s just insane. These people are literally insane. Now, I mentioned earlier in the program one of the best op-eds I have ever read about what’s going on in Bali, and what the environmental movement is all about in the first place, appears today in the Financial Post in Canada. It’s by Peter Foster. Let me read you just some excerpts.

‘The fate of the Earth hangs in the balance in Bali, but the issue is not whether humanity will succumb to a ‘climate crisis,’ or how the international community might craft a successor to the tattered Kyoto Accord. (Let’s call it KyoTwo.) The real theme of this United Nations gabfest — like that of its 12 predecessors, and of the hundreds, if not thousands, of related meetings — is whether globalization and trade liberalization will be allowed to continue, with a corresponding increase in wealth, health and welfare, or whether the authoritarian enemies of freedom (who rarely if ever recognize themselves as such) will succeed in using environmental hysteria to undermine capitalism and increase their Majesterium. Any successor to Kyoto will be rooted in hobbling rich economies, increasing the poor world’s resentment, unleashing environmental trade warfare, and blanketing the globe with rules and regulations that benefit only rulers and regulators. Bali is not about climate; it symbolizes the continued assault on freedom by those who seek — or pander to — political power under the guise of concern for humanity.’ Bali is not about climate; it symbolizes the continued assault on freedom by those who seek political power under the guise of concern for humanity.

‘Just at the point where Marxism was being consigned to the dustbin of history, the more or less concealed power lust that had fed it found a new cause in the environment.’ I just loved reading that because I told you, I warned people many moons ago that the environmental movement was just the new home of communism once the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union ceased to exist. ‘Just at the point where Marxism was being consigned to the dustbin of history, the more or less concealed power lust that had fed it found a new cause in the environment. The fact that the UN’s 1992 Rio conference followed hard on the collapse of the Soviet Union represented almost the passing of a poisoned baton.’ Get this next one, folks, because this is brilliant writing: ‘Capitalism had once been the enemy because it was alleged to make people poor. Now it was the enemy because of the alleged side effects of making them rich. The emissions of carbon-based industrial society would lead to a climate in turmoil: We would be beset by Biblical plagues of floods, droughts and monster hurricanes.

‘This simplistic narrative depended on carbon dioxide being the main driver of climate. Scientists who pointed that there were likely other more important factors, that climate science was in its infancy and that Earth’s climate had varied dramatically long before the invention of the steam, internal combustion or jet engine, were not scientifically refuted; they were howled down as ‘deniers’ or industry shills. The environmental left, centered in the UN, has achieved stunning success in building and pushing the climate change/sustain-ability bandwagon. They have done this first by funding, then hijacking, scientific research via the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They have also promoted and allowed access to an ever-proliferating group of activist NGOs (Bali, significantly, is overrun by the non-elected ‘representatives’ of scores of radical organizations, who have in turn forced similar numbers of industry representatives to follow them). NGOs have also had great success in pushing their alarmist message through a sympathetic media and thus — along with more direct lobbying — in achieving grossly disproportionate influence with democratic politicians.’

And the last excerpt I want to read here is this: ‘But that criticism misses the real significance of Kyoto and KyoTwo. They are not about effectively addressing specific problems, they are about exploiting ignorance about climate science, and continuing to demonize capitalism, in order to make ecocrats feel good, make others feel bad, pad incomes, and expand travel schedules.’ This is so on the money. I couldn’t have written this better, and that makes me jealous. They are not about effectively addressing specific problems. They are about exploiting ignorance. As I said yesterday, the most expensive commodity in this country is ignorance. We pay more for ignorance than anybody could dare calculate. They are exploiting that ignorance about climate science. They demonize capitalism. ‘Democratic governments have no choice but to cater to the ignorance/alarm/hypocrisy engendered in their electorates. This catering in turn reflects greater or lesser degrees of cynicism, skepticism, or moralistic bloviation.’

Now, what is meant by that is, here we’re a democracy, and people run for office and they get elected. This onslaught of hoax that is global warming, which thrives on the ignorance the average American has about the climate and climate science, forces Democratic governments to kowtow to it. The people want it, the people think we’re destroying the planet, we’ve gotta put kangaroo guts inside sheep and whatever, then their hands are tied, theoretically. Leadership, of course, could reverse this. But that’s basically what the passage means when he says Democrat governments have no choice but to cater to the ignorance if it becomes a majority. That is why ignorance is the most expensive commodity in this country. We will link to this piece at RushLimbaugh.com later this afternoon. One other thing, a group of reporters representing the conservative newspaper Environment and Climate News were refused press credentials to attend the climate meeting in Bali. The paper’s publisher, the Heartland Institute, issued a statement saying that (paraphrasing), ‘You guys are skeptics. We’re not letting you in here.’ Skeptics not permitted, at a UN conference on climate in Bali.

RUSH: Dadelut dadelut dadelut, a brand-new global warming update, Paul Shanklin, song stylist portraying Algore.

(playing of global warming song)

Vice president Algore and In a Global Warming Wonderland, our latest in a series of rotating global warming update themes. Before we get to the global warming news, we actually have an audio sound bite from Algore. This is yesterday on CNN in Oslo. Correspondent Jonathan Mann of CNN interviewed Algore after he got the Nobel Peace Prize that should have been mine. Mann says, ‘The Associated Press, among other sources, is reporting that your family home near Nashville, Tennessee, used $1,200 a month in electricity, which is 10 times the average for homes nearby. It’s been widely disseminated, and I think that’s what he’s getting at. Is it true? Are you a little less green than you seem?’

ALGORE: There’s a global warming denier group that put out misleading information.

MANN: The Associated Press is not that kind of organization.

ALGORE: No, they reported what that group said. And the — the — look, when you try to make a case like this, you are going to have — you’re going to have people try to attack the messenger in order to get at the message. They have not been able to succeed. But the most important element of this is the message. And part of what they — part of what these deniers try to communicate is that the only way to solve this crisis is for individuals to make changes in their own lives.

RUSH: This is the biggest stonewall I’ve heard all week. That was absolute gobbledygook. He didn’t answer the question. First place, $1,200 a month in electricity, that’s for pikers. But still it’s a lot of money for him, and, in fact, he’s gone out and he set up these carbon offset outfits. He’s not reducing his lifestyle at all. That’s the whole point. He wants you to, but he’s not, and he’s going out and buying carbon offsets and carbon credits, which is another hoax, designed to let him not cut back and all these other environmentalist wackos are doing the same thing. And the deniers, we’re deniers, you see. They’ve not been able to succeed, but the most important element of this is the message, and part of what these deniers try to communicate is the only way to solve the crisis is for individuals to make changes in their own lives. We’re communicating that? We deniers are making no such effort to change anybody’s life, the way they live, not in the sense that Algore means it here. It is Algore and his bunch that doesn’t even want to give us a choice in the matter. They want more power invested in fewer people and government to be able to tell us what we can and can’t eat, when we can’t eat it, what we can and can’t smoke, where we can and can’t smoke it, et al. So I think the question rattled the guy. The Clinton News Network comes up with this. Well, actually it makes sense the Clinton News Network would be after Gore. You never know what the guy might do.

All right, the global warming news. ‘The worldwide forum on climate change marked the 10th anniversary of the Kyoto Protocol on Tuesday but the celebrations were shadowed by doubts on a new pact to tackle global warming. A giant birthday cake was unveiled on the sidelines of the talks in Bali to commemorate December 11, 1997, when the world’s most ambitious environment treaty was born in the eponymous Japanese city. Two parties followed in the evening, one hosted by Japanese green groups and the other by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). … In its present form, it will not do enough to stem the surge in pollution, which scientists say is badly damaging the Earth’s climate system. Worse droughts and floods, rising sea levels and more violent storms lie just decades away, they warn.’ You know what I take away from this? Ten years ago, let’s go back to 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. They had another one of these things, they didn’t call it Kyoto, but they had their climate meeting there.

In 1992, we’ve got 15 years, in 15, 20 years, if we don’t fix it, we are dead. Then in 1997, we got ten years to get working on this, ten years, and by the way we’re still prospering, pollution is coming down. The Earth is warming, no question about that, but not a whole lot. So the magic ten years has gone by, and the world has not ended, and it’s nowhere near ending. ‘Penguins Now Threatened by Global Warming.’ This is from the UK Telegraph. ‘Four species of penguin are facing a dual threat from loss of nesting sites and a shortage of food. The environmental conservation group WWF is warning that rising temperatures and the resulting loss of sea ice is robbing the emblematic birds of the nesting grounds they need to breed successfully. At the same time climate change and over-fishing has led to a reduction in the availability of krill — tiny crustaceans — which they rely on for food.’ But there’s problem with this. It says here, by the way, ‘Global warming is happening much more quickly in some parts of the continent, particularly the north-west area of the continent known as the Antarctic Peninsula.’

I received a reaction to this today from the official climatologist of the EIB Network, Dr. Roy Spencer, University of Alabama at Huntsville, former NASA scientist. It says, ‘Dear El Rushbo, I’m sure you’ve seen the WWF report about penguins on the Antarctic Peninsula in decline based on the fact that the sea ice is melting. Yet sea ice around Antarctic has been running one million square kilometers above normal for the past couple of months,’ and he has sent me the charts, and there’s the chart. Those of you watching on the Dittocam can see it. Sea ice is expanding in the Antarctic. Greenland is not melting. None of the things that they say are actually happening. I don’t even believe that the penguins are threatened. They make all this other stuff up, too, and the reason they do is to get to the hearts and minds of little kids. ‘Mommy, mommy, the penguins are going extinct, and the polar bears. What are you and daddy doing to kill them?’ That’s how this stuff works. You have the Gore movie in school that shows these polar bears running around, supposedly deserted and stranded on ice that is melting all around them. It’s obscene. And, again, what allows it to succeed? Ignorance. Ignorance of the people is the most expensive thing we pay for in this country.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Grand Rapids, Michigan, Sarah, thank you for your patience and welcome to the program.

CALLER: It’s an honor to speak with you, Rush.

RUSH: Thank you.

CALLER: Hey, I just wanted to tell you, last week I was not surprised because I listen to you and I’m informed, but I was appalled when on Saturday morning I sat down to watch cartoons with my five-year-old son —

RUSH: What channel?

CALLER: It was one of the national networks. I don’t even know which one.

RUSH: Okay.

CALLER: We were not on it long enough for me to even figure out which one it was. But the cartoon had the good guys were these little blue guys and the bad guys were these red guys with flames coming out of their head. And they were watching —

RUSH: (laughing)

CALLER: Oh, it gets better. They were watching a movie in a movie theater, and in the movie, of course, it showed all the typical things, you know, the ice caps melting, and it was all about global warming and, you know, all of the polar bears are losing their homes and, you know, your house is going to be flooded and all of that. And then they said, ‘Well, there are some scientists who don’t believe that global warming is a problem.’ And I actually thought, ‘Wow, they’re going to, you know, show the other side of this.’ Well, instead, they showed the epitome of the caricature of a professor sitting behind a desk in the desert, sipping a tall glass of iced tea, and he said, ‘Global warming really is a good thing because the warmer it gets, the better my iced tea tastes.’ That was his comment.

RUSH: But, you know, it’s these little characters, blue guys and the red guys —

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: — with flames coming out of their heads?

CALLER: Yeah, the flames —

RUSH: As in blue state versus red state?

CALLER: Yeah. I mean basically, and then it kind of switched up and they said, ‘Well, you know, what’s causing global warming?’ And of course they said, ‘We are.’ That was their entire answer, ‘we are,’ and it showed gridlock, you know —

RUSH: I’m glad you switched it off. This is the kind of propaganda that is taking place, as I so eloquently referenced earlier. But, you know, this is not new stuff.

CALLER: I know —

RUSH: Do you remember Captain Planet, the Ted Turner cartoon on —

CALLER: Yeah, yeah.

RUSH: Guess what that was?

CALLER: The funny thing is, I turned it off and I told my son, ‘We’re not watching this.’ And he said, ‘Why, it’s not scary.’ You know, because that’s typically why I turn things off and don’t let him watch something. ‘It’s not scary.’ And I looked at him, I laughed, and I said, ‘It might not be scary to you, buddy, but it is very scary to me.’

RUSH: Oh, good!

CALLER: We’re not watching it.

RUSH: Mommy was scared by a cartoon, Daddy.

CALLER: (laughing) Yeah.

RUSH: How old is your son?

CALLER: He’s five.

RUSH: Oh, he’s too young to start talking to about this stuff in great detail, but —

CALLER: Yeah. It was just — I couldn’t believe it.

RUSH: Ah, ah.

CALLER: Even as informed as I am —

RUSH: Believe it. He’s only going to get it every day when he starts grade school and gets into junior high. I am warning you, this stuff is pervasive, it’s out there. I have to take a break. I’m really up against it on time. I don’t mean to be rude, but I’m really glad you called, Sarah. By the way, Sarah is one of my all-time, top-ten female names. You should know that.

CALLER: Excellent.

RUSH: You got it.

RUSH: Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut. Global Warming Update.

(playing of The Crazy World of Arthur Brown)

All right, The Crazy World of Arthur Brown, one of the four Global Warming Update themes. As predicted, (laughing) I love this (laughing) as predicted, ‘The Bali global warming conference will not result in any targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, now admits would be too ambitious to expect. Said Ban Ki-moon, ‘Realistically it would be too ambitious to set guidelines now,’ while urging Washington to be flexible. Later he added, ‘Practically speaking, this is going to have to be negotiated down the road.” But, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. See, I remember things. Bali was the last chance. The organizers at the UN said that the Bali conference was the last chance to solve the global warming problem. If you doubt me, let us go back to the New Zealand Herald. This is Sunday, December 2nd of this year.

Headline: ”Conference the World’s ‘Last Chance to Avoid Catastrophic Global Warming” — Rich countries are rapidly increasing the pollution that causes global warming to record levels — despite having solemnly undertaken to reduce it, three devastating new official reports reveal.’ Last chance, except they’re not going to do anything. The targets will be too ambitious, meaning they can’t get anybody to go along with this. So now will the environmentalist wackos leave us alone or were they just exaggerating? Will they stop pestering us on the issue now? By the way, folks, you know, these people, I think they’re beginning to panic now. They are afraid, as time passes, more time passes, more people are going to see the BS and doubt this. Every day that the world does not end is a losing day for the global warming crowd. All of this panic and this nonsense and these crazy — like global warming hardest hit on women — what’s the actual headline here? ‘Women Bear the Brunt of Climate Change.’ I thought it was animals? I thought it was poor countries? ‘Carbon Costs of Christmas.’ People see this stuff every day and they can’t take it seriously anymore because it’s all over the board. ‘Last chance to save the world.’ Think of that. Last chance to save the world. Ah, never mind, targets would be too ambitious. I guess saving the world is not really the agenda, then, is it?

Time is not on these people’s side. By the way, Ban Ki-moon, let’s tell you a little bit about him. ‘The UN secretary-general today called on world leaders for immediate action on climate change — before flying thousands of miles to the US for a music concert and then leaving in the interval to jet to Europe. Ban Ki-moon has been slammed for planning a round-the-world trip that will generate thousands of tonnes of carbon emissions just days after he leaves the UN meeting in Bali. The South Korean has organised a post-conference trip, starting on Sunday, that will see him fly to attend the concert in New York, adding more than 4,300 miles to his itinerary. When he leaves the island after the summit Mr Ban will fly to East Timor, and then to Japan where he will briefly stop before catching another flight to the US. The flight from Tokyo to New York takes him the wrong way around the world to arrive in time for the reception of a Korean concert at Carnegie Hall, where he is the guest of honour. The concert is titled Around The World In Eighty Minutes.’

So this guy is flying all over creation, around the world and doing so in the wrong direction to get where he needs to get and he’s telling everybody else to wise up and start reducing carbon emissions. More in the Global Warming Update stack today, however, I must take a brief time-out. Max Mayfield, I’ll just give you a little heads-up, Henry Waxman has just finished a 16-month investigation entitled ‘Political Interference With Climate Change Science Under the Bush Administration,’ and in it, Waxman claims that Max Mayfield was told to downplay the connection between hurricanes and global warming. And Max Mayfield has responded by saying, ‘Nobody told me to say anything.’

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: By the way, folks — especially for you liberal Democrats out there who are unhappy with your presidential field. This is something that is never discussed, only the fact that there’s dissatisfaction on the Republican side with their field. You liberal Democrats, you know that secretly, a lot of you are hoping that Algore will cut to the chase and get in the race, with Hillary plummeting and Obama rising and so forth. I’m going to give you the definitive answer on Algore and his potential run for the president, and it is this: It ain’t gonna happen, and do you know why it’s not going to happen? There’s one reason — there may be more, but there’s one primary reason — why Algore will never, ever run for president, at least next year. It’s because he would be forced to debate global warming, and he will not, because he cannot debate that. He wouldn’t dare, ladies and gentlemen. He would not dare. I’m being serious here. I’m not throwing down the gauntlet; I’m not issuing a challenge. He will not debate it. None of them will because they can’t, and so that’s why they throw up this bunch of stuff about everybody being ‘deniers’ and just try to discredit them. ‘We don’t have time to debate it,’ he says, and yet every day the world doesn’t end is a disaster for these people.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Hey, folks, try this. Try this headline. I had this story two weeks ago from Dr. Spencer, and I just didn’t get to it because there were other things that were more important. ‘Arctic Sea Ice Re-Freezing at Record Pace.’ They had a record melt this summer, and they thought, ‘Oh, gosh, Algore is right, it’s horrible.’ The ice, the size, the square footage of the ice cover, the Arctic Circle, has already reached what it would not normally reach until February. Arctic sea ice refreezing at record pace.

RUSH: I got a story from the National Public Radio here, NPR, February 7th, ‘All Things Considered,’ a liberal broadcast outlet. ‘Study: Ethanol Worse for Climate than Gasoline.’ One of the things that I have discovered… You know, I spend countless hours of show prep, countless hours of brilliantly conceiving a strategy and then flawlessly executing it on this program every day, and I still run into people who listen to this program who just like sheep buy into this global warming business. You know what? I figured out what it is. I always say that people’s historical perspective begins with the day they were born. That’s the period of time in their life — obviously, their life — that matters most to them. And history education, particularly in the public school system is so woefully inept that people become susceptible to the constant drivel and bilge of the Drive-By Media and their agendas. One of the agendas is pushing this whole concept of global warming as manmade, climate change, whatever you want to call it, and when I talk to people…

I’ll give you an example. I ran into somebody the other day on the golf course who said, ‘You know, I think you’re misunderstanding this global warming. This is serious stuff, Rush, and you’re laughing at it and making fun.’

I said, ‘What do you mean serious stuff? Climate change happens all the time!’

He said, ‘No, I think the climate…’ Let me put it this way. What he said to me, in my words, indicated to me that he thinks that the climate on the planet today is as it has always been, that it’s never been different, and that we are worsening it.

I pointed out to him, I said, ‘Do you recall — you may not have heard me discuss this, but maybe you heard it in the news — that they discovered deep down underground in Greenland evidence of a long lost civilization? People used to live there.’

He said, ‘Yeah, so what?’

I said, ‘Well, you ever wonder why they call it Greenland? It’s not green, right? Have you ever wondered why they call it Greenland?’

‘Uhhhh… Well, no.’

I said, ‘Because it used to be! You know why it used to be? Because it used to be warmer up there, and that’s why there was an ancient civilization up there.’

And he said, ‘Oh, interesting. I never looked at it that way.’

I said, ‘I know you didn’t because you are so willing to accept the guilt, and you’re so eager to think that.’

The vanity of all of us who are alive today, to think that everything on the planet today is as it has always been: the redwood trees, pristine, ancient forests and so forth and so on. I have a Global Warming Update, ladies and gentlemen, just to illustrate the point how the Drive-By Media does this. Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut! Here’s one of our three rotating global warming update themes. It’s ‘white comedian’ Paul Shanklin as Algore.

(playing of Ball of Fire parody song)

RUSH: White comedian Paul Shanklin, the vocal portrayal there of Algore, a takeoff on Johnny Cash’s Ring of Fire. At any rate, AP, ladies and gentlemen, has massive series today on the wire. I just bothered to read one of the pages on the dangers — the dangers! — associated with the arrival of spring. ‘The capital’s famous cherry trees are primed to burst out in a perfect pink peak about the end of this month. Thirty years ago, the trees usually waited to bloom till about April 5. In central California, the first of the field skipper sachem, a drab little butterfly, was fluttering about March 12. Just 25 years ago, that creature predictably emerged anywhere from mid-April to mid-May. And sneezes are coming earlier in Philadelphia. On March 9, when allergist Dr. Donald Dvorin set up his monitor, maple pollen already was heavy in the air. Less than two decades ago, that pollen couldn’t be measured until late April. Pollen is bursting. Critters are stirring. Buds are swelling. Biologists are worrying. ‘The alarm clock that all the plants and animals are listening to is running too fast,’ Stanford University’s Terry Root said. Blame global warming.’ (gasp!) No! (hyperventilating) ‘The fingerprints of man-made climate change are evident in seasonal timing changes for thousands of species on Earth, according to dozens of studies and last year’s authoritative report by the Nobel Prize-winning international climate scientists.

‘More than 30 scientists told The Associated Press how global warming is affecting plants and animals at springtime…’ It’s getting warmer, my friends, and we are threatened! We are in perilous times. We are destroying our ecosystem. Biological timing is called phenology, by the way. ‘Biological spring, which this year begins at 1:48 a.m. EDT Thursday,’ which has already happened, ‘is based on the tilt of the Earth as it circles the sun. The federal government and some university scientists are so alarmed by the changes that last fall they created a National Phenology Network at the US Geological Survey to monitor these changes. The idea, said biologist and network director Jake Weltzin, is ‘to better understand the changes, and more important what do they mean? How does it affect humankind?’ There are winners, losers and lots of unknowns when global warming messes with natural timing. People may appreciate the smaller heating bills from shorter winters…’ Shorter winters? This has been a horrible winter! It snowed big time in Chicago today. Wisconsin set a record in Green Bay for the amount of snow. Montreal has so much snow, it may not all melt this summer! There has been global cooling over this past winter of a degree Celsius, enough to wipe out the 100-year increase. This is just one page of this series. Spring equals danger! I could remember ten years ago, 15, seems like every year the cherry blossoms in Washington were early.

Don’t you remember that? There was alarm and there was cause for concern. But prior to that, ‘Oh, my God, the cherry blossoms are out! Whoa, this is cool. Get to Washington fast to see them.’ There was no alarm about it. Well, you know, this biological alarm clock stuff. I’ll bet you that these phenology people have not even accommodated for for the fact that we moved the clocks up an hour a month prior to when we should be. You want to talk about biology alarm clocks? This is so absurd, the idea that everything on this earth is the same? This is exactly my point, that everything on this planet happens at the same time every year. There’s the same amount of snowfall, same amount of rainfall, same amount of cloud cover, same amount of humidity, same amount of tornadoes, hurricane, same amount — except when there’s the slightest deviation from one year to the next, it’s because of us! Well, because of you, because I have no guilt about it. I accept no blame. I don’t think we have the power to affect anything like these changes that they say are happening. We’re mere residents here. What about our biological clocks? What about our biological clocks in springtime and so forth? How about these people in Chicago… It’s the first day of spring, right? No. Butterflies may be out in California, but they’re not in Chicago. I’ll bet there’s not a whole lot of pollen in Chicago and I’ll betcha there are a whole lot of people that wish there were butterflies in Chicago because they’re fed up with winter.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This