Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: Let’s delve into the Global Warming Stack here for just a second, ladies and gentlemen. First from BloombergNews.com: ‘If one of the more extreme responses to global warming comes true, driving a sports car anywhere but on a racetrack might be relegated to history’s dustbin. Fast, powerful cars within a few years may be outlawed in Europe, an idea that has been raised ostensibly because Ferraris and Porsches produce too much carbon dioxide. For those who abhor sports cars as vulgar symbols of affluence (along with vacation homes, furs and fancy jewelry), such a ban could be a twofer: Saving the planet while cutting economic inequality.’ I have been warning you people that we are headed in this direction. You’ve got it right here: class envy. ‘Oh, yeah, ban Porsches! Ban Ferraris,’ and it won’t stop there.

(New Castrati impression) ‘We’ll protect the environment and we’ll get rid of the obvious, uh, disparities in the wealth, Mr. Limbaugh! It’s a fair deal. It’s win-win no matter how you slice it.’ So the story here says: ‘Who are these people anyway who decide on behalf of everyone what car is proper to drive? In the U.S. they’re members of Congress, which is considering fuel-efficiency standards that will affect vehicle size. In Europe, it’s the ministers and parliamentarians of the European Union, which wants to limit how much CO2 cars can emit as a proxy for a fuel-consumption standard.’ They are thinking about this. Now, this is patently absurd because are they going to start banning jet airplanes? They’re going to ban jet airliners. It’s absurd on even more fundamental reasons than that. It’s none of their damn business, especially when the whole premise behind this is a hoax and phony!

Get this. This is from the Australian Associated Press: ‘The British Government is facing calls to discourage families from having more than two children to help the environment. The Optimum Population Trust, a UK-based think tank, made the call in a new report unveiled today, saying record growth in Britain’s birth rate was having an adverse impact on the environment. The report’s author, Professor John Guillebaud, said the Government should introduce ‘stop at two children’ or ‘have one less’ policies. ‘Each new UK birth, through the inevitable resource consumption and pollution that UK affluence generates, is responsible for about 160 times as much climate-related environmental damage as a new birth in Ethiopia, or 35 times as much as a new birth in Bangladesh,” said this report. This is patently a lie! ‘Poverty is the biggest polluter,’ Indira Gandhi said. So now we’re supposed to live like the Ethiopians. Now we’re not supposed to have any fossil fuels. Now we’re not supposed to have any electricity.

Now we’re not supposed to have any air-conditioning. We’re not supposed to have any of the things that enhance life. I’ll tell you what, folks, go to Ethiopia, take a trip, and then go to the UK and you tell me which one’s more polluted. The idea that the UK and ‘affluent societies’ are destroying the planet is an insult to anybody that’s got a modicum of intelligence and a base scientific education. Breeding? They say in the headline: ‘Call on Brits to Stop Breeding,’ like human beings are animals. You think the Muslim population is going to listen to this, in the UK? You think the Muslims population is going to listen to it? They’re already being overpopulated and colonized in their own country, for crying out loud, over there! You people saw the recent story that Mohammed is set to become the most popular boy name in Britain. Mohammed soon will become the most popular boy name in Britain! Do you think they’re going to listen to this business about only having two terrorists when you ‘breed’? Are they going to listen to that?

‘Plastic Bottles Do Not Cause Global Warming.’ This is from a UK website, Off License News. Big Bottled Water getting in the action here. ‘The bottled water industry has hit back at claims that discarded plastic water bottles are contributing to global warming. A statement was issued by the Bottled Water Information Office to say it is an environmentally friendly industry following the news that the City of New York is running a campaign to encourage people to ditch bottled water and drink tap water instead to protect the environment.’ San Francisco is on this push, too. Big Water ‘said: ‘The very foundation of the industry is the protection of a precious natural resource and its use in a sustainable manner, and that ethos is applied in every aspect of the work of the industry. ‘Bottled water is most commonly packaged in either plastic (PET) or glass, which is totally safe and conforms to strict regulations on health and safety. By far the majority of bottled water (93 percent) comes in plastic bottles which is totally recyclable. Bottles also carry messages urging the purchaser to recycle after use. The rest … comes in glass bottles, which can also be placed for recycling.” So the Big Bottled Water gang is fighting back, defending itself against all these charges.

This story is the piece de resistance in the Global Warming Stack today: ‘Scientists on Wednesday said that the rise in global temperatures that has been detected over the past two decades cannot be blamed on the Sun, a theory espoused by climate-change skeptics,’ and they are wrong. The skeptics cannot be listened to. The sun cannot be blamed for global warming. It’s not the sun’s fault. ‘British and Swiss researchers looked at data for radiation from the Sun, levels of which can cool or warm our planet’s atmosphere.’ Really? ‘They factored in a cycle which solar radiation goes through peaks and troughs of activity over a period of about 11 years. … The study is co-authored by Mike Lockwood of Britain’s Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Claus Froehlich of the World Radiation Centre in Switzerland. The overwhelming consensus among scientists is that human activity is to blame for the rise in global temperatures. In its latest report, issued this year, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that this warming is already affecting the climate system.’ So the sun’s off the hook. Scientists say so! Scientists say the sun’s in the clear. Sun has nothing to do with warming or cooling. No, sun does not make enough heat to affect global warming. No, human beings are causing it! The sun’s out of the picture. (sigh) Aren’t you glad you know now?


RUSH: Scott in Jackson, Mississippi. Welcome to the EIB Network. It’s great to have you with us.

CALLER: Thanks, Rush. I wanted to make a quick comment in reference to a story you read in the last hour which reported that environmentalists wanted to ban sports cars from being manufactured. I think it was over in Europe?

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: Specifically, they mentioned Porsche and Ferrari because they meet low environmental standards. I think if the environmentalists really cared, they wouldn’t ban manufacturers from producing these vehicles. I just wanted to suggest that, you know, based on the principles of supply and demand, removing a supplier, the manufacturer of sports cars would result in grease monkeys and shade tree mechanics everywhere coming out of the woodwork and producing their own hotrods in their personal garages that probably would meet less if not any environmental standards at all. Right now, auto manufacturers can be rather easily regulated but it’s more difficult to regulate a private garage. Now, my final point, one of two things are happening. Either the environmentalists are not anticipating this, to me, obvious result, or they are anticipating it but maybe they’re looking forward to invading everyone’s home via their garage in the name of environmental quality. I really don’t give them much intellectual credit for the latter of the two, but I wanted to see what you think.

RUSH: Well, this is eye-opening call for me. Because you have dealt with this in a manner that disappoints me. Even though what you said was very intelligent and forethoughtful and so forth, it still disappoints me. The correct reaction to this story is (shouting) ‘Screw you! The hell with you and telling me when I can and can’t drive! To hell with you coming into my house, if I try to outdo your regulations. Leave me alone! My car is not destroying the planet! Shut the hell up, you demagogue, you liberal creep! I’m tired of it.’ That’s the answer to the story. The minute you start taking the details, ‘Yes, these things do pollute, and yes, they do, and what’s going to happen is, if they shut ’em down…’ Screw shutting them down! If anybody goes along with this, it’s already happening, it isn’t going to be too long before you’re not really going to have a choice of the kind of car you want to drive in this country because these asinine CAFE standards. All of this based on a hoax.

Now, I’m not against fighting pollution. We’re doing a great job of having our automobile exhaust improve, but we don’t need to be driving around lawnmowers! We don’t need to be driving around these things. When people get so compliant and accept the premise of something that is a hoax, accept the premise of something that’s false, especially when the premise is being advanced by a bunch of socialist do-gooders who want to control every aspect of your life, the reaction is (shouting), ‘Screw you and leave me alone! If you don’t want to drive a Ferrari, then don’t buy one. There aren’t that many of them out there anyway because they’re pretty expensive. The market takes care of all this. The dirty little secret in this is that one of the side benefits even referenced in the story is it will ‘promote economic equality,’ because it will prevent the rich from buying these so that the poor and the middle class don’t have to be offended by seeing them drive down the streets — and next they’re going to come for your boats and your yachts and whatever else they think it’s unfair that you have that not everybody else has.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This