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 two-fer: 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 per cent) 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 pièce de résistance 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 sceptics,’ 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 lawn mowers! 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.

RUSH: Here’s Rick in Frostburg, Maryland. I’m glad you waited, sir.

CALLER: Hi, Rush.


CALLER: Thanks for taking my call.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: I got a question or a comment to make on the dog and pony show in New York the other night. They lit that Christmas tree up. They have an 84-foot Christmas tree and make a big deal about it being a ‘green ‘tree. It’s a Christmas tree. It might be green anyway.

RUSH: Are we talking about the Rock Center tree?

CALLER: Yeah. The Rock Center tree, yeah.

RUSH: Okay.

CALLER: They make a big deal about cutting it down by hand, but they didn’t say anything about the 50-ton crane that was probably holding it up burning diesel fuel out the yin-yang. How much do you think they saved making all that noise about this being a green tree?

RUSH: This is what’s so asinine. What’s a ‘green’ tree? What, really, is a green tree? I’ve got a Global Warming Stack. In fact, you are going to be the catalyst for me getting into it, because it took a lot of carbon footprint to transport that green tree to Rockefeller Center. It took a lot of electricity to hang that green tree, to put it up. It’s going to take a lot of electricity for the lights on that green tree. So however ‘green’ the tree was has been canceled out by the massive footprint to get it there, and to make it look like a Christmas tree at the Rock Center skating rink. So let’s just go to the Global Warming Stack. I know we had these 600 reasons yesterday. It is just ridiculous! If I were you, and you believed in manmade global warming, I would be embarrassed to admit it! Let me just give you the headlines. This is from the Inquirer.net. It’s from Brazil. ‘UN: World Has Only Ten Years to Fix Climate.’ Wait a minute! It was just two weeks ago we had a story from the UN that it’s irreversible already, and six months before that we had a story it was irreversible — and in 1988, Ted Danson told us we only had ten years to fix the oceans. In 1984, Michael Oppenheimer on This Week with Brinkley said we only got 20 years so solve global warming.

Well, that was 23 years ago. It’s always ten years. It’s always, ‘We’ve only got ten years!’ Here’s another one. ‘As climate alarmists around the world head to a tropical paradise on Bali next week to…’ Oh, can I tell you how this is going to work? There is a UN conference on the environment, Kyoto and so forth, and they’re doing it in Bali. (singing) ‘Bali haiiii.’ They’re all going to fly there on their corporate jets. Now, there’s nothing wrong with that. Well, there is. They’re hypocrites! They’re going to fly there on their corporate jets. Now, wait. There is only parking space at the airport in Bali for 15 of them. So most of the private jets from around the world — from all these people that care so much about the environment — are going to have to be ferried. The term, when you fly an empty airplane, is ‘deadhead it.’ You’ll have to deadhead that plane to a nearby island where they have an airport with larger parking space. Which means if nobody is on that plane except the crew, you’ve got to deadhead over and then for as long as the conference is, keep it over there; then you gotta deadhead back to pick up your rich passenger-owner. You are burning fossil fuels, jet fuel for no reason. There’s nobody aboard. You’re not transporting anybody.

They are making a mockery of all this. They criticize all these people and their carbon footprint — and then, of course, they’ve gotta house the crews of all their planes over at the other airport, and their bodyguards and their staff and all this. Well, in this case, just the crew. So it’s an absolute joke, when they go into a place that holds 15, a parking space, a ramp big enough for 15 jets, and this island! It’s enough that it’s how far away? Oh, and the worst thing you can do on an airplane is what’s called a short cycle. That’s not the worst thing you can do, but the last thing you want to do is have a little jump that is just 30 minutes, 30 miles, or whatever, because the takeoff and the landing is a cycle, and the plane goes through pressurization and not-pressurization depending on altitude, and that puts stress on the airframe and so forth. So you like long hauls. You like coast-to-coast hauls for a cycle and so forth, and efficiency, fuel efficiency. They’re going to burn so much fuel because they’re not going to get to altitude because this jump is not that far away but still you’re going to be deadheading all these airplanes.

Something like that 75 or 80 airplanes they’re going to be deadheading to this other island. Empty! Anyway… ‘As climate alarmists around the world head to a tropical paradise next week to discuss how developed nations should pay to solve global warming, an inconvenient truth has emerged. Many countries that are part of the Kyoto protocol are going to dramatically overshoot their greenhouse gas emissions limits,’ meaning none of them are going to make the Kyoto limits that they’ve signed on to! ‘While it seems a metaphysical certitude that America’s green media will largely boycott such revelations, so as not to put a damper on the hysterical proceedings in Bali, the fact that taxpayers in countries missing these targets will end up footing the bill, also appears likely to be ignored. As reported by Bloomberg: Japan, Italy, and Spain face fines of as much as $33 billion combined for failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as promised under the Kyoto treaty.’ Do you understand what this is? The Kyoto accord from the get-go has been a fleece! Put emissions standards that are impossible from an industrialized, growing economy to meet; when they don’t meet them, fine them.

‘That makes it all better.’ But who’s paying the fine? Taxes are going to go up in Japan, Italy, and Spain to pay for this. I hope the citizens over there who are green and think they’re really helping the planet, feel good about the taxes they’re going to be paying. The UN is fleecing Western democracies and productive nations: $33 billion just from those three countries. Can you imagine what our fine would be if we were a member of Kyoto? ‘If nothing is done to combat global warming, two of Florida’s nuclear power plants, three of its prisons, and 1,362 hotels, motels, and inns will be under water by 2100, a study released on Wednesday said. In all, Florida could stand to lose $345 billion a year in projected economic activity by 2100, if nothing is done to address emissions that are viewed as the main human contribution to rising global temperatures according to the Tufts University study.’ So to put this in perspective, let me put this in perspective for you. Ninety-three years ago, Woodrow Wilson was in his first term. Woodrow Wilson, I know many of you are saying, ‘Who?’ Woodrow Wilson!

Not to mention the Soviet Union and commercial radio had yet to come into existence. One hundred years from now, 93 years from now! They have no clue what they are talking about, and the formulaic nature of perpetuating the myth and the hoax, you know, Florida has a much bigger problem right now than global warming. You know what it is? You’re all Floridians. Do you know what Florida’s biggest problem is? Not lack of water. That’s number two, and that’s only in South Florida. The biggest problem Florida has is it’s on the verge of real economic problems because of the property tax structure in this state. Our property taxes are very high, but the snowbirds — the people that live here, half the year or less — their property taxes skyrocketed, and they’re refusing to come because they can’t afford it anymore. You travel around this state, and you’ll find restaurants shuttered this time of year in the season. I had a friend in this morning who said, ‘I was down to Ft. Lauderdale. I could not believe it. Hotels were shut. I could not believe it.’ That’s property taxes. People just aren’t showing up. There was an exodus. There was an exodus from the Northeast … (interruption) What are you laughing at in there? What are you laughing at? (interruption) Mmm-hmm. (interruption) Well, the friend was in Ft. Lauderdale, too!

A friend had a dinner down there at a restaurant in Ft. Lauderdale. (My friend gets around.) At any rate, there was an exodus in the Northeast, 800 people a day moving in. That’s dried up. That’s a far more immediate concern, 100 years or 93 years from now, global warming closing all these hotels? UN: ‘Climate Change Threatens Millions of Poor People — Floods, droughts, and other climate disasters will rob millions of children of the decent meals and schools they need, unless rich nations,’ i.e., the United States, ‘pony up $86 billion by 2015 to help the poor adapt to global warming.’ This is journalistic malpractice. This is an AP story. If you want to help the poor adapt to global warming, put them on the path to becoming wealthy! Let them build cleaning plants and transition systems that help them go from being poor to wealthy, instead of making them continue to live in squalor! But, see, $86 billion from us will rob millions of children. You know what’s robbing millions of children of the decent meals and schools they need? Liberalism! Dictatorships! Socialism! People like Robert Mugabe and Hugo Chavez! That’s who’s robbing children in the world today, not the United States. ‘Study: Canadian Beer Drinkers Threaten Planet — The government-commissioned study says the old, inefficient beer refrigerators that one-in-three Canadian households use to store their beer contribute significantly to global warming by guzzling gas and coal-fired electricity.’

RUSH: Bill in Denver, I’m glad you called. Welcome to the program, sir.

CALLER: Rush, thank you very much —

RUSH: Yes.

CALLER: — and for all that you are doing against the onerous manmade global warming hoax. I’m very frustrated over the energy bill, and that the president signed it, and we seem to be losing the battle against manmade global warming hoax. I’m very frustrated about it, and I’ve had some dialogue with a NASA scientist. Dr. Spencer probably knows him, and I just wanted to share some thoughts at some point with you on that.

RUSH: Wait, wait. Hold it. I’m having trouble hearing you. Wait, wait, wait. I need read what you just said. (reading back)

CALLER: There’s a scientist, an acquaintance of mine that I’ve had an ongoing debate with over this whole global warming issue. He’s in Goddard. Here’s in Maryland, not down in Alabama, like Dr. Spencer, and he sent me an e-mail yesterday, and he said, ‘You are among a rapidly diminishing group of climate change deniers. Even President Bush has agreed for the last year or so that man is causing the climate to warm due to increasing greenhouse gases and that we need to do something about it.’

RUSH: Hang on just a second. Just a second. So the scientist you’re talking to is in the tank for the hoax? Is that what you’re saying?

CALLER: And he’s been doing it for 30 years. He’s been on ABC News This Week. He’s been on quoted in Associated Press.

RUSH: What’s the guy’s name?

CALLER: We know him because we live near each other or, you know, we have a common neighborhood.

RUSH: What is his name?

CALLER: Well, it’s Dr. Zwally, and I’m sure Dr. Spencer knows him, and he’s proud of the fact that he worked with Algore extensively and he’s been working since 1972 on it, and we’ve had an ongoing debate on this issue, and he just feels like we’re winning. He said, ‘The scientific truth, as inconvenient as it may be, is becoming more and more evident.’

RUSH: Hold it. Let’s get to your original contention, which I find interesting, that we are losing the battle against global warming legislatively. I’ve always had this fear. I think we are changing hearts and minds dramatically on the issue but legislatively? This energy bill is a classic cave to the hoax. It is a hundred percent classic cave to the hoax. What happened in Bali has been so misrepresented. Bali was a failure. Bali was the ‘last chance’ and they only agreed to future timetables? By the way, it was a victory in the sense that the United States and Canada and Australia sort of teamed up and said, ‘Look, if you’re going to keep exempting China and if you’re going to keep exempting all these other countries, screw it! We’re not going to come up with any guidelines, and we’re certainly not going to abide by them.’ I have other stories in the Global Warming Stack of stuff today. This is NewStatesman.com: ‘Has Global Warming Stopped? — ‘The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001.” There’s also a statement supposed to be coming out sometime today. Three hundred scientists of eminent repute are going to release a paper saying that manmade global warming is not true, that there is no great consensus here. It is an ongoing battle. But you’re talking to your scientist buddy. These guys are committed politically to this, and they’re frauds. When they act as though science is governing their view of this, it’s not, because it can’t be proven. It’s still a hope. It’s still a theory. It cannot survive the scientific process. That’s why they’re calling people like you ‘deniers,’ because they don’t want to really debate it with you. That’s why Gore will never run for president next year, because he would have to debate global warming and he refuses to because he can’t.


RUSH: There’s a blockbuster Senate report scheduled to be released today. It was supposed to be released this morning, and I’ve not seen that it has been, but it’s going to have or does have over 300 names of prominent scientists from over 24 countries. (That’s a couple dozen, for those of you in Rio Linda.) Just a sampling of scientists who spoke out recently, overwhelmingly the majority of them in 2007, skeptical of Gore; skeptical of the UN, or the media-driven consensus. It’s not a list. It is a detailed report with the scientists speaking in their own words with biographically information and web links to studies and original source material,’ and the purpose is it’s sort of supposed to be a ‘consensus buster’ for the idea that there’s no longer any debate about this.

Have you heard this? This continually gets wackier. The global warming news just gets wackier. Now there’s some idiot who is going to pilot a boat — he’s going to circumnavigate the whole planet on a boat — powered by fat liposuctioned from human beings! Uh, that’s right it’s called the eco boat. You can see a picture of this thing at the Drudge Report. It’s from the UK Daily Mail. No, no, no, it’s not a hoax. They have pictures of the eco boat, the pictures of the inside, the pictures of the guy. ‘The fastest eco boat on the planet will attempt to break the round the world speed record using fuel made from human fat. Pete Bethune, the New Zealand skipper of Earthrace,’ that’s the name of the eco boat, ‘said the attempt to circumnavigate the globe would begin from Valencia in Spain on March 1 next year. Bethune and his wife mortgaged their house and sold everything they own to help make the [eco boat powered by liposuctioned human fat] happen, while continuing to seek support from sponsors.’ (interruption) I don’t know where you store…? I haven’t read the whole story, and I don’t know where you gonna store it. Maybe his wife’s going to store it in her thighs and they’re going to have to liposuction her during the trip. I have no clue, Snerdley! I just do not. (interruption) What’s wrong with these people? You ask now, ‘What’s wrong with these people?’

Try this one: ‘Global Ocean Temperatures ‘Plunge.” This is from data gathered by the National Climatic Data Center. ‘In 2000, when scientists declared that the Earth’s temperature was rising, much anxiety ensued, even though the increase was only half of a degree over sixty years. In just the past year, however, the Earth’s temperature has reversed, yielding back one-half of that increase.’ How can there be global warming in temperatures the last six years are static or even down a tenth of a degree? How can there be global warming? By the way, winter isn’t even here yet! Winter officially starts a day after Open Line Friday, which is Saturday, which is December 22nd this year. ‘The past month’s global oceanic data from the National Climatic Data Center has now been released, and the Earth’s oceans surface is .2548 degrees warmer than the 1880-2007 average. That’s down from .5250 last year and .5597 roughly a decade ago.’ The ocean temperatures are plummeting! ‘There have been drops of roughly a couple tenths of a degree previously, in spite of the general warming trend.’ What warming ‘trend’? The temperatures are plummeting!

Next headline: ‘Warming Could Wipe Out Scotch — The overflow of millions of gallons of seawater, caused by global warming, could wipe out some of the most famous names in the whisky industry, scientists have warned.’ (laughter) I got a lot of people’s attention on this. To hell with Greenland melting but, boy, if something happens to scotch! Yeah, in this case it would be the Kennedys hardest hit. If the scotch industry gets wiped out, the Kennedys might have to go take out a loan. ‘Coastal distilleries producing a range of internationally famous brands such as Bowmore, Laphroaig, Talisker and Glenmorangie,’ that is good stuff. I saw a bottle the other day, a $600 bottle of something like 20-million-year-old Glenmorangie. It’s in a glass case. That’s single malt scotch, for those of you in Rio Linda. Well, beer, that’s their choice out there. So anyway, they’re worried that these coastal distilleries could be swamped with melting icebergs out there, wiping out the whole scotch industry.

The final thing in the Global Warming Stack comes from the American Thinker. A reality check on global emissions tied to the Bali hoax conference. In the seven years since the signing of Kyoto in 1997 and 2004, here’s what has happened to emissions: ‘Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%. Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%. Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.’ So, to review: emissions worldwide, up 18%; countries that signed Kyoto, up 21. Non-signers, up ten. ‘Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%,’ and we haven’t signed it! Yet Gore is out there blaming his own country when he’s over there in Bali, pointing a finger singularly at the United States of America for being the world’s greatest polluter! Our emissions are up 6.6%; the world’s are up 18%, and the stupid countries that signed the stupid protocol, their emissions are up 21%.


RUSH: People are asking me the name of that boat, the eco boat that’s going to travel the world powered by liposuction to human fat. The name of the boat is ‘Rosie.’

RUSH: Cory in Richland, Washington, welcome to the EIB Network, Sir. Hello.

CALLER: Hello. Hey, Rush, how’s it going?

RUSH: Good.

CALLER: A couple things, actually. First one was with the new emissions tax down in California.

RUSH: Yeah, I know all about it. I’m the host.

CALLER: Well, they claim that the people that it’s going to hurt is the rich people or whoever can go out and buy the big gas guzzler and whatnot, and they’re the ones who are gonna end up paying that tax. So what about the poor people who can’t afford to upgrade to the new ultralow-emissions vehicles? Seems to me that they are the ones who would suffer more from that tax.

RUSH: Your instincts are right on the money. Any time these liberals come along with tax increases that are designed to punish the upper tier, they end up hurting the little guy, big time. By the way, California is working on its own emissions increase in the cost to register a car and gasoline taxes. Los Angeles is working on its own adjunct to this. (sigh) All under the premise of a hoax. I got a Global Warming Stack. You know what? I need to get into this Global Warming Stack here because there is some fascinating stuff in this. I’ve been stockpiling it here for two days. First, there is a… You know, one of the things that I have attempted to shout from the mountaintops as often as I can is something I heard Michael Crichton say, and it’s true. ‘There can be no consensus in science.’ Science does not allow consensus. You don’t take a vote on what your scientific proposition is, and whatever the majority thinks ends up being called science. Global warming, the consensus of science? They essentially refute their own conclusion when they use the word ‘consensus’ — and here we have in The Australian, which is a newspaper: ”Good Science Isn’t About Consensus’ — Australia is faced, over the next generation at least and almost certainly much longer, with two environmental problems of great significance.

‘They are, first, how to manage water and, second, how to find acceptable alternatives to oil-based energy. Global warming is not one of those two issues, at least for me, and I see it as a distraction…’ This alternatives-to-oil thing, this is going to drive me insane, this alternatives to oil. If people would just stop and think for a moment, there aren’t any! The private sector is indeed working on them. (sigh) Sorry, I don’t want to go through the whole thing because of limited time here, but I’ve got a brilliant monologue on this in the archives at RushLimbaugh.com. From the French News Agency: ‘Climate change will increase the risk of people losing their sight through cataracts because of higher levels of ultraviolet rays, an expert said Monday. ‘The three main risk factors that lead to cataract blindness are age, smoking and UV exposure, in that order,’ said Andreas Mueller of the Fred Hollows Foundation.’ Climate change. Increased cataract blindness, experts.

Here’s another brilliant story. This is from NewScientist.com: ‘Apart from the human devastation, a small-scale nuclear war between India and Pakistan would destroy much of the ozone layer, leaving the DNA of humans and other organisms at risk of damage from the sun’s rays, say researchers.’ No kidding! Nuclear war would be bad for the environment, too, eh? Who would have thunk that?

Here’s the big news, though: ‘Global temperatures have not risen since 1998.’ That is ten years ago. ‘Global temperatures in fact will drop…’ This is the BBC to boot: ‘Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said. The World Meteorological Organization’s secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer. This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.’ La Nina, El Nino, these are the things that can affect global temperatures, not even sure of the models.

The Daily Mail had the same story: ‘The world will experience global cooling this year, according a leading climate scientist,’ same guy at the World Meteorological Organization.

The New York Times on April 6: ”A Shift in the Debate Over Global Warming’ — The charged and complex debate over how to slow down global warming has become a lot more complicated. Most of the focus in the last few years has centered on imposing caps on greenhouse gas emissions to prod energy users to conserve or switch to nonpolluting technologies. Leaders of the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change — the [frauds] awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year with former [Algore] — have emphasized that market-based approach.’ There’s nothing market-based about this approach! Governments are demanding it! What is market-based approach? There’s nothing market-based about this. Imposing caps on greenhouse gas emissions? Who’s doing the imposing? Governments are! You can’t call this market-based. Anyway, ‘All three presidential candidates are behind it.’ Yeah, we know. ‘And it has framed international talks over a new climate treaty and debate within the United States over climate legislation. But now, with recent data showing an unexpected rise in global emissions and a decline in energy efficiency, a growing chorus of economists, scientists and students…’ Students! Yes, my friends, even students are weighing in here, being allowed to make policy. ‘[S]tudents of energy policy are saying that whatever benefits the cap approach yields, it will be too little and come too late.’ (sigh) You see? There’s nothing we can do. We’re destroying the planet, and it’s almost over.

‘Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley recently warned that failure to take action on global warming could mean the extinction of the human race.’ You know, the claims of these nuts just get wilder by the day. The whole East Coast now is going to disappear. St. Louis will be the East Coast, and we’re going to be cannibals, and we’re going to eat ourselves to extinction — all because of global warming.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This