RUSH: You ought to see some of the stories in the Stack. There is a story about… Get this. Now, keep in mind as I go through these that climate change exists in only one place: Computer models.
Climate change exists in predictions based on computer modeling alone. There is no data, there is no evidence. It used to be freezing. Then it was global warming. Now it’s “climate change” so that any apparently abnormal weather event can be attributed to climate change. Be it a tornado, be it a two-inch rainstorm, even a hailstorm that damages a jetliner can be blamed on climate change. Yes!
So how it works — and they’ve done that with these climate change-prediction models and a “consensus of scientists” — consensus of scientists, but not all. Because there are many scientists who do not believe what the so-called consensus says. But the consensus of scientists. Here’s the headline from the New York Times: “29 US Scientists Praise Iran Nuclear Deal in Letter to Obama — Twenty-nine of the nation’s top scientists — including Nobel laureates, veteran makers of nuclear arms and former White House science advisers — wrote to President Obama on Saturday to praise the Iran deal, calling it innovative and stringent.”
So I guess now it’s gonna be settled science. Twenty-nine scientists praise the nuclear deal? What’s that say about Chuck Schumer? Speaking of whom, you know, I was wrong about this. I didn’t comment on this, wisely, when I heard that Schumer was gonna vote against it. My instinctive reaction was, “That must mean they have the votes to pass it on the Democrat side, giving him cover to stay unified with his constituency,” but that’s not right.
He did more.
He did more than vote against it.
He spelled out three reasons why, and he is urging others to join him in this. What happens to him? I mean, these 29 US scientists praising the nuclear deal! Who cares? Scientists, and only 29? I mean, do you know how many scientists support climate change? By the way, from this New York Times story near the bottom, get this: “In a technical judgment that seemed more ominous than some other assessments of TehranÂ’s nuclear capability, the letter says that Iran, before curbing its nuclear program during the long negotiations, was ‘only a few weeks’ away from having fuel for nuclear weapons.”
So, according to the New York Times, these 29 scientists knew this minor detail, that Iran was only a few weeks away, but Obama’s team didn’t? But, sure! Let’s trust Iran with an agreement where there’s no real verification. They were weeks away and we’re gonna trust ’em with a deal that there is no verification? And this headline: “Coca-Cola Funds Scientists Who Shift Blame for Obesity Away From Bad Diets.” This is also the New York Times.
“Coca-Cola, the worldÂ’s largest producer of sugary beverages, is backing a new ‘science-based’ solution to the obesity crisis: To maintain a healthy weight, get more exercise and worry less about cutting calories.” All of a sudden scientists aren’t so good, because the New York Times has found a bunch of scientists that Coca-Cola ostensibly is paying to say that sugary drinks have nothing to do with obesity. But wait!
If Coca-Cola can find scientists and get an opinion that they want from by paying them, do you think the same thing could happen to climate change scientists and a “consensus” of them? Do you think somebody could come along and offer those scientists enough money? I mean, the left, if anybody’s paying attention, is writing their own obituary in this stuff.
They’re undermining the whole notion of a scientific consensus. Now it can be bought and paid for by Coca-Cola. Now over here, it’s only 29 who knew more than Obama knew about Iran’s capability and their being only weeks away from having nuclear fuel. And, meanwhile, everybody’s up in arms about…? I don’t even know! About what now? I’ve forgotten.
RUSH: So the New York Times inadvertently admits that scientists can be bought. The New York Times inadvertently tells us that scientists can be corrupt. Yeah. When Coca-Cola wants scientists to say that their drinks do not contribute to people being fat, there are scientists that’ll take the money and say it. Well, could there be scientists who would take the money and say what say ever Algore wants them to say? There’s another story in the Stack.
Do you know that climate change has become an industry? It is a $1.5 trillion industry. This is from an insurance website. They know this because all of these various industries have to buy insurance policies and the value of these policies is $1.5 trillion. “Interest in climate change is becoming an increasingly powerful economic driver, so much so that some see it as an industry in itself whose growth is driven in large part by policymaking. The $1.5 trillion global ‘climate change industry’ grew at between 17 and 24% annually from 2005-2008,” and there are more details on this coming later.
RUSH: You know, there are a couple/three things I mentioned today that I think on a normal day would be really, really important and I mentioned them but kind of in passing. I may hold them over and get back to ’em tomorrow. This business about the New York Times and their story on scientists today (Coca-Cola buying some scientists to say what Coke wants said) and 29 scientists have signed on to Obama’s nuclear deal.
The New York Times has pretty much inadvertently undermined the whole notion of scientists alone as enough to offer credibility, particularly on climate change. But the second story that’s big is this discovery from the InsuranceJournal.com website that climate change is now its own industry, a $1.5 trillion industry. You might say, “Well, what’s the industry? What’s the business about it?” One thing most…
I don’t know what you’d say. One of the areas of climate change that’s got the most money circulating in it is consultancy, people that consult businesses and others on how to be compliant, on how to escape any kind of sanction or what have you. The entire climate change market has a “consulting market,” I’m reading here from the report, “which a recent report by the journal estimates at $1.9 billion worldwide and $890 million in the US” alone.”
Because there is a huge consultancy aspect in climate change, it means that most of it is related to policy making. What that means is the whole thing is a trumped-up mechanism by which people can store dollars. It has nothing to do with actual science. It has nothing to do with what is actually happening. It is a trumped-up, money-making scheme disguised as an environmental crisis. And there is big money to be had from the government if a business signs on and “goes green.”
There are grants, there are waivers from tax policy, there are all kinds of favorable things that can happen to you if you get on board the whole idea of man-made global warming. In other words, government mandates and policies are what drive the entire climate change industry. Now, I would venture to say that the vast majority of rank-and-file everyday Americans believe that this is an issue because it is really an issue, and it’s really dangerous, and it has really a lot of bad things that could happen.
All this talk about rising sea levels and all this talk about the dead polar bears, and all of this talk about violent extreme weather is all just fodder to facilitate public support by which policy making is implemented and money can be allocated to it in the federal budget (from which then smart players can get their hands on some of it). But it’s an even more intricately woven web of deceit than even that.
But really all you need to know — and then things descend from there — is that climate change is its own industry now. It’s its own business. It has its own cronyism, corporate-government cronyism and so forth. So on a normal day, I would have spent significant time on it. But I’m gonna hold it over for the next time it is relevant.