Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: Liz Ann, White Plains, New York. Great to have you. How are you?

CALLER: I’m great. What an honor to speak with you, Mr. Limbaugh.

RUSH: Thank you.

CALLER: You’ve just made my whole day.

RUSH: How so?

CALLER: Oh, gosh. My 50th birthday a couple years ago. You were my dream gift come true, so I’m getting it today.

RUSH: Wow. Well, I appreciate that more than you know. Thank you.

CALLER: I was calling in regards to the climate change article in the New York Times.

RUSH: Oh, yeah.

CALLER: I believe that they were trying to help Algore and his failing movie.

RUSH: Well, that’s probably part of it, but this thing was so massive. I mean, it was groundbreaking. It’s happening now. It’s not 10 or 15, 20 years, 30 down the road. It’s happening now. I think there’s a degree of panic in this. Because the polling data shows people don’t care. They’re worn out on it. Trump has pulled us out of Paris accords. It’s more leaks from the government. I think you’ve got a point. Gore’s movie finished number 15 last weekend —

CALLER: Correct.

RUSH: — opening weekend, number 15, and Gore fans are saying that the movie studio sabotaged their own movie.

CALLER: Well, his data is totally inaccurate, but anything to help him and his carbon tax and finances.

RUSH: Well, you know, Gore’s first movie, it won an Oscar, and it had all these Hollywood sycophants on stage with Gore, like Leonardo DiCaprio. There was much less buzz about the sequel movie. The first one, man, it was associated with a book, it had a bunch of pre-publicity with photos that teachers were using in schools. They really hyped it.

This second movie was hyped some, but it was mostly a CNN town hall, which of course CNN, nobody saw it. It just did not have the buzz even though Gore was trying to panic everybody with fish swimming in the streets in Miami. So you may have a point because Gore’s movie doing so poorly at the box office is news. I mean, it tells the average low-information voter that the American viewing public is not interested. That cannot stand.


RUSH: Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut. Breaking news here, folks. The New York Times has run a major scam, and I admit that I fell for it because I didn’t know something. The alert that they sent to everybody last night breathlessly, shocking new report from the administration, the National Climate Assessment required every four years by Congress, a new report with massive new information never before seen, that we are already suffering the effects of climate change.

And the New York Times says that the concern among scientists in the administration is that Donald Trump is going to suppress it. Guess what? That climate assessment report has been public for weeks. The New York Times fell for or participated in a giant act of misdirection and deception. The New York Times made up not the news in the assessment, but they made up the fact that it hasn’t been released and that Trump will suppress it.

It’s been available for months online. Scientists have not been worried about it being suppressed by the White House because they can’t suppress it because you can see it online. We discovered this because several scientists who helped write the report are calling out the New York Times for inaccurately claiming their findings are not public.

This was a two-pronged report. Their breathless, breaking news report last night alerting their readers that a shocking detailed story was coming the next day, meaning today. That the Trump administration was going to suppress a major new climate change report that contained shocking information that climate change is already happening. It’s happening even as we speak right now and that every scientist in this report is worried that Trump is gonna suppress it, and it’s been online for months.

Fake news, ladies and gentlemen. This is why there is fake news. And it turns out that Fox News has a story on this. “Scientists Call Out New York Times for Incorrect Claim About Climate Report.” At the very least, this is what happened. The New York Times was unaware that this report had been released, and they got a leak, one of their reporters, Sarah Friedman I think is her name, somebody from the climate change scientific community calls her and tells her that there’s this major new report and it’s devastating, and the Trump administration is likely to suppress it. And they ran with it.

If that’s the case, they got snookered by some leakers attempting to shape and form the news to be damaging to Trump. That’s at the least. At worst, they knew all of this and still made it up. I can see both scenarios being true. I can see the New York Times knowing full well this thing’s already out there and deciding to run this story anyway, because once the story’s out the first time, the first way they put it out there, that’s how people are gonna remember it. And it’s at Fox News, on their website, that the New York Times story is being corrected.

Will the New York Times run a correction and correct themselves and say, “Guess what? The story we said might be suppressed, it’s already out there, and you can read it online months ago if you wanted to.” Will they do that?

Now, about Al’s movie, the theory that this New York Times story was to help Gore’s movie. Remember the first Algore movie, Inconvenient Lie, whatever it was. That movie was — I’ll never forget this — forced on students at practically every middle and high school in America. That movie was given away to the schools. The schools were almost required — In fact, I remember parents who didn’t want their kids have to sit through it were chastised by school districts and principals and so forth almost to the point their kids were forced to watch this. It didn’t matter whether Algore’s movie did well in the theaters or not.

Now, this next movie, this inconvenient sequel, whatever it is, don’t be surprised with this box office bomb that they try the same with this movie. Get it in the schools, force it down the throats of young kids. And this New York Times story? This is the kind of thing that could end up in Mueller’s report, that Trump suppressed a climate change —

Because, remember, as Andy McCarthy said, the Mueller special counsel investigation is probably the first step in Trump impeachment and will contain things like this in it: The Trump administration willfully suppressed a report on climate change that was diametrically opposed to the administration position — blah, blah, blah, blah. There’s all kinds of reasons, but the point is the New York Times would have done something like this. But this is classic, folks. They have been caught. It is major, big time fake news. Not the substance of the report, but their characterization of it.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This