{"id":24775,"date":"2007-02-28T01:01:01","date_gmt":"2011-05-19T05:55:11","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2011-05-19T05:55:11","modified_gmt":"2011-05-19T05:55:11","slug":"facts_science_smash_the_global_warming_myth2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/28\/facts_science_smash_the_global_warming_myth2\/","title":{"rendered":"Facts, Science Smash the Global Warming Myth"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

RUSH: We had a call yesterday. The last call of the day was from a guy calling himself ‘Roy,\u2019 and he wanted to talk about the whole global warming controversy. What a great Global Warming Stack we have today, too. (Laughing.) Let me just give you a little heads-up<\/a>. ‘Climate Panel Recommends Global Temperature Ceiling, Carbon Tax.\u2019 Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah. I told you all of this is coming. What kind of arrogance <\/emphasize>is this? ‘A panel of scientists has presented the United Nations a detailed plan for combating climate change. [Voice of America]\u2019s correspondent at the U.N. Peter Heinlein reports the strategy involves reaching a global agreement on a temperature ceiling.&rdquo; Which means that these scientists are going to tell the weather how hot it can get. That has to be what a global temperature ceiling is, as though we have any way of controlling this. <\/p>\n

Oh, by the way, I had a lot of people thanking me for my detailed explanation yesterday<\/a> of the Algore hypocrisy — and Schwarzenegger, too, registering his jet with some carbon registry — and explaining these carbon offsets. One of the best ways to explain it to people I think is to say, &ldquo;I have concocted the Algore Gore diet. It\u2019s a variation of the old Marie Antoinette diet.&rdquo; Basically, Dawn, let\u2019s say that you and I live together, all right? Hypothetically here. And you tell me that you think I need to go on a diet. ‘Okay, I totally agree. I\u2019m going to go on a diet. We\u2019re going to do the Algore diet, which is I eat whatever I want, and you starve. That way, I eat what you would normally be eating, and I call it a diet.\u2019 It\u2019s also known as the Marie Antoinette diet. At any rate, lots more coming up in the Global Warming Stack today. Did you get a hold of Roy, Mr. Snerdley? Is he ready for one o\u2019clock? <\/p>\n

The last caller of the day yesterday was Roy Spencer, who is a highly acclaimed climatologist who used to work for NASA. I am really looking forward to talking to him. If you didn\u2019t hear his call yesterday, we only had about a couple minutes with him. I asked him for permission to get back to him, and he gratefully granted us that. His theory, among many… I\u2019ve now done Wikipedia searches, Google searches on Mr. Spencer. He\u2019s truly a brilliant man. He started talking yesterday that the one thing that nobody can factor in when it comes to global warming, the effect on global warming and the temperature on the earth, is precipitation. He\u2019s made a career of studying this. He also is not a global warming advocate. He thinks it\u2019s basically a hyped crisis. He also, for example, used to believe in evolution and has become an ardent believer of intelligent design combined with evolutionary things, because evolution does take place, but it doesn\u2019t explain Creation. <\/emphasize>Obviously, it can\u2019t. I\u2019m just giving you a heads-up on who he is. He also said precipitation and clouds have been a great factor. <\/p>\n

But the whole point — as I have astutely, instinctively pointed out over many, many broadcasts on this program — is the climate of the earth is so, so complex that we may not even be able to as human beings to craft computer models that can factor in all the variables and come up with anything that\u2019s reasonable which results in scientists having to make guesses — and why do they make guesses? They make guesses because they get funded to make guesses. It\u2019s all politics. There are scientists who have, in the manufacture of semiconductors, studied atmospherics in a closed environment which limits the complexity of the variables — and even those model predictions are wrong, and those are tiny compared to climate models. Anyway, we\u2019ll talk with him in great detail at the top of the next hour. I\u2019m really looking forward to it. <\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: It\u2019s time to move on to the latest in global warming. We had a caller in the last segment of the program yesterday identifying himself as ‘Roy.\u2019 We asked if we could get back to him today. He\u2019s on hold, and we\u2019ll be getting to him here in mere moments. I just want to introduce him. His name is Roy Spencer, and he is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama at Huntsville. He served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA\u2019s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville. He\u2019s the recipient of NASA\u2019s medal for exceptional scientific achievement, principally known (I\u2019m reading here from Wikipedia. Sometimes there are errors there, so he can correct this) for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society Special Award. He is also a vocal supporter of intelligent design and denies the predominant scientific view that human activity is responsible for global warming. You are Dr. Spencer. You should have identified yourself that way. Welcome to the program, Roy.<\/p>\n

DR. SPENCER: Hey, Rush. Well, nobody calls me doctor.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Well, I\u2019m honored to call you doctor. Does Wikipedia have it right here?<\/p>\n

DR. SPENCER: Yeah. Yeah. I\u2019ve always been scared of going to Wikipedia to read about myself, because, you know, people can put in some bad stuff in there if they don\u2019t like you. So I just stay away from it.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Well, everything here is good. The only thing I noticed is you\u2019ve been awarded something from the American Meteorological Society, a special award, and there is a climatologist at the Weather Channel who thinks people like you should be decertified.<\/p>\n

DR. SPENCER: Oh, yeah, that\u2019s right. <\/p>\n

RUSH: Heidi Cullen.<\/p>\n

DR. SPENCER: I guess that\u2019s what happens when meteorologists get tied too closely to the media.<\/p>\n

RUSH: You called yesterday and you wanted to say that my instincts on this global warming as you\u2019ve heard me discuss them, are accurate. You started a discussion of the calculations here, these climate models, saying that they do not factor — because it\u2019s not easy to do or maybe it\u2019s not even possible to factor — in the role of precipitation and clouds. Could you start there, and basically whatever you were going to say yesterday, go ahead and launch.<\/p>\n

DR. SPENCER: Well, I feel like — and there are a few of us that are like this — that the Earth has a natural air-conditioning process which occurs that is mainly through precipitation systems. Now, people will think, ‘Oh, well, you mean when they come by they cool off the air,&rdquo; and that\u2019s not what I\u2019m talking about. It\u2019s about the Earth\u2019s natural greenhouse effect which is mostly water vapor and clouds. The Earth has a natural greenhouse effect that keeps the surface of the Earth warm.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Isn\u2019t it true that the majority of greenhouse gases do come from the sources you just mentioned, not manmade sources?<\/p>\n

DR. SPENCER: Well, yeah, that\u2019s true. Carbon dioxide is a relatively small part of the Earth\u2019s natural greenhouse effect. Now, the party line on this whole thing is that what we\u2019re doing is, with the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we\u2019re enhancing the greenhouse effect, and by now it\u2019s like about 1%. And since we\u2019re changing what\u2019s called the radiation budget of the Earth — you know, like how much sunlight comes in and how much infrared radiation goes back out to space, since we\u2019re changing the radiation budget of the Earth — the temperature has to change. This is the way you\u2019ll hear scientists explain the greenhouse effect. From a simple physics standpoint, it\u2019s a very attractive way of looking at climate change. There\u2019s a big problem with it, though. It makes it sound like the greenhouse effect is what determines the temperature of the Earth, and actually the truth is it\u2019s more the other way around. Given a certain amount of sunlight coming in, that is mostly absorbed at the surface of the Earth, weather processes happen which create the greenhouse effect because most of the greenhouse effect is from evaporated water which then turns into clouds, and of course water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas.<\/p>\n

RUSH: I dare say I have to interrupt you at this point because most people who only pay attention to the crisis mongers, believe that there is no greenhouse effect other than that created by man. The whole notion of the greenhouse effect has led people to believe that man has totally manufactured this and that it\u2019s totally harmful. What you\u2019re saying is it\u2019s a natural thing that helps keep the Earth\u2019s temperatures moderate?<\/p>\n

DR. SPENCER: Yeah, that\u2019s right. That\u2019s right. All the scientists agree with that. What you\u2019re talking about is the fact that the media distorts things so much that people don\u2019t get the right information. If you\u2019re using the media to rely on to get the science about this issue, you won\u2019t.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Well, but the media is only relying on the scientists that they want to believe, and that to me is evidence of the political agenda that\u2019s attached to this. Let me get your reaction to this. There\u2019s a story that ran on the Reuters wire<\/a> today — and I want your reaction as an awarded climate scientist from the University of Alabama at Huntsville and NASA — declaring the global warming debate over. ‘An international team of scientists urged the world\u2019s nation on Tuesday to act now to keep climate change from becoming a catastrophe.&rdquo; Companion story: &ldquo;Panel of scientists has presented the UN a detailed plan for combating climate change. The VOA correspondent reports the strategy involves reaching a global agreement on a temperature ceiling.&rdquo; Now, how in the hell do we do that? How do we tell the world we\u2019re only going to allow it to reach a certain high temperature and then the global warming debate\u2019s over? What does that do to you as a scientist who doesn\u2019t buy into it?<\/p>\n

DR. SPENCER: Well, yeah, that is a problem for people that really worry that we need to do something now because if we decide that all we\u2019re going to do now is policy, then we don\u2019t need to support the science anymore. But what I\u2019d like to emphasize is sort of the bottom line of this whole debate — and it\u2019s sort of what you\u2019ve talked about — which is, it all depends on how fragile you think the climate system is. The people that have built the climate models that predict global warming believe they have sufficient physics in those models to predict the future. I believe they don\u2019t. I believe the climate system, the weather as it is today in the real world shows a stability that they do not yet have in those climate models. Those climate models have a history of drifting. It took them a lot of years before they kept them from drifting too warm or too cold over time. That tells you it doesn\u2019t have the stabilization processes.<\/p>\n

The point I wanted to make about precipitation was that it\u2019s precipitation systems that condition the rest of the air on the Earth. All of the air on the Earth is being slowly cycled through precipitation systems, which then gives that air its moisture characteristics. So when you\u2019re out on a beautiful sunny day golfing with not a cloud in the sky, you can thank a precipitation system somewhere for the weather you\u2019re having. In other words, they control the weather everywhere including the weather over the dessert where you don\u2019t have any rain. Precipitation systems control everything, and I think that they have a stabilizing effect. I\u2019m not the only one that has this theory. There\u2019s a few other scientists, too, that have written on it. I think that\u2019s where the answer is in terms of climate sensitivity and whether we have much of an impact on it at all or not.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Now, if you\u2019re right, I look at the ten-day, 15-day forecasts that you get from various weather sites, AccuWeather, the various weather services. They\u2019re not going to go much longer than three to five days on precipitation forecasts because they can\u2019t. If your theory is correct, the whole notion of predicting global warming 30 to 50 or even a hundred years out cannot possibly be done because predicting precipitation cannot be done on that scale.<\/p>\n

DR. SPENCER: Here\u2019s where you have to be careful, Rush. The forecasting of weather is called ‘an initial value problem.\u2019 You measure the atmosphere today, what it\u2019s doing, and you sort of extrapolate out in time with equations, of course. That\u2019s only good five or ten days out. For global warming forecasting, those models, what you\u2019re doing is sort of changing the rules by which the atmosphere operates. You\u2019re changing the greenhouse, one of the minor greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and trying to figure out how it\u2019s going to change average weather over a long period of time. So climate forecasting and weather forecasting are sort of two different things.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Okay. I\u2019m talking with Roy Spencer here from the University of Alabama at Huntsville, a former NASA scientist. Can you hang on through the break for a couple more questions?<\/p>\n

DR. SPENCER : Sure.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Before we go to the break, let me just ask. Is there catastrophic manmade global warming occurring?<\/p>\n

DR. SPENCER : Well, I certainly don\u2019t believe so.<\/p>\n

RUSH: All right. We\u2019ll take a brief break and discuss that in detail when we come back. Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama at Huntsville with us. <\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: Hi. Welcome back, folks. We\u2019re talking with Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama at Huntsville, also a former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville and a skeptic on the concept of manmade global warming. Roy, in trying to learn about you last night, I came across a piece in a blog that I like called the American Thinker<\/a> written by Jerome J. Schmitt who is president of NanoEngineering corporation, and he has worked in the process equipment and instrument engineering industries for 25 years. He mentions you and your work on precipitation, your theories on precipitation as it relates to limiting the properties of precipitation systems and how they change with warming and so forth. Let me just tell you basically what his theory is here, or what his point is. He says that to model the climate of the Earth is so complex as to be practically impossible. He talks about how the semiconductor manufacturing business works, that they also try to control precipitation in a closed atmosphere within a vessel during the manufacturing process, and as such, they\u2019re very similar to climate models except that all the variables are controlled because they can be: it\u2019s a much smaller universe. The number of variables is way, way smaller, but even then, these models that use atmospherics to manufacture semiconductors are not reliable because they have so many limits.<\/line> <\/line><\/a>He goes on to describe some of the things, factors that have to be included in a computer model of climate change — and this by no means scratches the surface. He mentions things like solar flux and gravity and pressure, temperature, density, humidity, the rotation of the Earth, the currents in the ocean like the Gulf Stream, greenhouse gases, CO2 dissolved in the oceans. His basic point is this. He quotes you as writing that ?the role of precipitation is not fully accounted for in global warming models, and unless we know how greenhouse limiting properties of precipitation systems change with warming, we don\u2019t know how much of our current warmth is due to mankind, and we can\u2019t estimate how much future warming there will be, either.? Of course it was only back in the seventies that everybody, TIME<\/a> Magazine, Newsweek, was warning us about global cooling<\/a> and the coming of a new ice age. So people are confused about this but they\u2019re being scared to death. Kids are being told that they\u2019re destroying the animals; their parents are not doing enough, and they\u2019re having trouble sleeping at night! I know you look at this on a scientific basis, but how does all this impact you as a human being in addition to being a scientist?<\/line><\/p>\n

<\/a>DR. SPENCER: Well, it does bother me that so many people are worried about it, and I wish more meteorologists, atmospheric science types that really do have major reservations about how serious global warming is going to be, I wish they would speak up. The trouble is scientists are human, too, and there\u2019s this groupthink amongst climate scientists that global warming has created careers. It brings in money.<\/p>\n

RUSH: That\u2019s the key.<\/p>\n

DR. SPENCER: Well, that\u2019s part of it. Let me give you an example of the bias. Scientists have no way to be totally impartial, and let me give you an example of the bias. You\u2019ve probably heard the phrase that the Earth\u2019s greenhouse effect keeps the Earth habitably warm. Have you ever heard that?<\/p>\n

RUSH: Yes.<\/p>\n

DR. SPENCER: Okay. In fact this is one of the very first things that was figured out about the climate system back in the 1960s, so I\u2019m not making this up. It turns out that there\u2019s a actually a more accurate phrase than that related to the greenhouse effect, and that\u2019s that weather systems help keep the Earth habitably cool <\/emphasize>because they short-circuit 60% of the greenhouse effect warming that the greenhouse effect is trying to make on the surface of the Earth. If it weren\u2019t for the cooling effects of weather, the average surface temperature over the whole Earth would be about 140 degrees Fahrenheit.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Wow.<\/p>\n

DR. SPENCER: So, now, why is it that we only hear about the greenhouse effect and how it keeps the Earth habitably warm?<\/p>\n

RUSH: Because the United States is being blamed for this. The people of the United States are being blamed so they\u2019ll be taxed.<\/p>\n

DR. SPENCER: Yeah, but we never hear the fact that\u2019s more quantitatively accurate, that weather systems actually keep the Earth habitably cool. It\u2019s an inherent bias in the way people think, including climate scientists.<\/p>\n

RUSH: About science, Michael Crichton<\/a> once wrote that any time you see the word ‘consensus\u2019 associated with science that there cannot possibly be science, and his point is that we have all these UN scientists and others who are getting funding from various nations and institutions to do their work, and, of course, they produce results favorable to that desired by those who are making the grants. Then you have scientists like yourself who don\u2019t buy into it at all, but yet we\u2019re told ‘a consensus of the world\u2019s scientists believe X.\u2019 That doesn\u2019t make it science, correct? There is not science here that has confirmed any of this.<\/p>\n

DR. SPENCER: Well, that\u2019s absolutely true. Scientific truth isn\u2019t determined by a vote. You\u2019re reminding me of two Australian medical researchers who, for ten years, had to put up with ridicule over their theory that there was a bacterial basis for stomach ulcers. Bback then they were known as nitwits, and now they\u2019re known as Nobel Prize winners in 2005. So there\u2019s an example.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Let me ask you about this. Again this is from Jerry Schmitt\u2019s piece in the American Thinker<\/a>. This I didn\u2019t know. You ever heard of somebody named Vannevar Bush?<\/p>\n

DR. SPENCER: No.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Well, he writes, ‘Vannevar Bush\u2019s seminal 1944 policy paper<\/a> unleashed the Federal government\u2019s unprecedented post-war investment in R&amp;D in the hard sciences and engineering. Science was seen as the way to avoid (or at least win) another catastrophic war.&rdquo; Apparently the federal government getting involved in funding science research and development for the purposes of winning and not losing a war led to the whole concept here of governments funding various projects that they like. When you mentioned the money of many of these global warming scaremongers, I just wondered if that was not the origin of this. But since you\u2019ve not heard of this man I\u2019ll leave that for another time.<\/p>\n

DR. SPENCER: Well, from a scientific standpoint I have to admit that global warming is a legitimate area of study. I mean, I could be totally wrong. I don\u2019t think I am, and I understand why some scientists are really concerned. But like I told you earlier and what you\u2019ve said before, it comes down to how much faith you have that you know enough about the physics to be able to model it accurately. Like you said, the problem is with models.<\/p>\n

RUSH: You used the word ‘faith,\u2019 and it\u2019s a religion with these people. It has replaced a religion to so many people. &ldquo;We\u2019re destroying the planet. We\u2019ve gotta do something about it. It\u2019s our fault.&rdquo; The parallels to this belief system and so many others which require faith are incredible. But the whole thing about this that is disturbing to me. You could be wrong, you say. They <\/emphasize>could be wrong, but they won\u2019t admit that they could be wrong. They have this knocked down, and they\u2019re using 150 years of research, Roy, when we cannot study… Well, we do know. We do know there have been ice ages without manmade input to global warming. We know there\u2019s been warming and cooling as natural cycles of the Earth. The presumptuousness and the arrogance of people today who think that we, human beings, in the twenty-first century are destroying the planet is something that offends my sensibilities. The vanity that these people have to think we have that kind of power over this massively complex creation is one of the things that I just instinctively use to disbelieve them.<\/p>\n

DR. SPENCER: Yeah. I can understand that.<\/p>\n

RUSH: All right. I know you don\u2019t want to talk about it because that\u2019s not in the area of science.<\/p>\n

DR. SPENCER: (Laughing.) Well, there\u2019s a lot more faith involved in science than people realize.<\/p>\n

RUSH: I appreciate that. Look, I really appreciate you letting us get back to you. This has been a tremendous opportunity for me to talk to you. I\u2019m glad you called yesterday.<\/p>\n

DR. SPENCER: Well, thanks. And we also made a special page for you. I have a weather website, and if you Google EIB Southern Command Weather<\/a>, you\u2019ll find your weather page.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Thank you. We\u2019ll find it!<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: Would it be accurate to say the left hates preventive war? They hate preemptive war, right? We shouldn\u2019t have gone into Iraq. Iraq was a preemptive war based on the actions of 9\/11. We weren\u2019t going to take any chances anymore that similar things would happen. We\u2019re going to go wherever it might be possible that a future attack could be launched. We had the stories of weapons of mass destruction and so forth. We don\u2019t need preemptive wars! We don\u2019t do preemptive wars! We\u2019re supposed to wait around \u2019til we get attacked and then we\u2019ll go into action. But isn\u2019t the left\u2019s attack on global warming preemptive?<\/p>\n

As we just heard from Roy Spencer. He is a scientist who does not believe in the whole crisis of manmade global warming. There are others like him all over the place. There is not scientific agreement on this. So given that, why declare preemptive war<\/emphasize> on the climate, I would ask those of you on the left. You want to go out there and declare preemptive war on the climate when global warming hasn\u2019t attacked anybody. Wouldn\u2019t it be more consistent of you people to say, let the inspectors — the climate scientists — go out and do their jobs before we go off half cocked here and start raising everybody\u2019s taxes and blaming everybody and scaring the children of the world half to death over the deaths of the polar bears and so forth? It seems to me you people out there can\u2019t wait <\/emphasize>to declare preemptive war on the climate, and what you\u2019re actually doing is declaring preemptive war on the American people. A little thought that I wanted to throw out there. <\/p>\n

(story<\/a>) &ldquo;Declaring the global warming debate over, an international team of scientists urged the world\u2019s nations on Tuesday to act now to keep climate change from becoming a catastrophe. &hellip; John Holdren, a professor of environmental policy at Harvard University and member of the scientific panel that crafted the report, &lsquo;We make the argument that it is essential that we get started now: not next year, not next decade, but now.” Haven\u2019t we gotten started? We have gotten started. We\u2019ve been getting started for 20 years. All of the discussion of alternative fuels and these hybrid automobiles and the carbon offsets. By the way, they continue to discover new species<\/a> that nobody knew existed in various parts of the world, all the while we\u2019re supposed to be wiping them out with global warming. Another story<\/a> is that to head off the worst of climate change, &ldquo;Governments must pour tens of billions of dollars more than they are into clean energy research and enforce sharp rollback\u2019s in fossil fuel emissions if the world is to head off the worst of climate change, an expert scientific panel told the United Nations on Tuesday.&rdquo;<\/p>\n

Of course, raise taxes! Just like Frontline<\/a> magazine in India said yesterday, &ldquo;If the rest of the world lived the way the United States lives, we would already all be dead because of global warming.&rdquo; And then this panel of scientists has presented the UN a detailed plan for combating climate change. The strategery involves &ldquo;reaching global agreement on a temperature ceiling.&rdquo; They\u2019re going to tell the weather how hot it can get? How, pray tell, are we going to do this? If we can\u2019t control it, what are we going to do? Who we going to tell? When you go talk to the Earth\u2019s climate, who do you talk to? A global temperature ceiling? &ldquo;A group of 18 scientists from 11 countries is calling on the international community to act quickly to prevent catastrophic climate change. In a report requested by the United Nations and partially paid for by the privately funded U.N. Foundation, the panel warns that any delay could lead to a dangerous rise in sea levels, increasingly turbulent weather, droughts and disease.&rdquo;<\/p>\n

Well, you know what? Sea levels change. We always have turbulent weather. We always have droughts. Go talk to the people in west Texas. We always have disease. I just saw that a bunch of Hollywood celebrities are at risk for catching hepatitis A because of contaminated food at one of their A-list parties. There\u2019s always <\/emphasize>disease out there. People die from them every day. And get this. This is the bottom line, this is the nut paragraph: &ldquo;The panel\u2019s recommendations include a series of steps to cut the rate at which temperatures are rising. Chief among them are a global agreement on an acceptable ceiling for temperature rise and finding ways of adapting to cope with the damage already done. Holdren, however, says even these measure will achieve very little unless they are accompanied by a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions.&rdquo; This is John Holdren of Harvard University.<\/p>\n

We can go out and do all this. We can tell the temperature, ‘You\u2019re going to stop at X. You\u2019re not going to get any higher than that.\u2019 We\u2019re going to go talk to whoever we have to talk to in the world, probably Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Have a good neighbors meeting with Ahmadinejad and say, &ldquo;Mahmoud, the temperature is going to rise no more than X.\u2019 We\u2019ll bring Syria into the discussion along with Iraq. We\u2019ll have a kumbaya agreement on this, hubba hubba. But even after we do all these things, after we\u2019ve taken every step we can to prevent the rise in temperature that still <\/emphasize>won\u2019t be enough. No, no, no, no, no! ‘These measures will achieve very little unless they are accompanied by a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions.\u2019 This is akin to having all these carbon offsets. I\u2019ve got the new Algore diet to illustrate these carbon offsets. <\/p>\n

See, I thought the idea for people who believed all this was to reduce your carbon footprint. But we now have learned that Algore spends all this money and uses all this energy in his mansion and his pool house in Nashville. Fine and dandy. But Algore said, &ldquo;Oh, no, no, no! I am off setting my carbon footprint. I am buying carbon credits from others who are not using their allowable carbon footprint.&rdquo; So Algore is not reducing <\/emphasize>anything. He\u2019s not reducing his energy use. Same thing with Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger is going to register his jet, a GIII, with some carbon registry firm out in California and so he\u2019s going to go out and make his carbon footprint. He\u2019s not going to fly less. He\u2019s not going to take fewer people on his trips. He\u2019s going to keep doing what he\u2019s been doing. The carbon registry is going to plant trees. (Laughing.) <\/p>\n

This is akin, ladies and gentlemen, to my telling you that I\u2019m going on the Algore diet, and the Algore diet is this: I\u2019m going to eat anything I want. I\u2019m not going to make one change, not going to reduce my consumption of anything unless I want to. I\u2019m going to have the biggest steak I can find three times a day, baked potatoes, lots of butter. I\u2019m going to have caviar. You starve. That is how I will diet. That\u2019s the best way I can come up to explain the frivolity of these carbon offsets. Get this letter from a subscriber at RushLimbaugh.com: &ldquo;Dear Rush, I joined your website today<\/a>. I became a subscriber today because I have a nine- and seven-year-old who think the polar bears are drowning. I need help teaching them the truth. I have been a listener since 1988. Thanks for everything. Marybeth, a Rush babe.&rdquo; She\u2019s done the right thing. <\/p>\n

My website is a veritable encyclopedia refuting all of this nonsense on global warming. A nine- and seven-year-old think the polar bears are drowning, and this is precisely how these people are using fear. Like I said, this is a direct parallel to the way kids told us back in the eighties, by Laura Dern on the Donahue show, &ldquo;Do you know what it\u2019s like every day to get up with the possibility of being annihilated because of a nuclear blast? Do you know what it\u2019s like, Phil? Children are scared! We\u2019re scared!&rdquo; Right. They\u2019re simply recycling the same old technique designed to make everybody feel guilty, pay more taxes, have the government grow, lose liberty, lose freedom, and the government knows best because you people are destroying the planet and you need to be blamed for it and you need to feel guilty and you need to pay the price. Hello, global carbon tax! <\/p>\n

USA Today<\/a>: &ldquo;Declaring there is ‘no more time for delay,\u2019 an international panel of scientists urged the world\u2019s nations Tuesday to stave off climate-change ‘catastrophe\u2019 by boosting clean-energy research and sharply cutting industrial emissions that fuel global warming.&rdquo; The phrase ‘tipping point\u2019 is used in this story. We are near the tipping point for climate. But yet, ladies and gentlemen, I want to read to you from TIME Magazine, June 24th, 1974<\/a>. &ldquo;As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a climate upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades.&rdquo; This is TIME Magazine June 24th, 1974.<\/p>\n

&ldquo;The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.&rdquo; The article comes complete with a graphic showing the upper one-third of the United States covered by a glacier. &ldquo;Telltale signs are everywhere — from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 degrees F. … When Climatologist George G. Kukla of Columbia University\u2019s Lamong-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.&rdquo; Of course Newsweek did the same thing, 1974, Newsweek, ran a story on the coming threat of global cooling. <\/p>\n

What happened? What went wrong? Final story: &ldquo;Twenty new species of sharks and rays have been discovered in Indonesia in a five-year survey of catches at local fish markets, Australian researchers said Wednesday. The survey by the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, or CSIRO, represents the first in-depth look at Indonesia\u2019s sharks and rays since Dutch scientist Pieter Bleeker described more than 1,100 fish species from 1842-60.&rdquo; Now, I just want to know how in the world all these species, which we never knew existed, all of a sudden have been found. Maybe they\u2019re brand-new. Who created them? Where did they come from? How can this be when we are destroying the species, causing them to go extinct with global warming? <\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: We had a drive-by question: How much does jet travel affect global warming? Nobody knows! All we can do is guess. I\u2019m just going to give you my answer as a common, ordinary, everyday Joe. How long have we been flying jets, ladies and gentlemen? How long have we been launching space shuttles and rockets and so forth? Many, many moons. During those years we\u2019ve had scientists tell us that we\u2019re in the midst of global cooling, got a new ice age coming, now global warming, and it\u2019s all the CO2 that\u2019s part of the exhaust from jet engines supposedly causing global warming, and yet, I don\u2019t see any of the scaremongers telling us we need to stop flying. They wouldn\u2019t be able to get around to their vacations if that were the case. Nobody is suggesting we stop flying. That\u2019s why the nonsense of the carbon footprint and carbon credits has been brought up, and that\u2019s why they attack on corporate jets. The carbon footprint for four or five people flying in a corporate jet, far, far, far greater than 200 people flying on the commercial jet. Schwarzenegger says, ‘Oh, I agree with that, so I\u2019m going to register my plane and plant trees every time I fly. That will take care of the carbon dioxide emissions from my jet.\u2019 It\u2019s bogus. It\u2019s bogus. Weymouth, Massachusetts. Kathy, I\u2019m glad you waited. Welcome to the EIB Network.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Hi, Rush.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Hi.<\/p>\n

CALLER: When the UN study had first come out, right at the beginning, I heard that only — of the letters that they sent out to scientists, only 18% had been returned. Now, to me, that means 82% didn\u2019t bother. I\u2019m sure some of them believed in it, maybe they didn\u2019t — I mean it\u2019s from the UN; who cares? So I\u2019m just wondering what we\u2019re doing here with 18% of the scientists who bothered to return their letters, we\u2019re supposed to now change the world?<\/p>\n

RUSH: Well, I haven\u2019t heard that. It wouldn\u2019t surprise me. But look. Go back to our little discussion with Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama at Huntsville in the first half hour of this program. He made it very plain that money in the form of grants and donations is a large factor in the number of scientists who do supposedly support the whole concept of manmade global warming. Always follow the money. You just can\u2019t take the money out of it. By the way, the brilliance of this, you have to understand, is these people that are now the big, primary advocates of this can never be disproved, not in their lifetimes, because now the window we\u2019re looking at is 2100, 2080, 2050, and so they\u2019ve brilliantly established the circumstance, &ldquo;Well, it\u2019s going to warm up whatever number of degrees by the next hundred years.&rdquo; <\/p>\n

Well, they\u2019re not going to be around to be proven right or wrong. It\u2019s really brilliant marketing the way they have set this all up. They\u2019re using every ingredient the left has perfected from the time of Karl Marx, folks, every damn one: get rid of real religion; create a false, phony religion where the god resides in Earth and in government. Just scare the hell out of as many young people as you can. Impose guilt on as many people as you can. They\u2019ll sit back and take the punishment in the form of brand-new taxes, larger governments and so forth. I don\u2019t know about only 18% of the scientists responded. All I know is that I\u2019m glad Roy confirmed this for me, that science is not subject to a vote. There is no consensus in science. This is Art in Shepherd, Montana. You\u2019re next, sir. Nice to have you with us.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Hello, Rush.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Hi.<\/p>\n

<\/a>CALLER: I know we\u2019ve had a long-term, continuing project at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii measuring the solar constant. They\u2019ve proved that the sun, like all stars, is a variable star. And, in addition, recent astronomical data observing Mars has shown that Mars is warming at the same rate that we are. So that tells me that that\u2019s caused by the sun, not by man. Another thing is that every one of the greenhouse gases, the molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone, all absorb UV. They emit when the emit energy, infrared, and they reflect infrared back down to the Earth. Another thing is if the sun were getting warmer, the atmosphere, like all things when it\u2019s heated, expands, which means that the amount of absorption of the UV is still the same but the distance at the outer edges of the atmosphere between the molecules is less, so we\u2019re radiating the heat. <\/p>\n

RUSH: That\u2019s actually a good point. I wish I would have asked him about the sun. You know, it\u2019s the one thing that these people leave out of global warming. Never, ever do they discuss the primary source of heat and all energy on this planet, and that\u2019s the sun. Art, thanks much for the call. Very, very interesting. I\u2019ve heard this point about Mars being made of course as well.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/line>RUSH: Muskegan, Michigan is next. Dan, hello, sir. Great you\u2019re with us.<\/line>CALLER: Hey, Rush. You know this global warming garbage. I think it\u2019s a sinister plot to undermine our economy. You know, if we\u2019ve got rolling blackouts everywhere, how can our economy grow? I think that all this global warming is specifically designed to undermine our economic powerhouse and weaken us in the world.<\/line>RUSH: No question it\u2019s to bring us down on the level of everybody else, even without the rolling blackouts. That\u2019s exactly the whole point is that Americans need to roll back their standards of living, or our standards of living. That\u2019s the whole point. They\u2019re very clear on this. They\u2019re making no bones about it. You call it sinister. Sinister is something that\u2019s sort of under the surface. This is right out in front of everybody\u2019s nose. It\u2019s sinister in its intent; it\u2019s conspiratorial, but it\u2019s certainly not anything they\u2019re hiding. <\/line>END TRANSCRIPT<\/line><\/p>\n

*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

RUSH: We had a call yesterday. The last call of the day was from a guy calling himself ‘Roy,\u2019 and he wanted to talk about the whole global warming controversy. What a great Global Warming Stack we have today, too. (Laughing.) Let me just give you a little heads-up. ‘Climate Panel Recommends Global Temperature Ceiling, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":25,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nFacts, Science Smash the Global Warming Myth - The Rush Limbaugh Show<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/28\/facts_science_smash_the_global_warming_myth2\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Facts, Science Smash the Global Warming Myth - The Rush Limbaugh Show\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"RUSH: We had a call yesterday. The last call of the day was from a guy calling himself ‘Roy,\u2019 and he wanted to talk about the whole global warming controversy. What a great Global Warming Stack we have today, too. (Laughing.) Let me just give you a little heads-up. ‘Climate Panel Recommends Global Temperature Ceiling, […]\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:image\" content=\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/facts__science_smash_the_climate_change_myth_.Par.0012.ImageFile.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"34 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/\",\"name\":\"The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"description\":\"Excellence In Broadcasting\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/28\/facts_science_smash_the_global_warming_myth2\/#primaryimage\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/facts__science_smash_the_climate_change_myth_.Par.0012.ImageFile.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/facts__science_smash_the_climate_change_myth_.Par.0012.ImageFile.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/28\/facts_science_smash_the_global_warming_myth2\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/28\/facts_science_smash_the_global_warming_myth2\/\",\"name\":\"Facts, Science Smash the Global Warming Myth - The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/28\/facts_science_smash_the_global_warming_myth2\/#primaryimage\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-19T05:55:11+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2011-05-19T05:55:11+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/28\/facts_science_smash_the_global_warming_myth2\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/28\/facts_science_smash_the_global_warming_myth2\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/28\/facts_science_smash_the_global_warming_myth2\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Facts, Science Smash the Global Warming Myth\"}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/admin\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Facts, Science Smash the Global Warming Myth - The Rush Limbaugh Show","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/28\/facts_science_smash_the_global_warming_myth2\/","twitter_card":"summary","twitter_title":"Facts, Science Smash the Global Warming Myth - The Rush Limbaugh Show","twitter_description":"RUSH: We had a call yesterday. The last call of the day was from a guy calling himself ‘Roy,\u2019 and he wanted to talk about the whole global warming controversy. What a great Global Warming Stack we have today, too. (Laughing.) Let me just give you a little heads-up. ‘Climate Panel Recommends Global Temperature Ceiling, […]","twitter_image":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/facts__science_smash_the_climate_change_myth_.Par.0012.ImageFile.jpg","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"34 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/","name":"The Rush Limbaugh Show","description":"Excellence In Broadcasting","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/28\/facts_science_smash_the_global_warming_myth2\/#primaryimage","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/facts__science_smash_the_climate_change_myth_.Par.0012.ImageFile.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/facts__science_smash_the_climate_change_myth_.Par.0012.ImageFile.jpg"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/28\/facts_science_smash_the_global_warming_myth2\/#webpage","url":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/28\/facts_science_smash_the_global_warming_myth2\/","name":"Facts, Science Smash the Global Warming Myth - The Rush Limbaugh Show","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/28\/facts_science_smash_the_global_warming_myth2\/#primaryimage"},"datePublished":"2011-05-19T05:55:11+00:00","dateModified":"2011-05-19T05:55:11+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/28\/facts_science_smash_the_global_warming_myth2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/28\/facts_science_smash_the_global_warming_myth2\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/02\/28\/facts_science_smash_the_global_warming_myth2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Facts, Science Smash the Global Warming Myth"}]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#personlogo","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"url":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24775"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/users\/25"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24775"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24775\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24775"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24775"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24775"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}