{"id":392058,"date":"2021-04-13T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2021-04-13T20:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?p=392058"},"modified":"2021-04-14T15:38:47","modified_gmt":"2021-04-14T19:38:47","slug":"rush-nukes-the-concept-of-climate-refugees","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2021\/04\/13\/rush-nukes-the-concept-of-climate-refugees\/","title":{"rendered":"Rush Nukes the Concept of “Climate Refugees” and Man-Made Global Warming"},"content":{"rendered":"

JASON: You know, as I mentioned before on this economic thing — I do want to touch on this, because the infrastructure plan is sort of a revisit of the Obama American jobs and Recovery Act, the $800 billion stimulus. Except this is a $2.3 trillion, $2.5 trillion, $3 trillion stimulus, right?<\/p>\n

I want to make certain that people understand this doesn\u2019t work. When you take money out of productive, private hands and put it into Solyndra, put it into Amonix solar, Solar Trust of America, BrightSource, LSP Energy, A123, SunPower, Beacon Power, Energy Conversion Devices. Why do I mention those companies? They all failed during the Obama Green New Deal stimulus.<\/p>\n

\"\"We actually took money and put it in bankrupt companies. How is that gonna help the economy? And even if you could take money out of companies that make word processors and have the government start a typewriter factory (you know, those typewriters, they\u2019re all the rage these days) it still takes time for that money to be deployed, and in the interim you have unemployment and you shift money around.<\/p>\n

Most importantly, though, why this doesn\u2019t work is when the government says, “We have to prime the pump of consumerism to get the economy going,” and you\u2019ll see this on CNBC ad infinitum: “Consumers are two-thirds of the economy,” which is total hogwash. When they say that consumers are two-thirds of the economy, they don\u2019t count the business-to-business transactions in between.<\/p>\n

So when Business A buys from Business B and then Business B pays their employees and the employee go out and buy something, why, that\u2019s consumer activity in the economy. Hogwash. It\u2019s business to business. So what happens is the government takes money out of the hands of savers — tax the wealthy, tax dividends, tax interest — and it puts it into the hands of consumers.<\/p>\n

“Redistribute wealth to people who will spend it. That\u2019s gonna prime the pump.” Nothing could be further from the truth, because there\u2019s no such thing as saved money. All savings are spent. When you save your money and it goes to the bank, the bank lends it out on spending. But it\u2019s productive spending, and when everybody\u2019s consuming and there\u2019s a lack of spending, you not only get high interest rates, but you get bottlenecks because capital depreciates, and you have to have savings to replenish the machine and buy the truck driver the truck.<\/p>\n

The truck driver is gonna be a hell of a lot more productive with the truck than without it. And if there\u2019s no capital there for someone to buy the truck, nothing gets delivered. This is the failure of the new economics, as Henry Hazlitt put it, and it\u2019s something that — because we don\u2019t teach economics in school — not one American in 50 understands, and they\u2019re all Democratic officeholders.<\/p>\n

Nothing is more insidious to all of this than scaring people over climate change because that gives government the control they want to lock down the economy. They call it the “reset.” To tell companies they have to price in a carbon footprint, which lowers the return to investors. And, most importantly, allows them to spend money on a Green New Deal on all these failed companies; hence, buy votes.<\/p>\n

There was an article. I think it was in the New York Post. No, CNN. Wow. I couldn\u2019t confuse the New York Post and CNN. One tells the truth; one lies. Let\u2019s talk about the liar. CNN identified a “climate safe haven” for people that are “fleeing the climate crisis.” You know what it is? Duluth, Minnesota. Well, we\u2019re broadcasting from Minnesota. I campaigned in Duluth.<\/p>\n

Duluth has gotta be one of the few cities in this country of ours that has a lower population today than it did in 1960. Why? Because of the wacko policies of their current mayor, who\u2019s a real piece of work, and the fact that the left has shut down mining, the end of the taconite era. They can\u2019t get at these new minerals that are there thanks to Democrats.<\/p>\n

They shut down logging. And Duluth has the problems of a big city but is not one. I\u2019m telling you what: Good thing they got great weather. Rush had a great point on this, the apocalyptic version of climate change sort of being the precursor of government control.<\/a> Run audio 12.<\/p>\n

RUSH: What Happened to the Climate Refugees?” Now, this story is from last week. I kept it. It\u2019s too good to pass up. “In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. ” That\u2019s kind of like the Ted Danson prediction in 1988 that if we didn\u2019t clean up the oceans in ten years, that there\u2019d be death and pestilence everywhere on the seas.<\/p>\n

\"\"The United Nations five years ago predicted that these climate refugees would be fleeing from areas that “are actually among the fastest growing regions in the world.” (laughing) “In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010.<\/p>\n

“These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production. The UNEP even provided a handy map,” think the purple and the yellow is where there were gonna be massive refugees because of climate change. You can see even in the US there\u2019s some purple and yellow. I\u2019m sure purple has gotta be one of these because of the sea level rise. You see, Florida would have climate refugees.<\/p>\n

So the title of the story here is: What Happened to the Climate Refugees?” There are 50 million people missing. “Meanwhile, far from being places where people are fleeing, no fewer than the top six of the very fastest growing cities in China, Shenzhen, Dongguan, Foshan, Zhuhai, Puning and Jinjiang, are absolutely smack bang within the shaded areas identified as being likely sources of climate refugees,” but their populations are skyrocketing.<\/p>\n

So it\u2019s another example: A huge story of the environmentalist wackos being entirely wrong. Imagine they predict 50 million climate refugees, and there are none, and there are no sea level increases. Then Jon Ham at the John Locke Foundation: “The ‘Ozone Hole\u2019 Hoax was ‘Global Warming\u2019 Warm-up act.” You may not be old enough to remember this but many of you are. Back in the seventies, eighties, we had to get rid of Freon. We had to stop using aerosol spray cans \u2019cause that he was creating the hole in the ozone.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n