Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: I went out to Los Angeles for the weekend. I had to go out there to play golf. Everybody I play golf with is gone, out of town here in Palm Beach. So I went out and, you know, it was a fabulous time. I played Bel-Air yesterday, and Jack Wagner was in the foursome, the famous actor. The guy is a scratch golfer, maybe plus one, knocks the ball 325 yards. Just the nicest guy, and he plays so well it’s intimidating. But I had a fine last three holes and our team pulled even and broke even. It was fun.

Saturday I played out at Calabasas with some friends. And that one, I gotta tell you this, all three of the guys in the foursome are listeners, and they are fans, quote, unquote, and they are one of us. So we’re sitting there, we’re having an adult beverage after the round, and, as always, the subject of current events and Trump and politics and a couple of issues came up.

And then the issue of climate change came up. And one of the guys said, “Look, Rush, I know, I know, I know, but I’ll tell you, I don’t know what’s wrong with it. Why don’t we pursue it? Why don’t we take ’em at their word, look at the economic benefits that would accrue if we began to –” My mouth fell open in shock and dismay and we got into a discussion. And this was good for me, because this is somebody on our side who has fallen prey to the very seductive language and so forth put forth by the global warming or climate change advocates.

So I had to use some unique techniques here in discussing this, rather than the scientific data or the usual left versus right lingo. I asked him a question. I said, “I want you to pretend, let’s hypothetically pretend that there is no man-made climate change, none, nobody’s alleging any, there isn’t any at all. Now, further, I want you to assume that you are the secretary of commerce or the secretary of science and whatever. You’re in the Trump administration. You have a cabinet-level position that grants you oversight over such things as climate change and whatever other scientific things that would impact the administration.

“I want you to imagine that Trump calls you into a private meeting in the Oval Office and says, ‘Albert, I’m cold. I don’t like being cold, and I want to warm it up, and I’ve heard from scientists that this can be done. So I want you to put together a policy initiative that would succeed in raising the overall world temperature one degree Celsius in 25 years. I want to hear from you in two weeks, Albert.'”

So I asked that situation, if that happens. “What would you do? What would you do, Albert? You believe it. You think they’re telling you the truth. What would you do?” And of course there was no answer. Albert is a fake name. I’m making up a name. The guy’s name is not Albert. Don’t worry about. I would not betray people’s identities here.

See, it works the same way in reverse. How do we stop it? How do we stop it if we can’t figure out a way how we would do it? I said, “Come on, Albert, tell me we all have to start driving SUVs. Tell me we all have to start paying higher taxes. Give me every cause that the left is telling us that you would have to advocate. We all have to drive SUVs. We have to stop burning coal, whatever it is. And there was nothing forthcoming. I think what it illustrates is that this issue goes way beyond specifics. Specifics don’t have anything to do with it. It has to do with emotional and other things.

I learned something. I thought I knew everything about the climate change argument until I read a piece in the New Republic. The New Republic is a traditional long-standing Journal of Opinion on the left. Back in its heyday it was along the same lines only on the left of National Review, but National Review has left the New Republic in its wake.

Oh, by the way, Gore’s movie came in 15th at the box office, and all of Gore’s buddies are accusing the studio of sabotaging the movie. It came in 15th, and supporters of Gore are livid, claiming that Paramount, I think it is, didn’t do nearly enough to support the movie and is sabotaging it. No. Nobody cares. Nobody wanted to go see a redo because Gore hasn’t been right about anything yet.

Oh. And here’s another thing, and it leads into this New Republic business. During the discussion post-round, I happened to mention, “What do you think of Algore? It’s been learned, it’s been discovered that Algore personally has a carbon footprint 34 times as large as the average American.” And I was looked at by another member of the group, he wagged his finger at me, said, “Not a worthwhile argument. It doesn’t matter.”

I said, “Really? So you’re confirming a point, that hypocrisy of liberals doesn’t count. They can get away with it, they’re not gonna be held –”

“No. It’s just not gonna matter to anybody.”

“Maybe it won’t, but that doesn’t mean it’s invalid. The fact that it doesn’t persuade anybody is interesting in and of itself.” But here, let me get to this brief excerpt here from — it’s actually quite lengthy piece written by Emily Atkin.


RUSH: Here in the New Republic, Emily Atkin: “The claim that Gore and his ilk are hypocrites is a classic conservative attack strategy of redirection (because it ignores the core issue of climate change).

“This is much easier, and perhaps more rhetorically effective –” to claim Gore and others are hypocrites “– than debunking climate science itself. So the theory is, we can’t debunk climate change, people like me — except of course I can and do daily. But her theory is since we can’t debunk it, we have to go after these leftist phonies as hypocrites.

And she says: “That’s why you only see groups like the National Center for Public Policy Research releasing ‘studies’ on Gore’s energy use. NCPPR, which has been funded by oil interests, advocates against policies to fight global warming because it denies that global warming exists.”

“But the hypocrisy charge…” This is where it gets interesting. “But the hypocrisy charge simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. An anti-abortion advocate who believes abortion is immoral and should be illegal, but gets one herself, is a hypocrite. But climate change advocates who don’t live a carbon-neutral lifestyle aren’t hypocrites because…” Ready for this? This is what I didn’t know. It’s “because, for the most part, they’re not asking you to live a carbon-neutral lifestyle.” They aren’t? Ladies and gentlemen, let me ask you a question.

When you hear Gore, when you see Leonardo DiCaprio or any of these advocates on TV and you hear them talk about what’s necessary to fix this, have you ever gotten the impression that they don’t think you need to change your lifestyle? I don’t believe this! I mean, that’s the bread and butter of climate change is to convince you to change your lifestyle because it is your lifestyle that has created the problem. In their world, American progress — advancing the standard of living, advancing the quality of life — is where the problem exists.

In their warped view, climate change results from progress. They don’t use those words, but if you take a look at what they believe, that’s exactly how it would be defined. So here comes this babe Emily Atkin saying (paraphrased), “No, no, no, no. You can’t go after Gore because Gore is not telling you that you have to the change your lifestyle.” Well, then who is being told that they have to change their lifestyle? Well, I have the answer here, according to Ms. Atkin.

She says, climate advocates are “asking governments, utilities, energy companies, and large corporations to increase their use of renewable energy so that you can continue to live your life as you please, without contributing to global warming.” How many of you think that? That’s what I didn’t know, and I don’t believe it. So, in other words — according to this latest expert — you can go ahead and buy whatever car you want with no shame.

You can burn charcoal briquettes, you can grill hamburgers and steaks, and you could eat all the beef in the world you want, and they’re not gonna say a word to you about it. Because you don’t have any impact on climate change. No, no, no, no! What they’re gonna do is go after governments and large corporations and other businesses and utility companies and so forth. Now, stop and think. I think that statement right there cooks their goose! It explains exactly what they want: bigger government with more controls.

And if you don’t think that bigger government’s gonna eventually get around to controlling you, then you have another think coming. But I don’t think this is accurate anyway. The whole point of the climate change advocate alarmism is shame, to get you to stop behaving in ways they say are destroying the planet. That’s how they’ve succeeded in it. They running around; they blame everybody else. They blame you for your contribution, but then they give you an out. They give you a chance for redemption. Vote Democrat, raise taxes, buy some silly little electric car.

Do something that mitigates the damage you have made by living your life. That’s the central theme of it. But now we’re told, “No, no, no, no. Climate advocates are not telling you to change your lifestyle. They’re telling governments and they’re telling utility companies and energy companies and large corporations to change so that you can live however you want without contributing to global warming. “Last month, [Gore] said the three best ways are to talk about climate change … look for environmentally responsible choices when making large purchases … and support climate-friendly political candidates…”

Sounds like personal action. Sounds like things individuals have to do to ward off climate change. And then there’s this little paragraph: “As David Roberts pointed out in Vox last year, the reason climate advocates don’t intensely advocate for personal behavioral changes is that they’re ‘insignificant to the big picture on climate.’ That’s true even for huge energy users. DiCaprio’s emissions ‘are a fart in the wind when it comes to climate change’ Roberts wrote.

“‘If [DiCaprio] vanished tomorrow, and all his emissions with him, the effect on global temperature, even on US emissions, even on film-industry emissions, would be lost in the noise.’ And it wouldn’t be hypocrisy, since DiCaprio isn’t asking you to stop flying.” He isn’t? What are his speeches at the Academy Awards all about? So they’re taking a new turn here, trying to say that… I wonder how many of you have gotten this impression up to now.

As I say, I didn’t know. I had not heard this angle. I thought I knew everything. But they’re now saying that they never, ever, have done that. The climate change advocates have never been speaking to you. No. They’re talking to large institutional polluters to get their acts in gear so that you can continue to pollute and live your life as you wish. I have not heard this before. This is their way around the whole hypocrisy charge.


RUSH: I want to go back just briefly here (just to make a point) to Emily Atkin writing at the New Republic claiming that charging leftists with hypocrisy like Algore or Leonardo DiCaprio as hypocrites because in Gore’s case he uses 34 times the electricity and energy — flying around in private jets, all this stuff — than average American does. And yet he’s preaching to every about how they need to stop polluting the planet. She says, no, that’s not what Gore’s doing. You can’t go after Gore or DiCaprio as hypocrites because they’re not asking you to live a “carbon-neutral lifestyle.”

This is a first. I’ve never heard this. She claims they’re not asking individuals to dial back their carbon footprint. No, no, no, no! They’re not asking you to go out and buy electric cars. They’re not asking you to stop using oil. They’re not asking you to put up solar panels. They’re not asking you to do anything, she says. She says they’re asking governments and utilities and energy companies — and large, evil corporations — to do the heavy lifting, to dial down their carbon footprints so that you can continue to live as you please.

If these governments… Who is “government,” by the way? How does government dial back its use of utilities? How does government dial back its carbon footprint? We are the government, and this is the dirty little secret. This is the rotten little secret of this point of view. When she says (paraphrased), “Well, we don’t want you to have to do anything. We want the government to,” it’s a clear illustration that they do not have the slightest bit of understanding (at least as we do) of the relationship between government and the people.

And they certainly don’t have any understanding of the Constitution’s role in defining government. The Constitution limits government in favor of freedom and liberty for the people. In these people’s view, it is government that should do the limiting. Limit your freedom. So she wants the government to have all the power to tell you how to dial back your carbon footprint. She’s says (paraphrased), “We’re not telling you this! Gore’s not telling you this and Leonardo DiCaprio isn’t. We think the government should do it!”

(Snorts) It’s just yet another illustration of how woeful education status in this country, the proper teachings of the Constitution, the Declaration, our founding documents. So this is another way they pretend that their demands don’t even affect you. “No, you can go ahead and drive whatever you want. We’re not trying to impose on you! We want the government to have to do it.” Like the government’s a separate entity with no connectivity to you. They run around an dthey pretend that their demands on government don’t affect us at all.

So they want government to do this and do that, that over here, do this. But it’s never gonna affect us. Government’s a separate entity. To them, it is godlike. Whatever. Folks, don’t fall for it. I actually think what this means is that the hypocrisy charge is starting to stick! I mean, you’ve got these big proselytizers. Here’s Algore with his second movie — by the way, it shows up at number 15 at the box office this weekend, and the global warming crowd is claiming sabotage from the movie studio.

That’s right. A Hollywood leftist movie studio — which facilitated the production of this movie — is sabotaging it? You mean a Hollywood studio has decided it would rather harm Gore’s movie than make money — a Hollywood studio, which makes Algore’s entire movie career possible? What do we to believe, that some people at the studio all of a sudden realize that Algore is not a movie star and that his movies are not any good? So we’re gonna sabotage ’em to get rid of Gore? Is that what’s going on? That’s what they want us to believe?

They simply can’t believe nobody would be interested. They can’t believe, after all this time and after all this propaganda — 30 years of it — that people wouldn’t be clamoring. They can’t understand it wouldn’t be number one at the box office. In their world, they see people lined up outside venues where Donald Trump is speaking; they don’t understand it and they get livid. And here comes Algore’s movie. Algore’s their response to Trump, of course.

“We’ll show you! Our guy is coming out with a movie. Our star, Algore, he’s got a movie. We’ll show you. You want to see crowds, you want to see people lined up outside the theater? You wait for Algore’s movie.” And of course not only were nobody lined up outside to get in nobody was inside, either, ’cause nobody cares. So here these people they hate Trump. They hate these big crowds. They hate the fact that there lines of people who can’t get in, who want to get in.

Their big answer to that is gonna be Algore’s movie, and it’s a yawner inducing sleep and nobody goes.


RUSH: And back to the phones. Peter in St. Catharines, Ontario. I’m glad you called. Great to have you with us, sir. Hello.


RUSH: Hey.

CALLER: What an honor. Listening to you since 1990. I’ve called in and spoken to Steyn before. I regularly call in to people like these, et cetera, but you are the guru, sir. Listen, I want to touch base on climate change. My training, even though my passion is history and politics, the United States politics, I regard as the greatest nation, but my training is in statistics, mathematical modeling. And I can tell you that the entire climate change is predicated on lies, all of it. It’s just green money corruption thievery. I think if we check the bank accounts of a lot of the congresspeople and senators we’d find where a lot of that green money has gone to, because this entire global warming is crock, because it’s man-made models. We only have used man-made models to date, and I as a statistician, a mathematics person, I can manipulate any model I want —

RUSH: Exactly. Every model is man-made, by definition.


RUSH: And these models have — in fact, you know this so you can confirm this. I’ve said this I don’t know how many times on the program to anybody out there. The only reason there is a climate change debate is not because there’s any climate change that they can prove is man-made. It’s their models.

CALLER: Exactly.

RUSH: The models is it. They have constructed models. They leave certain data out, they —


RUSH: — add certain data, they fake it up and they make it look like we’re gonna have, you know, melting ice and rising sea levels in 30 years when a lot of people are dead, won’t be around to know if the prediction’s right or wrong, but there is no data. It’s all because of climate models. Exactly right.

CALLER: And Rush, the only data that exists — and you are absolutely correct. I’ve listened to you before, and you’ve always been spot on with that, but I’ll say this. There’s been a project between Russia, France, and U.S. And the data was published. It’s the only data in Vostok, Antarctica, and what they found is actually staggering and turned the entire discussion on its head. But the news media and the politicians will not discuss Vostok findings. Actually, Vostok shows it’s not that CO2 increases — and they’ve looked at the all 420,000 —

RUSH: Hang on just a second. I hoped to get it in but we didn’t make it.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This