Rush Limbaugh: Radical Environmentalism Attacks American Values (One of Rush's Best Ever!)

More wacko environmental news today. It's just coming out of the woodwork. "Ten percent of all bird species are set to disappear by the end of this century, and with them, the services they provide such as cleaning up carcasses and spreading seeds. This from U.S. researchers on Monday." Now, read this word "carcasses." It reminds me what was happening with these hawks. You know, Pale Male? We had this story yesterday that these hawks up there, you know, they're doing a public service by providing a show for many bird watchers and New Yorkers who love to go into Central Park and watch them through binoculars come and go in their big nest that weighs 200 pounds and then the co-op board, chaired by Paula Zahn's husband, Mr. Cohen, ordered the nest pulled down. We found out yesterday that what was happening is that -- and this is considered a posh neighborhood, folks; a posh 5th Avenue address, 74th and 5th -- these hawks would go up there and they would take squirrels that they would then eat and that leaves a carcass and other similar size animals, raccoons.

They'd take them up there and they'd clean the carcasses for food and then dump the carcasses down on the sidewalk. It was possible in this pish-posh 5th Avenue neighborhood that an unsuspecting posh resident could be walking by, get beaned by a squirrel carcass that had been thrown overboard, if you will, by these two hawks up there, and (laughing) they're eager to save the circumstance. I'll tell you what: I just love the definition of "posh" (laughing) and "ritzy" in New York. It's just terrific. But now, see, that reminded me because this line here that these birds provide many services, such as cleaning up carcasses and spreading seeds. "A careful study of extinction rates so far, conservation measures underway and a climate environmental change shows that at least 1,200 species of birds will be gone by 2100 and that is a conservative estimate, said the team at Stanford. Even though 1.3% of bird species have gone extinct since 1500, the global number of individual birds is estimated to have experienced a 20% to 25% reduction during the same period, they wrote in their report published in the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, and this can have severe consequences for people.

"For example, in 1997, 30,000 of the world's 35,000 to 50,000 rabies deaths took place in India, where ferel dog and rat populations have exploded after the decline of vultures." Oh, that's another thing. Rat carcasses got thrown overboard by those hawks and beaned people and evidently hit the sidewalk out there where people were minding their own business. So anyway, the thing that they don't factor in this story is the literally millions of birds that will get chopped up in windmills that liberals are going to build for power because they don't like electricity. Now, they're not going it build these windmills where they live. They're going to build them in places where you live, but of course the doesn't know a windmill from anything. He'll go flying right into it and chop suey it is. So in addition to this extinction rate, let's factor in the millions of birds that are going to get chopped up in windmills. My friends, I think this is all just panic-oriented. I don't know how they know how many species have vanished since 1500. How do we know we've discovered every species there is? Of bird living somewhere.

This is just another example of the vanity of humanity to think that we know all of this, and that we can predict how this is happening -- and, of course, blame us. We blame ourselves for the extinction of the birds. "If we weren't here, they wouldn't be gone. If we weren't here doing what we're doing, taking up their space and polluting their air, why, they would still be here." It's just absolutely silly. It's followed by this story: "Severe weather caused by global warming can pose greater physical danger to women than men, this according to a Canadian attending a U.N. conference on climate change last Friday. For instance, often women don't know how to swim so in a flood situation, that can lead to a higher instance of death or injury." This is incredible! It is unbelievable! Do you notice how rooted this whole global warming razzmatazz is? I mean, we had this call from a guy last week who says, "Oh, I believe it because man, there used to be ice on the lakes here in November and you can't go skating on them now because it's not there." People think, "Oh, yeah!"

I can tell you what, we had freeze warnings in Florida last night, south Florida, and we're getting them again the first part of next week. Do you know that oranges used to grow up in Georgia and they don't because the freeze line's moving south? The freeze line in this country is moving south. If there's global warming going on, how in the world here in south Florida -- it's not even Christmas yet which is when these first cold waves usually hit -- can they have opened shelters? Get this: 45 degrees last night and there was an emergency. They had to open shelters. They had to open them because a lot of people don't have heat. Or if they do, they don't know where the switch is to turn it on because they use it too infrequently. So they open all these shelters. In the meantime, all these little anecdotal day-to-day weather data converts to people's belief that there is global warming, and it's gotten so absurd now that "at a U.N. climate conference in Buenos Aires, severe weather caused by global warming can pose a greater physical danger to women than men. For instance..." This is a scientific explanation of that. "For instance, often women don't know how to swim. So in a flood situation, that can lead to a higher instance of death or injury."

What do you need global warming to have a flood? Is every flood now due to global warming? That's what they want you to believe. "There never used to be floods, folks. The rivers never rose. The rivers never sank. The rivers just were a constant level." This is the thing that gets me about all this global warming stuff. Some people actually believe the earth's climate is static, that it has never changed from day one to the present, and it's only now starting to because of our technological advancement, our pollution, our lack of concern for it and so forth. This is the most absurd thing I've heard yet in this whole argument, that flash floods caused by global warming will kill women 'cause they can't swim. Isn't this as bigoted as saying blacks can't swim? Where does this statistic come from that women can't swim? I can tell you what, I have little common sense and I know that women have a little bit better ability to float than other people. There's fat content, folks. Think about it. Don't make me explain this. I don't want to get an FCC fine although that may help you out here. Think Pamela Anderson sinking. It's just not possible.

RUSH: I can't let the rest of this story go, and some of you may wonder why do I spend so much time on this global warming stuff. Folks, you got to understand something. I don't go seek this stuff out. This is no different than if it were a story on Ted Kennedy or John Kerry or anything else during the campaign. I get up every day and I do show prep and I find things that are ultimately an attack on institutions and traditions I believe in, like America and like our Constitution, and I feel the need to defend it, and make no mistake what global warming is. Make no mistake what radical militant environmentalism is. It's the new home of communism. It is anti-capitalist; it is anti-freedom; it is pro-big government; it's pro-total control over as much of life as these people can engineer and one of the things they do is live in the world of doom and gloom. They exist in it and they're happy in it. It's amazing to me that so many people want to get up every day and absorb themselves and surround themselves in doom and gloom, but they do.

Every prediction they're making and every claim they're making is getting more and more ridiculous because they're not getting traction. People are not beginning to really fall for the utter details of this. That stupid movie they produced, "Day After Tomorrow," I guarantee you that movie was -- in addition to whatever money-making reasons there were behind it -- one of its purposes was frustration or one of its reasons was frustration. More and more people are not believing this stuff, so they wanted to put on film a visualization of "what'll happen" if we don't get serious about this. There's no way that will happen, what was portrayed in that movie. It is not. It may happen but it would take thousands of years for it to happen. There's nothing we could do to stop it. There's nothing we can do to cause it, and those are the things that rub me the wrongest is when we hear that we're causing all this. We have the Kyoto protocol. Do you know that the #2 most polluting country on the planet is exempt from it?

And that's China. And why is that? China is a communist country. China's considered a Third World country. China's backwards. But that's not the main reason. The main reason is that it's like everything else coming out of the U.N. today, its attempt is to punish us. Its attempt is to take us down a size or two. The attempt here is to destroy the United States as a superpower, pure and simple. We threaten too many despots. We threaten too many dictators. We threaten waaaay too many people who want to oppress other people. They are jealous as hell of us because they feel threatened with our superior military might and the ability we have to project power, and so every move made by the U.N., whether it's this stupid climate conference or Kyoto or anything else that they come up with is nothing more than a way for them to get their hands into our treasury -- essentially into your back pocket.

And we've reached now the absurdity of the absurd when they, at a U.N. conference, a supposed series scientist and scholar says that women are more at risk from climate change -- this guy's a Canadian, by the way -- because they can't swim, and global warming will cause flash floods and more women will die. "Angie Daze..." It's a woman who came up with this. "Angie Daze, a program manager with a Canadian group called Reducing Vulnerability to Climate Change plans for international cooperation to fight global warming beyond the end of the Kyoto protocol dominated this conference on climate change, and the gatherings here serve as informal forums to begin discussing possible future emissions cuts and other steps beyond the timeframe of the Kyoto protocol." The Kyoto protocol is nothing but damage to the United States. We are doing more to clean up the messes we make than any nation on earth. They ought to be following our lead, following our technological advances rather than trying to put the clamps on us.

Now, "Chief European Union negotiator Yvo de Boer said, 'The Kyoto protocol is probably the most important international environmental agreement.' This is a senior official in Holland's environmental ministry. He says, 'You see the glaciers disappearing very rapidly. You see changes in vegetation and changes in seasonal cycles. It's not anecdotal that the climate system is warming.'" It most certainly is! It has not been proven. It cannot be proven, particularly that man is causing it -- but it has become rooted in the minds and beliefs of so many average, ordinary people precisely because anecdotal stories sell. Anecdotal stories, anecdotal evidence is what a lot of people use to persuade everybody else of what they think, and so when they hear other anecdotal evidence, it's sort of like gossip. This is really no more than gossip with the imprimatur of science behind it. The glaciers are not melting but so what if they were? Bjorn Lomborg is a man who has been disgraced by the environmental community because he wrote a book debunking all this and he admits that the sea levels rose a few centimeters a couple years ago, but who noticed?

He says this happens all the time. We do not have a static climate. The ice at the polar ice caps is never identical. It's never in the same place. It's not the same year after year after year after year. We have been able to debunk all this talk about the polar ice caps melting. You know, the data was submarine data and it was -- in fact, the debunker was a Canadian scientist, as it turns out, did his own data, and found out that they mis-measured the thickness of the ice at the polar ice caps, and they went back and measured at the same place they had measured two and five and ten years ago. The point is: The ice moves. It's floating, for crying out loud! The ice of the ice caps moves. It's not static. Nothing is. Have you ever seen anything on earth standing still? I have a clue for you: Even when you think it is, it isn't. So this is just absolutely absurd stuff here. "Other speakers on the sidelines of this conference said that women in poor countries are particularly vulnerable to the effects of global warming, which has been blamed for more violent storms and rising sea levels among other problems.

"Women are highly dependent on the environment for their family responsibilities in developing countries. Any type of environmental degradation impacts them more severely than men." Now they're turning this into a women-versus-men thing in an effort to win this argument. It's absurd. It's just the most ridiculous thing to say that women "are more highly dependent on the environment for their family responsibilities." Wait a minute, I thought we're supposed to get women out of family responsibilities anyway! I thought the whole point here was to get women in the office. We're supposed to farm kids out to daycare centers. We're not supposed to have "family concerns" being the #1 concerns that women have. See, what they're having to sacrifice? They do believe that, the left does. They're having to sacrifice this in order to make the case for this global warming business, but if you pay strict attention -- and don't worry, if you don't have time, I'll do it for you -- if you pay strict attention to this stuff, every pronouncement you will see and notice is more absurd and more extreme, more hysterical, and more senseless than the last. This one takes the cake. "Severe weather caused by global warming can pose a greater physical danger to women than men because women don't know how to swim, so in a flood situation, that can lead to a higher incidence of death or injury." If any of you people out there happen to buy into this and believe this, I am embarrassed for you. The idea! You can drown in a bathtub. You know, you can drown on a teaspoon full of water if you do it right, or wrong? You can. The idea that floods . I don't know. Don't get trapped in all this doom-and-gloom stuff. I've told you before how easy it is to be absorbed with the negative. Don't fall for it, this stuff, and don't let it change the way you're living your life.

RUSH: Let's go to Juneau, Alaska. This is Richard. Hello, sir. I'm glad you waited. Welcome to the program.

CALLER: Hey, how was your trip to Juneau there? Didn't you do a cruise up here last year?

CALLER: You've never been? Well, let me tell you you're missing out. Hey! Uh...the past few weeks, I've been listening to you global warming has been popping up in your conversation from time to time. As a [sic] Alaskan, uh, lifelong, since '68, definitely been seeing, you know, glaciers melting pretty, pretty fast. There's a glacier we used to go to when I was a kid up outside of Anchorage, called Portage Glacier. It doesn't even exist anymore [sic] and there's a mountain under it that they never knew existed. You know, as a tourist attraction, it's been abandoned [sic] --

RUSH: Yeah, and that's about what it was here last night, 40 degrees in Florida. Figure that.

RUSH: For every anecdote you can give me, Richard, I can give you another one. For example, the dome at Mount St. Helen's is growing faster and faster and faster than scientists had any idea. It's going to blow its top again. They don't know when. None of this was predicted. It's a volcano. We don't have anything to do with volcanoes, just like we don't have anything to do with glaciers. We don't have anything to do with creating them. We don't have anything to do with destroying them, and we certainly don't have anything to do with moving them. I've seen these pictures that the militant environmentalists put out of what a scene in Alaska used to look like 20 years ago and what it looks like today. What they don't tell you is the glacier may not be in that frame but it's gone someplace. It's formed somehow somewhere else. Let me share with you two stories. See, this is what bothers me about this. Here's an Alaskan, he's a decent guy. He's just an average American. He looks out his window. It doesn't look the same.

He knows that there are people out there warning about global warming and melting ice caps and lo and behold, since he doesn't see what he used to see, it must be happening. Doesn't challenge it, doesn't question it, because what his eyes tell him is that these guys are telling the truth. But if you dig deep -- and you have to dig deep because this stuff gets suppressed -- you find something just the opposite. Let me go back three-and-a-half years. April 24th, 2001. This is from CNews.com, and the headline here: "Arctic Sea Ice Not Melting: New Research." This is from the Canadian Press. This is three-and-a-half-years ago. "A Canadian scientist is pouring cold, unfrozen water on the notion that global warming is melting arctic sea ice like a popsicle at the beach. Greg Holloway, galvanized an international meeting of arctic scientists Tuesday by saying there's little evidence of a rapid decline of the volume of ice in the northern oceans. Despite breathless media reports and speculation of an ice-free northwest passage, he suggests it's far more likely the ice has just been moved around in the cycles of arctic winds.

"'It's more complicated than we thought,' he said. 'The original theory was based on declassified records from the trips of U.S. submarines under the ice. Satellite photos have clearly shown the surface area of the ice has decreased about 3% a year for the last 20 years, but the question was: How thick was the ice?' The submarine data generated headlines and cover stories from the New York Times to TIME magazine when it seemed to indicate that ice volume has decreased by 43% between '58 and '97. The evidence seemed good. Holloway, however, couldn't make that conclusion jibe with any of his computer models. He said, 'We couldn't understand how the reduction could be so rapid, and my first thought was: What is it we don't understand?' Well, he knew there was a regular pattern of sea ice being blown into the North Atlantic. He decided to examine if the wind patterns across the circumpolar north could have had something to do with the missing ice. Wind patterns blow across the arctic in a 50-year cycle. At different points in the cycle, ice tends to cluster in the center of the arctic.

"At other points, the ice is blown out to the margins, along the Canadian shore lines, where the subs were not allowed to go because of sovereignty concerns. When Holloway lined up the submarine visits with what he knew about the wind cycles, the explanation for the missing ice became clear. The submarine sampled ice during a time of oscillation of ice toward the center of the arctic. They went back during a time when ice was oscillating to the Canadian side. He had found the missing ice." It moves in 50 year cycles. Glaciers move; they melt; they reform. We have nothing to do with it! The idea that we're causing all this and that there's global warming that's being caused by what we do, it's just so absurd. It defies just a simple period of thought, common sense, and logic -- and then these guys are out debunking all these theories and they're cast aside as extremists or right-wing freaks or Christians or they live in the red states. But this guy -- I don't know if he's a Christian or not; he lives in Canada and he's a scientist, and there are other similar stories about this whole business.

You know, this was trumped recently as well, back in November. "Meeeeelting, melting ice caps! Oh, no, woe is us!" Of course the media loves to fall for this because they're the least curious bunch of people I have run into in I don't know how long. They will believe any doom-and-gloom scenario as long as it comes from another leftist. They'll believe doom and gloom about Iraq. They'll believe doom and gloom about glaciers. They'll believe doom and gloom about global warming. They'll believe doom and gloom from Michael Moore, for crying out loud. They don't question it at all. They believe John McCain. Whatever John McCain says is absolutely dead-on right. Whoever he says it about is absolutely dead-on wrong, and that's why I've been saying on this program we, for the last 16 years, have been doing the job the mainstream media is supposed to do and always used to do to one degree or another, but they're doing it less and less and less as their partisanship is taking over, as they know they're losing their monopoly. So they're desperate to hold on to what they know and what they know is who they are.

They don't want us to know who they are. They're trying to cover it with verbiage and words and so forth. But this has just reached the point now of being literally, totally absurd, and the people that get to go out and speak for them, you know, flying around in corporate jets while lamenting all you people with your SUVs, it's just offensive as it can be, and it's hilarious at the same point because there's this gene. You know, we all have this Negative Gene in our DNA, folks. We're all oriented toward negativism and we have to work very hard to overcome this Negative Gene. Very few people have the Positive Gene. I'm fortunate. I'm one of the very few born with the Positive Gene. I don't dwell in the negative. I have to be taken to it. I live and breathe in the positive optimistic world. Why wouldn't anybody with common sense living in this country? I don't know. I just find all of this... I guess you know what it is? It's my belief in God, and my profound awe, and I think this is really where you can separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to environmentalist wackos -- and Communists too.

Communists don't believe in God; by definition, they can't. If you have a belief in God and if you are awe-struck at Creation, as I am, it is simple. It is absolutely simple to understand we are but part of it. We are not an instrument of Creation. We had nothing to do with our own existence. We're one of the few beings on earth that's aware of our own existence. Most animals are not even aware of their own existence. I mean, they know they're alive and they get attached to us but in terms of being consciously aware of their existence, they're not. They don't wear watches. They don't know a dimes worth of difference between day and nighttime other than it's light and dark. They can't tell you how old they are; they can't tell you how long a year is. They don't know. They don't think in these terms. We do. We're the only ones that do, and as such, our vanity has overtaken us and we think we're largely responsible for what's here. We're largely responsible for creating it; we're largely responsible for destroying it. The California condor is in trouble? It's our fault! Melting glaciers? It's our fault! Oh, yeah? How? What are we doing? Are we taking blow torches up there, melting them? What are we doing?

"Oh, no, it's our automobiles." Really? How does that work? Fossil fuels, which are also part of Creation. We didn't produce them. We didn't invent them. We can't create them. Fossil fuels are there: definition of "fossil." Volcanoes blow up, spew pollution that we couldn't dream of creating in a lifetime -- and yet we're accused of destroying all this? We couldn't destroy it if we wanted to, folks. That's the ridiculous thing. Just as we can't create any of this, the absolute overwhelming incomprehensible awe of Creation makes it a simple transition to believing that what these environmentalists wackos and other extremists are saying is absolute bunk, because they are almost assigning to us the power of Creation and destruction. They're assigning us powers we don't have. They're assigning us abilities we'll never have, and the idea that we can, by living our lives given what was created for us? We use nothing but what was created for us. We have not invented anything that wasn't here for us to find. Zip, zero. Nada.

We haven't gone out and found a poison that wasn't placed for us here to find. We haven't done one thing that is unique or original, and yet these people want us to believe that our very existence -- and we are part of Creation and we're at the top of the Creation chain -- our very existence leads to the destruction of the planet. It just doesn't compute. It literally doesn't compute unless you live in this constant cycle of doom and gloom, and believe that the worst is just around the corner every day, and that's what these people are telling us, these militant wackos, be they environmentalists or whoever else: "The worst is just the around the corner. The worst in Iraq is happening tomorrow. The worst in Iraq was yesterday with Abu Ghraib. Tomorrow is going to be the worst with the terrorists and their taxi on the Election Day! The worst is just around the corner in New York for the homeless. The worst is just around the corner." That's how they live, and then they go out and collect money and get donations from people who want to stave off the worst, and who are they investing in is they're investing in doom and gloomers to stave off The Worst.

They're investing in people who by definition don't think it's possible to stave off The Worst. They're investing in people who are predicting it and want to be right about it. The whole thing just is beyond -- well, it's not beyond my ability to comprehend. I'm just stunned that so many people fall for this hook, line and sinker. You ever thought about it? Have you ever stopped to think just what it would take to melt a glacier? The president of the United States orders Rumsfeld to melt a glacier so that it floods Sedona, Arizona when McCain is there. Rumsfeld says, "Okay, the president's told me I got to go melt a glacier and I got to make sure it leaks all the way down to Arizona so it floods McCain. His wife is at greater risk because she can't swim because she's a woman." What's Rumsfeld going to do? It's just like back in the '80s when Reagan, he wanted to get rid of all Democrats by giving them skin cancer, so Reagan ordered Cap Weinberger to destroy the ozone -- and that's where the ozone hole came from. Reagan did it, folks!

Reagan and his "tax cuts for the rich" caused the ozone hole. Reagan's lack of concern for the homeless, and lack of concern for anybody, yep, yep! That caused the ozone hole. So he calls Weinberger; he says, "Cap, destroy the ozone. I want Democrats getting cancer." Weinberger didn't say, "Well, what's going to keep us Republicans from getting cancer?" He just said, "Okay, I'll go do it." What would he have to do to destroy the ozone layer? What would any human, what would the human race have to do to destroy it? Answer: Impossible. We can't. It's created by the sun. We'd have to put the sun out, and then of course we're all doomed. I'm waiting for that next. I'm waiting. Global warming is being caused by the sun because somehow our pollution is getting there, and the sun's going to go out zillions of years earlier than originally forecast. The sun will go dark in 30 years unless we raise taxes. I mean, that's as absurd as these jerks are getting. So how would we melt a glacier?

How would we do it, folks? How would it be done? Let's say that FDR ordered it done and it's still in the process. Whoever he ordered to do it is still in the process of trying to melt the glacier. How would we do it? I know you're going to have some scientists that would say, "It would be easy, Rush. Just keep polluting, trap those greenhouse gases in there and warm up the environment and it's going to happen." Prove it! Last I know, there were ice ages on this country where the glaciers froze and got even bigger and there weren't any humans when that happened -- and they melted, too, after that, because if the glaciers hadn't melted, guess what? We would be cave men running around with the woolly mammoth because we'd still be under the ice. Those glaciers had to recede before there were human beings, before there was an automobile, before anybody ever heard of global warming. Man made? How did it happen if we didn't cause it? Why don't people ask these questions? Beyond me.

RUSH: I'm sorry to get so worked up about this, but I know how my dad felt when I was doing stupid things as a kid. He'd talk to me like that. He just couldn't believe things that I would say or do, and that's how he tried to get it across to me. But this stuff bothers me because of who's behind it, and what their intentions are -- and believe me, it's not about saving the earth because even these idiots know that if the earth is doomed, the earth is doomed, and there's nothing we can do to stop it. It's all about other things. So that was quite an energetic rant out there, folks, but I'm just passionate about this. It's been going on for all these years. I can remember watching. Let me tell you something, it's 20 years ago. Let me give you the ultimate stat. Here I go again. It's 1984, and I'm in Sacramento. It's '84, '85, and I've just gotten there, starting my career that leads to this program, and back then, David Brinkley hosted the show This Week with David Brinkley and he had this scientist on there one day, Oppenheimer, Michael Oppenheimer, and he was from some environmental organization and they were talking about global warming in 1985.

I heard all these anecdotal stories about all these horrible changes in these species that were threatened and blah, blah, blah. See I've been listening to this same stuff for 20 years, but here's the thing. This Dr. Oppenheimer said, "Well..." in answer to a question, Well, what's the proof? "Well, we don't have the proof now, but we can't afford to wait because in 20 years. In 20 years it will be irreversible." Well, it's 20 years later. Do we have any proof? No. We don't have any proof at all. In fact, we've got less proof than we had then because we didn't have any. Now, if 20 years ago they were saying that our actions with these greenhouse gases would be irreversible, it's about 20 years from where I heard them say that. If they were right then -- and they weren't -- but if they were right then, the stories would be, "We're doomed. We failed to act. We've been warning you for 20 years but it's over; better get your will in order," or, "You won't need a will because all your family's going to die because we're all going to be dead because it's all ending because global warming is happening and nobody listened to us 20 years ago."

That's what they'd be saying, but no! They're still saying, "We must do this to stop this and do this to stop that." The story hasn't changed in 20 years, folks. I remember when I started this program in 1988, the great Ted Danson, a well-known scientist -- he also dabbled in television; you may remember a show called Cheers -- but he was primarily a great ocean researcher, and I remember in 1988, Ted Danson announcing that if we didn't clean up the oceans in 10 years -- and that was '98 -- so six years ago, the oceans were to die and along with the oceans dying, so were we. You know, in some places, the oceans are nine, ten thousand feet deep, even deeper than that. Have you ever given thought to polluting something 10,000 feet deep -- from a cruise ship? Do you know that the ocean eats oil alive? Do you know that oil seeps through the floor of the ocean but it never reaches the surface, because it gets destroyed because the seawater is pretty powerful stuff. It will kill you if you're in it too long, one way or the other. It will dehydrate you or what have you and we didn't create that. Yeah, we need a whole lot of Morton's to go out there and salt the oceans in case they lose their salt. This stuff is just so absurd!

And we've reached now the absurdity of the absurd when they, at a U.N. conference, a supposed series scientist and scholar says that women are more at risk from climate change

This is hugh!

The environment is never stable. We humans should be humble enough to know we can't control nature. And yet here we have enviro nuts asserting its no problem to stop global warming. Which I think by the way, is the least of the world's problems. The irony is more fossil fuel and pollution is created flying to distant cities for conferences to deal with a hypothetical problem and the money expended could be better used for other more important purposes. But you will never hear the Left owe up to its mistakes.

I remember talk of CO2 causing global cooling in the 1970's when I was a kid. I remember seeing magazine articles about it where New York City was covered in ice showing the two buildings of the World Trade Center sticking up and out like two large, white popsicles. I was talking to my father about it and the same thing was going around in the 1940's where he remembers an article in Look or Colliers where again, it showed a New York City covered in ice with the Empire State Building in the center.

I'm waiting for Rush to do an environmentalist-whacko take on the Pistons-Pacers fight!
I caught some of this today. I loved the bit about chop-suey, and how THEY want the windmills where YOU live.
My sons have grown up listening to Rush!
Nobody compares to El Rushbo when he is on.

Now, they're not going it build these windmills where they live. They're going to build them in places where you live, but of course the doesn't know a windmill from anything. He'll go flying right into it and chop suey it is.

We have A windmill farm in this part of the country. It's lovely, brightens up the landscape. But I fail to see how a bird could be hurt by them. The windmills have only 3 slow-turning blades. There are more dead birds on the highways (ooops, should I say that?)

We have lots of room for windmills here. But some enviromentalists objected to putting windmills in a "tall grass preserve." ? Excuse me? Tall grass doesn't grow that tall.

"A careful study of extinction rates so far, conservation measures underway and a climate environmental change shows that at least 1,200 species of birds will be gone by 2100 and that is a conservative estimate, said the team at Stanford. Even though 1.3% of bird species have gone extinct since 1500, the global number of individual birds is estimated to have experienced a 20% to 25% reduction during the same period, they wrote in their report published in the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, and this can have severe consequences for people.

Uh huh.

"..and then you add Psalm six to Ezekiel twenty eight, subract the days in Revelation twenty three and skip to verse four --and there it is folks in black and white: Jesus is coming tommorow at three o'clock! Spend that money 'cause tommorow we're aaaall goin' home! Can I get an Amen?!

"Er, excuse me, sir? There is no Revelation chapter twenty three."

"There you go! See?! That's okay, son--you're excused and God loves you. But he says "be not a doubter! But be a believer!!"(thunderous applause and the organ kicks in on que...)

Yes!!! Here it is, reduced down to the lowest common denominator and most simplistic level, even a comedic level, so that even the dumbest of the dumb... Yes, even Liberal Dems can hook up with it!!! (that is, if they wanted to, of course)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.