Posted on 11/30/2009 4:44:39 PM PST by GOP_Lady
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
On Today's Show... |
November 30, 2009
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
Terms of Use | Privacy Statement | Copyright & Trademark Notice | Unsubscribe
The Rush Limbaugh Show® Premiere Radio Networks © All Rights Reserved, 2009. Premiere Radio Networks, Inc. 15260 Ventura Blvd. Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
|
||||||
 |
Continually repeat ... It's not about me. I'm the President. |
Past editions of "RUSH IN A HURRY"
To be added or removed from the "Rush In A Hurry" Ping List, FReepmail GOP_Lady.
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: The Global Warming Additional Stack headline. From yesterday, November 29th, from the UK Scotsman: "Warming Will Wipe Out Billions -- Only 10% Will Survive Global Warming." The warmers are trying to terrify everybody into signing onto this Copenhagen treaty -- and worse. Now, somebody explain to me how it is that they are not terrorists. This is a pure terror tactic. The people at the IPCC -- the UN, the people at Hadley, the people in the media, Algore -- are terrorizing people around the world and in this country. Gore specifically -- and don't forget Gore's quote. Gore's quote, let me call it up here for you real quickly. We're getting the audio of this. Algore once said of George W. Bush, 'He betrayed this country. He played on our fears."
"Warming Will Wipe Out Billions -- Only 10% Will Survive Global Warming." We've also got some great audio sound bites on this coming up. Hang in there. Here's the next headline. "Only 10% will survive global warming," and that quote in the story that I just read from The Scotsman is from the head of the Tyndall Centre. That report and crazy quotes, other crazy quotes in the story, "only 10% will survive," are from professor Kevin Anderson, who is director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change. The Tyndall Centre looms large in the CRU, the Climate Research Unit e-mails. This is not a conspiracy, folks. This is a cabal! This is a cabal of thugs masquerading as scientists to advance a worldwide leftist agenda. You know, when you read these e-mails -- and I've read a fair number of them; because, of course, this is a very passionate issue to me.
One of the themes of the e-mails that have been released is how people at the Climate Research Unit are constantly trying to shake down the oil companies -- Exxon, Shell -- for money and for partnerships, just like the reverends Jackson and Sharpton have done. They talk about it openly, how they're constantly trying to shake down the oil companies. The only thing manmade about global warming is the theory behind it. What you are going to do with people who are even willing to lie about the weather? Oh! I think it's a related story. "Somali pirates seized a tanker carrying more than $20 million of crude oil from Saudi Arabia to the United States in the increasingly dangerous waters off east Africa an official said Monday, an attack that could pose a huge environmental or security threat." Really? They hijacked an oil tanker; it's an environmental threat.
Now, if these little pirates, these Somali pirates, if they were smart, they would threaten to burn the oil unless the Copenhagen crowd gave them a billion or so bucks. I mean, if they're out after money and Copenhagen is out to fleece the world, particularly the United States, why don't these guys do a Saddam Hussein and threaten to set the whole ship on fire just like Saddam did in the desert at the end of the first Gulf War. He lit up all his oil fields. Get these guys to threaten to do the same thing. I mean, this is pretty much what the global warming shakedown is all about: The redistribution of wealth from the first world to the third. The Somali pirates are the Third World. They can say, "Hey, IPCC! We know you're working for us. We know you're trying to get money so you can give it to us. Well, here. We're just going to get the direct route. We're going to get it from you. We're going to threaten to set this ship on fire." (sigh)
It's just mind-boggling. "Western Lifestyle Unsustainable, Says Climate Expert Rajendra Pachauri." This is from yesterday as well by James Randerson in the UK Guardian. "Western Lifestyle Unsustainable, Says Climate Expert Rajendra Pachauri." He heads up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the United Nations. "Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world's leading climate scientist has told the Observer," which is a section of the UK Guardian. Western lifestyle "unsustainable." It's terrorism on parade disguised as manmade global warming. By the way, lest we forget: Mr. Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at the United Nations was also awarded a Nobel Prize along with Algore for his work. But, notice it was a peace prize; it was not the science prize.
This clown, the head of the IPCC, and Gore got the Nobel Peace Prize. Remember? They shared it, the IPCC and Algore. These are a bunch of crooks, leftist thugs and crooks. From Wednesday 11 June 2008 from the press release of the University of East Anglia. This is from last summer. "The University of East Anglia, particularly its Climate Research Unit, is the only university to be included in a list of the key bodies that have set the environmental agenda in the UK over the past 30 years." So the CRU, University of East Anglia, claimed they set the agenda on climate change -- and who besides the head of the IPCC can deny it? Nobody can deny it. They have set the agenda. One man, Phil Jones -- and his 150-year temperature record, which is a hoax and a fraud -- is largely responsible for all of this. Western lifestyles unsustainable. It is an attack on capitalism, it is an attack on freedom, and it is ongoing -- and it's not just happening in the global warming movement. It's happening in the Obama health care movement. It's happening in the cap-and-trade movement. It's happening in the card check movement. It's happening in the amnesty-for-illegals movement. Everything the left does should be seen as an attack on freedom. That's how it should be understood.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: And one more little story here, ladies and gentlemen, and this is from Tuesday, November 24th, from the BBC: "Climate 'Is a Major Cause' of Conflict in Africa,"and they have a picture up close of a poor, destitute African woman, hands to her face, crying tears. "Climate has been a major driver of armed conflict in Africa, research shows - and future warming is likely to increase the number of deaths from war." They're doubling down on it. It's just breathtaking to behold this. They're so predictable. We knew they were going to circle the wagons. We knew that they were going to take this head on. And the fact that people are calling here and commenting on this in a political fashion proves that global warming is a political movement that has nothing whatsoever to do with science.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Okay, to the phones, to Buffalo, New York, this is Steve. Welcome, sir. Great to have you here.
CALLER: Hey, ditto. How are you today, Rush?
RUSH: Fine, sir. Thank you.
CALLER: Good. I consider myself a Libertarianist. And I absolutely disagree with the fact that this is a politically driven agenda. The way I feel on this is, throughout history, throughout time, many changes in the climate have occurred, which has caused mass extinction. We can measure this in cycles. We have cold periods, we have warm periods. The various changes usually occur by natural, you know, things that happen in the earth. Do we agree?
RUSH: So far, but I'm not going to stipulate to the premise that thousands of species, or there have been thousands of extinctions. We keep discovering new species.
CALLER: That's absolutely correct. Now, I agree with you for the most part that at this current juncture there isn't enough research and hard science to base that the vehicles we're driving, the pollutants that we're emitting into the air is going to cause a manmade total collapse the way they're making it seem. I agree that in the way that they're spinning it, it is disgusting to listen to. However, I disagree in what you're saying is that we should not investigate this. Because we can measure and because we know for sure that there have been many changes --
RUSH: Wait a second, wait a second. Man, you were heading down the right path, you came to a fork in the road and you took it. There has been and there is continually being produced document after document after document, research paper after research paper after research paper proving that the earth is not even warming, much less that we have anything to do with it! Sorry, my blood pressure is okay, folks. I just don't suffer fools well. Don't you understand, you call here and you want to sound so reasonable and so open-minded and then say that we aren't looking into it. That's how we have discovered that it is a hoax! The people that are producing the research that shows all of this is a lie can't get published in these so-called distinguished journals. They are ridiculed and impugned; they are laughed at; they are discredited and made fun of. They are out there. This consensus of scientists does not agree and it does exist. All of this is totally made up.
Now, you're right, the earth warms and the earth cools, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it either way. If we can't fix it, we didn't cause it, and we can't fix it. It's silly to even discuss this anymore. This is the point. It's silly to discuss it. There is no manmade global warming. It's been made up from the get-go because it is purely political. And the fact that anybody wants to now dispute the real science and the temperature record in the last ten years, it ain't getting warmer. There aren't more hurricanes, and they aren't more violent. None of this is happening. The sea levels are not rising, the glaciers are not melting. It's all been Photoshopped. There is no evidence to support this, yet people want to call and argue about it, which means it is purely political. It always has been, and that is what I, your host, knew from the first moment I heard the first scientist for the first time on television on This Week with Brinkley on a Sunday in 1984 say we've only got 20 years left, I knew it was political. And then I heard what they said we have to do, we have to reduce our lifestyles; we have to stop making progress.
I knew it was political because I know liberals. I know liberals hate capitalism and consider it an enemy. So how best to win if you're a liberal? Destroy capitalism, ergo, manmade global warming. And look at the headlines just today: "Western Civilization, Western Lifestyles Unsustainable." "Only 10% of the World's Population will Survive Global Warming." "Global Warming is Causing Conflict and War in Africa." No, it's not. It's something called poverty. Get 'em running water, get 'em electricity, and get 'em DDT. Get rid of dictators and Africa will join the league of First World nations in time. But if you're going to deny Africa DDT, if you're going to deny Africa the right to develop, if you're going to deny Africa running water and electricity, then you're always going to have a Third World country with a few exceptions on the continent. It's called poverty. Poverty results from liberalism. Poverty results from socialism. The problem with poverty around the world is there hasn't been enough distribution of capitalism.
Capitalism is now under assault in the one great place in this country that made it the greatest country on the face of the earth, a country that the left despises. Leftists in this country and in other countries despise this country. And every one of their policies, either at the UN or in Washington, is designed to take down this country. Make no mistake about it. You cannot ignore it any longer. You cannot say, "Rush, that sounds a little extreme. I just don't want to think that there are people living in this country that would do this." You're voting for them. It happens. It's happening right under your nose. It's called Obamacare. It's called health insurance reform. It's called cap and trade. It's called TARP. It's called the stimulus bill. This president has spent three-and-a-half trillion dollars in his first year in office and it ain't over. That is a record. It's three-and-a-half trillion dollars we do not have. It is designed to bankrupt this country and to allow Obama to join the rest of the leftists around the world and raise taxes on everybody in this country, income taxes and every other kind of tax, the purpose of which is twofold: to fund an ever-growing government, but more importantly, to prevent the creation of wealth, to provide a roadblock to the creation of wealth.
The more that is taxed from you, the less disposable income you have to invest and to live on the less likely you are to assume and acquire wealth. That's for the elitists to have and they're going to get their wealth by taking yours and mine and everybody else's. And they're going to do it under the guise of saving the planet or creating jobs or reforming health care or reducing greenhouse gases or saving the financial institutions or saving the banks or making sure nobody defaults on their mortgage or making sure nobody has to pay on their mortgage. Whatever it is, everything going on right now is an assault on you and your family, your children, and their grandchildren, your grandchildren and their effort to acquire individual wealth. When that happens, fewer and fewer people own property, and the ownership of private property is as fundamental to freedom as is the First Amendment to our Constitution. All ten amendments are under assault. The people of this country got hoodwinked and bamboozled and have elected an international socialist who has no particular desire or love or appreciation for American exceptionalism, and he's marching through with all the weapons at his disposal: ACORN, a Democrat majority in Congress, a compliant media, and science. The Four Corners of Deceit: Academia, government, science, and media.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Couple more climate stories. Here's just a headline here: "UN scientists turn on each other: UN Scientist Declares ClimateGate colleagues Mann, Jones and Rahmstorf 'should be barred from the IPCC process' -- They are 'not credible any more.'" A-ha! So a UN scientist finally realizes what's happening here and so these three guys, it looks like the UN wants to throw 'em overboard in order to save the whole movement. Because, remember, now, the UN's climate science guy is out there saying, "Those e-mails? (grumbling) That doesn't change the science here." Of course it changes! They're making it up. The Hadley unit, the CRU at East Anglia was the basis for the IPCC! You cannot throw out Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and Rahmstorf without throwing out the whole IPCC. So if the UN scientists are going to throw these guys out they gotta throw out the whole organization, because it's all corrupt. It's all fabricated on lies. None of it is true.
The story right here I have is also just breaking on Fox News by George Russell: "Environmentalism should be regarded on the same level with religion 'as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity,' according to a paper written two years ago to influence the future strategy of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world's would-be environmental watchdog." I believe, ladies and gentlemen -- not to pat myself on the back, but I believe -- it was I, early auto, who advised looking at the environmental movement as just another religion. They can't prove it. It requires total faith. In fact, I remember I said that and I remember a speech that I quoted from Michael Crichton in which he had the most startling comparison to the first verses of Genesis about how the world was created by God.
We had the Garden of Eden, purity, bliss, happiness, peace, love, planet, abundance, wonderful -- and then people came along and corrupted it (particularly a woman: Eve) and ever since then everything's been corrupt. He said the environmental movement has every element in it, including the Book of Revelation, which is the ultimate destruction of the planet! It is a religion, and now the United Nations, in a paper two years ago, admits it. "Environmentalism should be regarded on the same level with religion," quote, now: "'as the only compelling value-based narrative available to humanity.'" The only compelling value-based narrative available to humanity! This is in a paper "written two years ago to influence the future strategy of the United Nations Environmental Program, the world's would-be environmental watchdog." They admit it. It is a religion.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: We need to remember something about these climatic research unit e-mails at East Anglia University. These are only a tiny fraction of what there must be, folks. This group has been in operation for 30 years, only about a thousand e-mails and a couple of documents here. This operation has been in business for 30 years. We're just seeing a very tiny part of what they were up to, and it's clear that what we have seen were not cherry-picked by somebody. There's nothing out of context here. In fact if you read these e-mails in real language, the way people really talk to each other let me tell you what these e-mails all say: "If this gets out, we're screwed." That's what these e-mails say.
I got a long story here. I'm not even going to try to read it to you. I know it's brilliant. Somebody has discovered the source code to their computer modeling and found it to be as fraudulent as anything. Something the media ought to be doing, just an average journalist, average computer guy going through it has found the source code for their computer modeling. I'll tell you what it is because I want the website to link to it here in just a second. I already put that section of the stack at the bottom of the stack so I gotta go to the bottom of the stack where it is and find it.
Now, let's talk a little bit about the expert, the head honcho of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at the UN, Mr. Rajendra Pachauri, who says, hey, a couple rogue e-mails, ah, no big deal. In fact, here's what he said: "The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report." Now, either this guy is clueless about the real process, or he is lying. I think he's lying because this man is not a climate scientist, he's an economist. I'll share with you his resume in mere moments. It is well known throughout the scientific community that any and all submitted comments critical of the IPCC Report are brushed off. The summary for policy makers portion of the report is finished first. The summary for policy makers portion, that's what gets released, the summary, and so nobody ever looks at the internals. The scientific details in the body of the report are then modified so they do not contradict the conclusions the politicians want. The IPCC reports are pure bias. That's the whole point. They are codified bias. The whole global warming movement, which, by the way, when the earth started cooling note the change to climate change? Did you notice that? I mean that's clear evidence it's political.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I wanted to look at the education of the head honcho of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change because, remember, Ed Begley told us last week to listen to climate scientists, so I would assume that Rajendra Pachauri is a climate scientist. So I looked. He was educated at the La Martiniere College in Lucknow and the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering in Jamalpur, Bihar. HEC Paris appointed Pachauri Professor Honoris Causa in October 2009. He served as Assistant Professor and Visiting Faculty Member in the Department of Economics and Business at NC State. Pachauri was awarded an MS degree in Industrial Engineering from North Carolina State University, Raleigh, in 1972, as well as a joint Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Economics in 1974.
He is not a climate scientist. He is an economist, and this is all about economics. Health care is all about economics, redistribution of wealth. That's all this is about, as I have instinctively known since I first heard about this. Now, there's another story that is much too long for me to even reference here, but I'm going to give the link, I already gave the link to Koko. I want Koko to post this on the website, RushLimbaugh.com. It's from the Canada Free Press: "The Scientists Involved in Deliberately Deceiving the World on Climate -- The Public and Mainstream Media Still Don’t Grasp the Implications." What this has and what this story needs is faces and names, the names of the hoaxers and their faces and pictures of them in meetings. It prints out to eight pages or six pages.
These pictures go all the way back to the mid-1980s, these people getting together, and it's interesting reading as well. But more importantly, it names names, it places pictures -- Phil Jones, Michael Mann, all of these people are here, and there's an unsung hero here, a guy who doesn't get mentioned much. His name is Wigley, and he is part of the triumvirate along with Michael Mann and Phil Jones at the East Anglia University that are running this hoax.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I found it. It is from the American Thinker via NewsBusters.org, Noel Sheppard on November 25th: "ClimateGate Smoking Gun Found, American Thinker Does Media's Job." The guy, Marc Sheppard at the American Thinker, examined the computer program's source code available in what was hacked from the Climate Research Unit and discovered that the scandal is everything that the global warming-obsessed media fear. It's highly technical and I'm not even going to attempt to read it, but the conclusion by Marc Sheppard is there's now "irrefutable evidence that alarmists have indeed been cooking the data for at least a decade may just be the most important strike in human history." Now, this is the computer source code for computer modeling and so forth, and it just illustrates how bogus all of this is.
Marc Sheppard is a software designer, a consultant and a business owner who discovered this in his spare time. Where are America's leading science periodicals or key journalists in this debate? Where are America's science editors on this? They are nowhere to be found. In the past two years, we have seen the press ignore important facts about a presidential candidate in order to get him elected. We have seen the press ignore or gloss over important facts about a president's appointees to get them approved by Congress. We have seen the press ignore important facts about the president's czars, and we have seen the press ignore important facts about a major community organizing group, ACORN. Now the press is ignoring the uncovering of the largest hoax in the history of science. This is even bigger than the cold fusion hoax. This is bigger than the flat earthers.
Oh, by the way, folks, you might want to know that the decidedly not green economies of China and India never had a recession to speak of, and they're now growing like gangbusters. Indian Economy Grows 7.9%, Shatters Forecasts -- India reported its best growth figures in 18 months today as government spending and record low interest rates helped Asia's third largest economy rebound from a globule financial crisis." They never had a recession. They had a little slowdown. The countries that are not beating themselves up, the countries that are doing everything they can to grow are indeed growing. We all know how to do it. The fact that it's not happening here is personal.
END TRANSCRIPT
So they're doubling down. They're doubling down on the hoax. They're pushing for "up-front money" now before the whole thing is outed as a big lie. Of course it already has been outed as a big lie. I predicted this last week. They're going to double down and act like it's not happening. And in fact Carol Browner came out and a couple of the other guys and said, "Hey, you know, there were a couple of emails the other day. They don't change a thing." She's the EPA director. "They don't change a thing. We got 2500 scientists out there." You do not have 2500 scientists. You have 2500 political hacks led by four pseudo-scientists who are disguising themselves as scientists. They're actually hacks and political scientists, and the jury is in on this! The jury is no longer out.
Thomas Lifson, the American Thinker: "The BBC received copies of some of the CRU emails more than a month ago, but did nothing about them, sitting on explosive evidence of fraud. The UK Daily Mail reports: 'The BBC has become tangled in the row over the alleged manipulation of scientific data on global warming. One of its reporters has revealed he was sent some of the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia more than a month ago -- but did nothing about them. Despite the explosive nature of some of the messages -- which revealed apparent attempts by the CRU's head, Professor Phil Jones, to destroy global temperature data rather than give it to scientists with opposing views -- Paul Hudson [BBC] failed to report the story. This has led to suspicions that the scandal was ignored because it ran counter to what critics say is the BBC's unquestioning acceptance in many of its programmes that man-made climate change is destroying the planet.'"
So the theory also now is that the e-mails were leaked before they were hacked. They were leaked and they were sent out. Who knows who else got them, but the BBC got them a month before we heard about them and sat on it. How many other news organizations got these e-mails and sat on them, forcing the leaker to go ahead and hack and put everything up on his own website? "The sequence of events strongly suggests that an insider leaked some emails to the BBC (and for all we know, others), hoping that they would be incriminating enough to intrigue anyone. When faced with a media stonewall, the insider then chose to post the complete files where they could not quickly be extinguished." Here's the story from the UK Times Online: "Scientists at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based." I mean, they're not even pretending that they want to prove their claims, folks! "It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The CRU, Climate Research Unit, was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under freedom of information legislation." The e-mails say: We're gonna destroy it before we release it. They have hijacked the peer review process. They've thrown that all out. Like I said last Wednesday: "If anybody in the mainstream science community values their reputation and science as a profession, you demand the investigation and get this cleaned up."
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: "Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals -- stored on paper and magnetic tape -- were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building."
The original data dumped to make space when the CRU moved to a new building? This is the equivalent of throwing away pictures of your kids when they were young because you don't have room for them anymore, all in the name of saving space when moving, if we are to believe this -- which, of course, we are to believe none of it. We all know what happened. We all know why this is being done. It is a worldwide fleece of money from the Western nations (particularly the United States) being orchestrated by a bunch of far-left, radical hacks who seek to attack individual liberty and freedom and capitalism. Now here's the piece de resistance today, in a story from the UK Guardian: "Leaked Emails Won't Harm UN Climate Body, Says Chairman -- Rajendra Pachauri says there is 'virtually no possibility' of a few scientists biasing IPCC's advice, after UAE hacking breach.
"There is 'virtually no possibility' of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN's top global warming body, its chair said today. Rajendra Pachauri defended the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the wake of apparent suggestions in emails between climate scientists ... that they had prevented work they did not agree with from being included in the panel's fourth assessment report, which was published in 2007. ... 'The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report,' he said. 'Every single comment that an expert reviewer provides has to be answered either by acceptance of the comment, or if it is not accepted, the reasons have to be clearly specified. So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening.'"
That's just an out-and-out lie, because it just did happen. It happened all over the place CRU and East Anglia. But here's the real danger of this. This is now a whitewash. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- and the headline of this story is, by the way, "Digging in on Climate Fraud." The IPCC leadership is a few scientists-turned-politicians who have helped the politicians-turned-scientists like Gore to exaggerate the science. Most of the climate researchers have just been going along for the ride, content to let the power players make up stuff so they can enjoy continued funding. I read that this guy, Phil Jones (or maybe it's Michael Mann; I'll have to get the story here and dig it down further from the stack) over a recent period of time has received over $22 million in grants. One of these head honchos at the CRU got over $22 million in grants.
A lot of people will lie for a lot less than that. Now, you say that you're going to throw away and dump the original temperature data because you don't have room for it? Can anybody say, Rosemary Woods and the 18-minute gap on the Nixon tapes in the Oval Office? Oh, Rosemary Woods, where are you now? Amazing how history repeats itself. Now, as I spoke with my official climatologist, Roy Spencer, about this, and he's very alarmed because science has been corrupted here which was my whole point on Wednesday. Science and the media, academia, and government are now The Four Corners of Deceit in the world -- and science has been corrupted, and it's been corrupted actually long before this, but this is the biggest blow that it has taken. These scientists are going to have to endure the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change leaders saying it's no big deal.
Here you have the head UN organization, which is leading the fleecing, using the data provided by the CRU. The IPC said, "Ah, a few e-mails? That's no big deal! It's okay to hide or destroy data. It's okay to fudge the data so that cooling trends don't show up, and to interfere with the peer review process by bullying journals into not publishing research by skeptics," all of which happened. This is what legitimate scientists are truly afraid of. The IPCC has destroyed scientific discipline, with this remark by the chairman. "A few e-mails? Bah! It doesn't harm what we're doing here. Getting rid of the data? No, that doesn't harm what we're doing here. Fudging the data so that cooling trends don't show up?" Remember, in these e-mails somebody wrote to somebody, "It's devastating," it is devastating, "that we can't explain the earth cooling," meaning they don't have a reason that they could give for the earth cooling that would also support the whole global warming thesis.
So they hide it. They say, "We've gotta delete this data! We've gotta make sure it doesn't get out to these people who are using Freedom of Information Acts and requests to get the data." The peer review process has become a joke, because the peer review process is where all of this fraud is supposed to be turned up and supposed to be outed and supposed to be found, but these magazines, the journals (where the so-called peer review takes place) themselves were bullied into not publishing research by the skeptics. So the IPCC (this is what Dr. Spencer is afraid of) is going to destroy scientific discipline, mainstream scientists who should not have let it happen. And again, there ought to be outrage throughout whatever is mainstream science these days. I don't even know what is mainstream science anymore, but the people who are genuinely into science for science's sake, they have to be leading the charge on this.
Because this guy that runs the IPCC has just affirmatively destroyed scientific discipline and replaced scientific discipline with something like "consensus," which doesn't belong in science. Now, Phil Jones, the guy at the CRU (Hadley CRU at East Anglia). His global temperature record -- which included the rings of three trees in a Siberian forest. Phil Jones' global temperature record was the single most important study that was supposedly demonstrating manmade global warming. Now the head of the IPCC, Pachauri, is suggesting a few "rogue" scientists are not important to the whole research process? And it's more than just a few rogue scientists. They have destroyed the automobile industry perhaps. Like at the industries they have destroyed with this hoax and this data. It is monumental. Look at the money they have spent. Look at the money they have caused people to lose.
It is just astounding what a few people here pulled off with the help of a charlatan by the name of Algore, a former vice president of the United States, who stands to make gazillions of dollars on all this. And now there's still going. They're ramping up for Copenhagen. The poor nations of the world are supposedly demanding 10 billion a year to sign it? And Gore won't face debate. None of these people will debate anybody. They will not let anybody see their data. They destroy the data. Or they alter, they make it up. You know, in science, my friends, it only takes one research study to disprove a theory. It just takes one research paper. When you're talking about real science, just one research paper can destroy an entire theory. Well, there have been a bunch of research papers that with science destroy this hoax -- and they have been suppressed. They have not been printed in respected journals.
The authors of these research papers have been personally attacked by name and by innuendo, being called "deniers" and so forth. This is how The Universe of Lies operates. This is the left. Wherever you find it, Marxists, socialists, communists, liberals, progressives, this is how they do everything. I want you to think about something, ladies and gentlemen, as we go to the break. Let's take a walk down Tobacco Road, shall we? Another teachable moment. You remember Big Tobacco, don't you? What was it about Big Tobacco that got Big Tobacco in so much trouble with the leftists? Didn't it have something to do with covering up research that proved tobacco was not what we were told? I recall something about manipulating and hiding research by Big Tobacco, claiming tobacco wasn't harmful.
It was a hoax perpetrated with the help of phony scientists and their phony research, bought and paid for by Big Tobacco. We had congressional testimony on this; 60 Minutes exposed it, went to town on all this. It was the crime of the century, and to this day there are class-action lawsuits filed against Big Tobacco. Somebody was just awarded a hundred gazillion dollars the other day for 25 years of emphysema because she was lied to. Now, the left went and put Big Tobacco -- well, they didn't put 'em out of business but they forced them to diversify, warnings on the labels and so forth. You can't smoke anywhere. Secondhand smoke kills, firsthand smoke, kills all this. "Ah, a few rogue scientists in the global warming hoax don't disprove the data." Golly gosh, my friends.
I have an article here: "RICO Convictions of Major Tobacco Companies Affirmed -- [T]he D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a 92-page per curiam opinion upholding the judgment issued by D.C. District Court ... in August 2006." Well, this is how the big warmers should be treated, exactly -- and Algore is the biggest of the big warmers along with Phil Jones and Michael Mann and everybody else at this CRU place at East Anglia. There should be legal consequences for this fraud! I remember those hearings. Waxman held those hearings. That's when the CEO said nicotine was not addictive. Remember all that? We've been through this before. Except last time the left was out destroying a capitalist enemy. This time they're circling the wagons around one of their own, which is genuinely destroying capitalism.
Back in a second.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: And let's not forget Algore, who ought to be interrogated just as every president of Big Tobacco was for lying about nicotine, addiction of tobacco and nicotine and all that, here's Algore, February 8th of 2004.
GORE: He betrayed this country! (cheers and applause) He played on our fears!
RUSH: That's at a Democrat Party fundraiser, February 8th in 2004, "He betrayed this country! He played on our fears!" How can we not call these people terrorists? They're terrorizing little kids. They're terrorizing everybody.
END TRANSCRIPT
Now, I know most of you have never been to the White House in an official function, but I have a number of times, and I know what it takes to get in there. And every time you get in there you have to give them your Social Security number, date of birth, a whole bunch of information and they run a new background check on you. Now, it's been that way for the White House Christmas parties, it's been that way when I've been invited to the executive branch Oval Office, it doesn't matter, you don't just walk in there and if your name is not on a list, you don't get in there. You need an ID yourself and even people that work at the White House run around with ID tags on. America's most influential, by a wide margin, conservative, has to go through the Secret Service, multiple checkpoints to get in there, just like a regular guy. But these two people didn't? Come on, folks, we're being asked to believe that the Secret Service let these two people in with no names on a checklist? "Oh, yeah, fine, go on," to a state dinner and they end up in a photo with the president of the United States and with the vice president and his wife.
At first the news was, "Oh, oh, is the president safe? Oh, my God, my God, how could this happen?" And then later, like even the perky one, Katie Couric met them, "Nothing here, folks, nothing to worry about, I met them, they're nice and sweet people." So the original story was, "Hey, it's bad news, the president was threatened, oh, my," and then the secret service, "The president was never in trouble, the president was always safe." Obama: "I'm demanding a full-fledged investigation." Let me tell you where you ought to be investigating, Obama, and that's global warming and the hoax at the IPCC and the Climate Research Unit, another full stack on that today, by the way. And it's just getting worse and worse and worse. (interruption) No, this is not what happens when you do a state dinner in a tent. It should be just as difficult to get into a tent as it is to get into the White House. The reception, by the way, was in the White House in the Blue Room. That's where the picture was taken. They got into the White House before they went to the tent. Now, I was not born on a turnip truck, and I didn't fall off of one, and this just doesn't happen. I have no idea what the explanation for this is. But they don't live in the Universe of Reality up at the White House, we know that.
END TRANSCRIPT
Guess what's happening now? The Florida Highway Patrol is thinking about trying to get a search warrant for his hospital medical records after he was treated to see if they can find any evidence of domestic violence. Once again, law enforcement authorities are chasing around people's medical records. In Tiger Woods' case, he is not required to make a statement to the authorities. Now, he's gone out and hired a lawyer, the guy's known as the Johnnie Cochran of Orlando. He's a media lawyer. When you hire a lawyer, it's more than just, you know, running into a fire hydrant. People start thinking, people start speculating. So I have no idea, folks, and I don't want to join the speculation train which is running away right now.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, while the cops in Florida are thinking about getting a search warrant for Tiger Woods' medical records, we've got this cop killer laid up in Washington. He's been surrounded, a mass cop killer. By the way, he massacred four police officers and was on the streets because almost ten years ago (in the face of a great protest) then-governor Mike Huckabee pardoned him in Arkansas. This may be Huckabee's Willie Horton. You know, we're spending all these law enforcement resources trying to track down Tiger Woods' medical records and whether or not something is going on in his house between himself and his wife, and we've got this manhunt for a guy that shot and killed four people Thanksgiving Day down here in Jupiter, Florida.
It's a waste of resources to be spending all this money, but the media drives this stuff. The Florida cops are getting interested in it because the media is interested in it and they think they gotta follow up on it or they're going to look like they're being derelict in their duty. Then you have the famous guy aspect of this. "Hey, famous people can't get special treatment. We've gotta give Tiger the same treatment we give anybody else," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So it all fits. It all fits a pattern of how the media really (at times) defines certain behaviors, including even in law enforcement.
END TRANSCRIPT
| Read the Background Material... |
| • AP: Woods Speaks Up, Says Crash is 'Private Matter' • Statement from Tiger Woods |
Interesting in this poll, "Half of Americans chose laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier as a ceremony in which they'd most like to participate. That swamped the other choices: lighting the Olympic torch, tossing the coin to open a Super Bowl, starting the race at the Indianapolis 500, ringing the opening bell at the stock exchange and throwing out the first pitch at the World Series." Man, where did they find this sample? This is great but where did they find the sample? And, of course, the Drive-Bys had to get in on this. Last night and this morning, here's the montage.
KLOEFFLER: A new polls finds Rush Limbaugh the most influential conservative voice in the country.
CHETRY: Whatever you think of Rush Limbaugh, it's hard to doubt his conservative pull this morning. A new poll by Vanity Fair and 60 Minutes found that Americans consider the talk radio host the most influential conservative.
GEIST: There's a new 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll that asks the question: Who is America's most influential conservative voice? Rush Limbaugh by a long shot, 26%.
GIELAN: A new poll says that talk show host Rush Limbaugh is the most influential conservative voice in the US.
JOHNS: Rush Limbaugh is proving once again he's still the life of the Grand Old Party. A new poll by 60 Minutes and Vanity Fair found 26% of Americans think he's the most influential conservative.
MEADE: Many Americans consider radio host Rush Limbaugh to be the most influential conservative in the country.
RUSH: And, of course, notice how they all fall in lockstep. As long as it has AP or CBS News, it must be real. And so they all now report it and I guess they think it's somehow bad for conservatism for this poll result to be there, that's why they're eagerly reporting this. Also, get this. Obama's numbers in the Midwest are tanking. It's been reported in a number of places I noticed over the weekend, but at Politics Daily, they have this. "Public Policy Polling says 56% --" this is in Arkansas, by the way "-- 56% disapprove of Obama's job performance, compared to 40% who approve." And get this. "Voters said by 55 to 45% that conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh had a better vision for America than Obama." This is in Arkansas, Obama's home state, Public Policy Polling, PPP. It seems like all news is polling, seems like most news is the result of polls. (laughing)
H.R. says I should go on vacation more often. Why do I need to go on vacation? We had Thanksgiving weekend. (interruption) No, no, no, it wasn't a vacation. No, no, no, that doesn't count against vacation time. How can it be? Thanksgiving weekend, everybody had it off except the poor people that had to work at the NFL, related stadiums and support people, parkers, concession people and things like that, but Thanksgiving was Rockwellian. I had a bunch of family in, they started arriving Monday, a week ago, the first wave. The second wave showed up on Wednesday, and then the annual big blowout on Saturday. It was a blast. It was exhausting. I need a vacation from vacation, which wasn't a vacation. I don't want to get caught admitting this was a vacation.
END TRANSCRIPT
Click the pic!
| Read the Background Material... |
|
| • CBS Poll: Rush Most Influential Conservative • Newsbusters: Rush Limbaugh Voted America's Most Influential Conservative |
CALLER: Hi. I have to admit I'm kind of surprised at your outrage over the suppression of scientific data, when it was something that the Bush administration was so dedicated to. There's dozens of examples of them suppressing and censoring any data that would support global warming. I don't recall you making a peep about that.
RUSH: Because there isn't any data that supports global warming.
CALLER: Then why would they choose to censor so much of it from government reports?
RUSH: They didn't censor anything. They refused to go along with the hoax. They were censoring data that did not prove what the global warming people wanted it to prove.
CALLER: You're just wrong. You're simply lying about that. There is loads of evidence of them removing language from government reports that support, you know, scientific theories about global warming. (cross talk)
RUSH: You're missing the point here. You're just being totally guided by your ideology, by your liberalism, by your partisanship. There is no manmade global warming. Do you understand that? There was nothing to suppress. Anybody that suppressed data that said there was manmade global warming was doing us a favor. They knew it was a hoax, and they were not spreading lies. It's that there is no manmade global warming. There is no need for Obama national health care reform. There is no need for tax crap and spend. There is no need for further stimulus. There is no need for Obama. There is no need for liberalism. There is no need for you. You are a menace. You pose a threat to freedom and liberty of your fellow citizens, because you are too blind to understand what the people you respect are doing. And you're going to be the first they come for because you're the easiest to go to because you're the most gullible and the most uninformed. People like you, John, will give up your freedom if it means putting Bush in jail. God save our country from people like you. How can you call here today and say global warming data was suppressed by the Bush administration? Snerdley ought to get a raise for finding you. Good God. We just got a call from the Universe of Lies.
Todd in Springfield, Illinois, help me out here, my man. Hello.
CALLER: Rush, dittos, dittos, dittos, dittos. What a great call to follow.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: You are a genius. Hey, I called to make a point but you're so much better at it than I am, I just assume you do it. I want you to remind your listeners how the grandpa and grandma hackers in Florida that hacked in on Newt's phone calls were treated by the media.
RUSH: You know what? That will be an interesting story to retell. For those of you who haven't heard this -- thank you for reminding me of that, Todd -- for those of you who haven't heard this, let me just give you the tease. A 75-year-old couple, going Christmas shopping somewhere in north Florida were driving around and listening to cell phone calls, as we all do, in our cars. They were just monitoring cell phone calls, and, lo and behold, they heard a conversation between Newt Gingrich and John Boehner. And they thought it was so historic that they called a Democrat in Congress to tell him about it and send him a tape.
BREAK TRANSCIRPT
RUSH: Remember that first call that Snerdley found, that diamond in the rough out there, who said, "Hey, Bush did it, too, Bush suppressed global warming data." All of a sudden I'm being inundated in the public e-mail box with liberals, "Yeah, Bush did it, too!" They think this is a rejoinder. They think this is a way to deal, "Oh, Bush suppressed it, too." So let me deal with this.
Greetings and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network, 800-282-2882 if you want to appear on the program.
Look, folks, government reports can say many things, including by leftists who weasel their way into the bureaucracy. The issue here is that we have e-mails in which the authors, in which the so-called scientists, the writers of the e-mails, by their own hands, and by their own words, are misleading, spinning, smearing, and lying. The Bush administration deciding not to use some global warming data provided by tainted scientists is a political decision. They decided not too prove or not to advance the global warming movement because politically they didn't agree with it. They weren't suppressing anything. We have scientists here, claimed scientists who lied, who made it up, who fudged the data. There is no global warming, manmade. There is no manmade global warming. They've had to make it up. I just love how the libs operate. They got one rejoinder to everything, "Bush did it. Bush did it, too. Bush did it, Bush did it, Bush did it, Bush did it." (interruption) They're attacking me on TV for this? Oh, for my shows on global warming last week, the media is attacking me for this leftist -- well what would you expect? Of course, look, the cornerstone, the foundation of their movement to communize the whole world has just fallen apart.
This was a house of cards, as a foundation. This house of cards, and now the cards, the foundation, are starting to crumble. This was never a house made out of anything substantive. It was a house of cards all along and now the cards are starting to crumble and the house is on the way to falling down. Good. If they're coming after me, fine, let 'em focus even more attention on me. Let 'em have even more people tune in here and get the truth of what a hoax this and all of liberalism is. It is all, from start to finish, a lie. It is all a lie. It is a poison. It is corrupting decent people. It's corrupting the concepts of liberty and freedom this nation was founded upon. It stinks. It's insidious. It is a disease. It has affected people who run around with it. Now, it is curable. This show has been shown to cure liberalism in certain patients. It takes repeated exposure and oftentimes support groups out there. But it has been known to happen.
By the way, I wonder if the two gate crashers, the White House crashers, crashers my rear end, they didn't crash anything. Somebody let them in. The bottom line is somebody let 'em in. I wonder if they had health insurance. Ed Rollins is out there saying they were trespassers. Well, so are 12 million illegals and we're not kicking them out, either. It's pretty consistent policy if you ask me, trespassers in the White House, trespassers in the country.
All right, back to this couple. A seventy-five-year-old grandmother and grandfather tooling around north Florida, ostensibly going Christmas shopping for their grandkids. Isn't that a nice pretext for the story? Driving around, Christmas shopping for the grandkids, and they're monitoring cell phone calls in their car. Innocent little grandparents, probably can barely see over the steering wheel, probably 20 miles under the speed limit, you know, just trying to get to the early bird special after they've done all the Christmas shopping and they're listening to cell phone calls on the radio. Just like we all do. And they just happen, you know, I guess they had the scanner on, they just happened to run across a conversation between Newt Gingrich, who at the time was speaker of the House, and John Boehner, one of his lieutenant leaders. I forget, what were they talking about? Strategy, how to deal with the Democrats, something about budget deficit -- oh, yeah, the government shut down, strategies, stuff like that.
So these people, these innocent, average American grandparents Christmas shopping for the kids in their Cadillac listening to cell phone calls thought that they were in on an historic moment. So they found a way to, in their car, with the cell phone radio, record the call. We all have these cell phone receivers and attached recorders in our cars. Don't you? Well, this is what we're led to believe, it was just a shear coincidence -- I'm not making anything up. This is what we were told. They just happened to be listening and because of what they heard, didn't matter how they got it, didn't matter what they heard, it was so important, it was crucial because we had a couple Republicans trying to destroy a Democrat president. Ah, yes, and have a strategy session on a government shut down, the budget in '95, whenever it was. So this couple happened to send a tape to Baghdad Jim McDermott, one of the most radical leftists, he'd be right at home in the global warming center over there at it Hadley. They sent the tape to him. Now they're driving around Florida, he's a congressman from the state of Washington. It's about as far as away from the mall that they were Christmas shopping while listening to the cell phone and recording it in their car that you can get.
Baghdad Jim McDermott, member of Congress, Democrat, state of Washington, decided that the New York Times had to hear about this. So they sent the tape. Baghdad Jim sent the tape to the New York Times. The New York Times then published the transcript. This was a violation of privacy because anybody who knows anything knows that you are not allowed to record phone calls unless the participants are aware of it, unless you've got a court order from a judge and are running some sort of a sting, you can't do it, and yet it was published, and it was said to be so important. Now, there was a lawsuit that ensued and it was just recently settled, I think McDermott had to pay some money to somebody. They had a bundle. But in this case there were no lies told, it was just a conversation. It was almost as though Boehner talking to Newt was itself a crime that had to be exposed because they were talking about their own views on the federal budget. And, of course, the sitting president was the beloved intern-chasing, although we didn't know that at the time, many of us suspected it but we didn't know it at the time, Bill Clinton. And so the New York Times publishes this stuff because the public had a right to know.
The same New York Times which refuses to this day to publish these e-mails from the Climate Research Unit because they're stolen. Well, Newt Gingrich's phone call was stolen right out of the air, illegally, by a couple of Democrat Party activists who successfully were able to be portrayed as an innocent grandparent team Christmas shopping for the kiddies, driving around accidentally encountering history. The left is poison. The left is lies. It cannot exist legitimately. It must present itself as something else. It can't even exist if it is known as liberalism. They go to all sorts of great lengths to make you realize that they're not liberals, they're progressives, they're moderates.
Moderate is just a code word for liberal. They are scientists; they are academics; they are media figures. It's just another way to not have to call themselves liberals because liberalism doesn't sell in this country. They run around and talk about how the Republican Party voter identification in polls is way, way down? Well, twice as many Americans identify themselves as conservatives over liberals, 40% to 20%. Thirty-six percent identify themselves as independents. And in every poll that you look at that you care to assign any weight to, you'll find those independents are fast tracking it to the conservative side of things, which is to, in their minds, vote Republican.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Okay. To close the loop on the phone call, John Boehner was awarded $1 million in legal fees over the secretly taped phone call. This is from April 1st of 2008 in the Seattle Times. "A federal judge has ordered Jim McDermott to pay John Boehner more than $1 million in legal fees in a decade-long dispute over an illegally taped telephone call." I'm not sure that McDermott has paid up. That's what I'm not sure about. Now, from the Washington Post on -- let's see, da-da-da-da -- April 24th of 1997. "A Florida couple agreed yesterday to plead guilty to federal charges they illegally taped a telephone conference call between House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and his lieutenants." It was a cell call, let's not forget. "John and Alice Martin of Fort White, Fla., each face a fine of up to $5,000 for violating a federal law that makes it a crime to 'intentionally intercept' a telephone call.
"In plea agreements filed in federal court in Jacksonville, Fla., federal prosecutors did not promise to make any recommendation on their sentences. The Martins, local Democratic activists, said they gave Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) the tape, made on Dec. 21, of Gingrich and his leadership team discussing how to limit the political and media damage from his admission later that day that he violated House ethics rules." So that's what it was about this happen they got fined five grand, Boehner was awarded a million dollars in legal fees. I don't think McDermott, Baghdad Jim, has paid up. It was local Democrat Party hacks -- and don't forget the whole thing got published in the New York Times! It was considered historic. And the real thing was that it was portrayed as almost criminal that Newt and Boehner got on the phone to discuss things together.
END TRANSCRIPT
BUCHANAN: I think I'm with Rush on this one.
McLAUGHLIN: Rush who?
BUCHANAN: Rush Limbaugh. We hope it fails.
RUSH: (laughing) I forgot. I told Mike to play the right sound bite. I cued the wrong one. Grab three, since I talked about it. This is Buchanan and Clift.
BUCHANAN: There's no known proof that it's because of man.
CLIFT: (screeching) There's no known proof there's God, either!
BUCHANAN: It's not a danger!
McLAUGHLIN: Hang on, Eleanor.
CLIFT: (screeching) How much proof do you need, Pat?
RUSH: "There's no known proof that there's God, either. How much proof do you need, Pat?" Religion does not pretend to be science; science is now pretending to be religion. You see how easy this is? Here's Paul Krugman. Now, this guy's a genuine idiot. This was on This Week during the roundtable. He said this about the e-mails from East Anglia University...
KRUGMAN: All these e-mails, um, people have never seen what academic discussion looks like. There is not a single smoking gun in there. There's nothing in there. And the travesty is that people are not able to explain why the fact that 1998 was a very warm year, uhh, doesn't actually mean that global warming has stopped.
RUSH: Here is a respected economist in the New York Times proving his absolute idiocy. Ah, we just don't know. The scientists use the word "trick" and they send e-mails to each other. We just don't know what an academic discussion looks like. We're too stupid, too stupid to understand what we've read. It's sort of like saying, "Hey, look, of course politicians steal. They're politicians! What's the big deal? It's no different than that. Of course scientists lie. That's what they do! You're just not smart enough to understand what it all means," and then during the roundtable, George Will spoke with Cokie Roberts. He said, "Is there a larger venture capital firm in this country than the Energy Department of this government which right now is sending out billions and billions of dollars in speculation on green energy?"
ROBERTS: But I think that that's something the -- the -- the American people want. I mean we -- we -- we want green jobs. We don't want to see those polar bears, you know, on those ice floes without any ice around them.
RUSH: Cokie Roberts speaking for liberals everywhere: Forget the evidence. Forget the evidence! We need green jobs. We'll support cap and tax to save the polar bears.
This is what an academic discussion looks like. George Will is an academic; Cokie Roberts fashioned herself as one. Here's an academic discussion. "Of course the American people want that. We want green jobs." There aren't any! There's no such thing! "We don't want to see the polar bears on ice floes without...?" Those are doctored pictures, Cokie. Besides, a polar bear can swim 60 miles. Sometimes they like to frolic, but those are not melting glaciers. How is it that we know this and the supposedly smarter media people around us just are as ignorant as a whale?
END TRANSCRIPT
LLS
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Grab audio sound bite number 20 very quickly. There was a White House press briefing today. You had Les Kinsolving ask the question. Now, they always leave these kinds of questions to Kinsolving, and the press corps thinks he's crazy, they like to portray him as crazy. The press secretary likes to portray him as crazy. He's a radio host at WCBM in Baltimore. He asked Gibbs, "Are you aware of published list of 31,000 scientists who opposed this idea of manmade global warming and 26,000 of them are Ph.D.s?"
GIBBS: I don't doubt that, uh, uh, that th-there's such a list. Uhhh, Lester, I think there's no real scientific basis for the dispute of this.
RUSH: The Universe of Lies! The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs: "I think there's no real scientific basis for the dispute of this." Mr. Gibbs, there's no scientific basis for the theory of manmade global warming. The people who do not believe it do not have to disprove it. The warmers have to prove the theory, and they can't. Their e-mails admit, essentially, "We'll hide the data. We'll destroy the data rather than let it get out, because if it gets out, we're screwed."
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Let's go Great Falls, Montana. Doug, I really appreciate you holding on as long as you have. Thanks much.
CALLER: You bet, Rush. Dittos from the world of reality. And in that vein, I wish you'd refer to them as the "Disassociated Press."
RUSH: (chuckles)
CALLER: But anyway, when you broke this last week, I called both my senators: The illustrious Max Baucus and John Tester's office. They're both on defense on cap and tax, and I thought I'd try to push them, you know, let them know that this should play to their opinion. Both staffers, when I brought it up, dead silence. No reaction and then, "What are you talking about? What is that?" I tried to break it down for them a little bit, you know, using your expertise to help me a little bit, and both of them gave me the pat line. "I'll pass it on to the Senator when I get out of eighth grade." You know, that's basically what I got.
RUSH: Well, Mike, do you have the latest sound bite from Major Garrett asking a question of Gibbs? I had it here. I don't know the number but it's the last one. I want you to listen to this, Doug.
CALLER: Okay.
RUSH: This is what we're running into. Major Garrett asks Gibbs at the White House briefing, "Do you have any evaluation or comment on the controversy of hacked e-mails that suggest some of the underlying science may be in error or may have been altered in some way?"
GIBBS: I think Carol Browner addressed that last week. Uh... Uh... on the order of several thousand scientists have come, uh, to the conclusion that, uh, climate change is happening. Uhhh, I don't think that's, uh, anything that is quite, frankly -- among most people -- in dispute, anymore.
RUSH: So The Universe of Lies is being led by the President of the United States and all who work for him. So if you think you're going to get something different out of two Democrat congresspeople, I wouldn't hold my breath.
CALLER: Oh, I didn't expect it, but I thought I'd poke 'em in the ribs anyway.
RUSH: Well, I appreciate it.
CALLER: All right.
RUSH: It's absolutely hilarious to watch this. Two distinctly different universes: The Universe of Lies and The Universe of Reality. And the office of the president of the United States, POTUS, is joined at the hip with a hoax. "I think Carol Browner handled that last week, 2500 scientists believe..." They can't prove it. They cannot prove it -- and for it to be science, it must be proved. Here is Tim in Mount Holly, New Jersey. Glad you waited, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. How you doing?
RUSH: Good.
CALLER: You read any basic geology text, and you can see we've been going through 2.5 million years of glacial and interglacial periods. During the most recent glacial period, the Wisconsin period, glaciers covered 30% of the earth's land surface. And the sea level during the Wisconsin period, 18,000 years ago during the peak of it was 200 feet lower than it is now. We're currently in an interglacial period. Sea levels are rising, and I took a look at the barrier island systems in New Jersey because the sea level rises as the barrier islands continue to move land ward, and I did calculations, and there's indication that sea level can continue to rise another 15 feet before we come back to sea levels that occurred during the last interglacial period 110,000 years ago. The lower part of the Garden State Parkway, 16 miles of it, is actually built on a relic barrier island system. The current barrier island system, which the cities of Wildwood and Avalon are on, are 3.75 miles seaward of this relic barrier island, and it will take the sea level to rise 15 more feet just to reach where the relic barrier islands were back 110,000 years ago. So sea level can continue to rise. It's been rising for 11,000 years.
RUSH: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! I knew if I hung in there long enough I'd get to the nut. The nut is that sea levels have been rising in the interglacial period here for 11,000 years, and that's much longer than they've been accusing us of warming up the planet with our exhalations.
CALLER: That's correct. That's correct.
RUSH: Well, look, the climate, geology -- all of this -- is so, so, so complex. It's so complex we can't possibly understand it. We can study it, we can watch it, but to try to predict it and so forth -- and to claim that we're somehow intimately involved in shaping it -- is ridiculous. We don't have the power, we don't have the ability.
CALLER: That's true. And the reason the energy secretary wants to paint everything white is what happens is as the glaciers are more extensive on the land surface it increases the albedo of the earth which reflects more light and energy from the sun. As the glaciers melt the ground wants to heat up more. That's why he wants to paint everything white again so the glaciers in themselves melting -- and they've been melting for 11,000 years -- we're not getting as much of the sun's energy reflecting back into space. So we're getting some warming, but it's just occurring because the glaciers are getting smaller. It's been going on for 11,000 years. Again these interglacial periods and glacial periods have been going on for 2.5 million years. So this is nothing new, and again, the Industrial Revolution hasn't caused this.
RUSH: Of course. By the way, here's a scientist. You are a geologist?
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: Here's a scientist who does not agree with the IPCC. So you are among those who have just been swatted away like a gnat by Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman. "There's no serious disagreement with this theory. The Energy Secretary had this the other day: 2500 scientists! I don't think there's any dispute of this." Thanks for the call, sir. We'll be back after this.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
To the phones. Knoxville, Tennessee, another geologist. Betsy, you're on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Good morning. No, good afternoon, Rush.
RUSH: Yes.
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: You've been holding since this morning.
CALLER: I'm a geologist.
RUSH: You bet.
CALLER: A great day for geologists on your show.
RUSH: Add to it.
CALLER: Yes. I just wanted to talk to you a little bit about scientific method and how it works, and how it is that in science, hypotheses are formulated based on data, advanced and tested, and nothing is ever proven in science. Things are ruled out. Science operates by ruling possibilities out. And that which has not been ruled out by experiment remains possible. This is something that these guys have never bothered to do. They have never bothered to formulate any hypothesis at all and test it with a view toward ruling it out. And that's what they need to do, and that is one of the basic reasons why what they're trying to do is not scientific.
RUSH: Pure politics. In other words, what you're saying is we know that warming and cooling cycles happen.
CALLER: That's correct.
RUSH: We have to first find out which are natural, and then, by finding that out, then we might be able to find out if we're contributing to it in addition to whatever is natural, right?
CALLER: Well, we might be able to find out whether we're not contributing to it.
RUSH: Yeah, either way.
CALLER: Well, it's not the same thing. My favorite example of what it is I'm driving at was advanced by the historian and philosopher of science Karl Popper some number of years ago, and he formulated a thought experiment which he described as the white swan hypothesis. And what you do is you look around and you see a lot of white swans everywhere, and you come up with a notion that all swans are white. Now, how do you go about testing this hypothesis? You don't go around counting white swans. Because no matter how many white swans you count, there may be somewhere lurking a black swan that you didn't encounter. And so what you have to do is mount a search for the single black swan and try to disprove your hypothesis based upon evidence.
RUSH: And so these guys are not doing that at all.
CALLER: No! No. They've come up with the idea that CO2 causes global warming and you can read the press releases and you can read the news stories, and they go around counting, "Well, look, CO2 predicts this, and CO2 predicts that, and CO2 predict this other over there, and so it must be true." And so what they're doing is mounting a search for white swans. They're not trying to rule their own hypothesis out. And that's the only way science ever advances.
RUSH: Well, at this point, I think these e-mails indicate they know their hypotheses are already ruled out because they're making things up.
CALLER: Exactly. Absolutely. And I have been saying that for some time ever since the data began to come in and we began to see that the last decade has shown cooling. Every hypothesis they have ever advanced has been ruled out by that finding.
RUSH: Right. And of course the sun has nothing to do with it. They also do not factor the sun at all. And they don't factor --
CALLER: No.
RUSH: -- they don't factor precipitation.
CALLER: No. And there are glacial cycles and Milankovitch cycles, there are lots of other possibilities, none of which they have ever attempted to address and try to rule out, which is what they have to do in order for it to be called science.
RUSH: Well, here we have another scientist, in the opinion of Robert Gibbs and the White House, you're nothing more than a Macaca.
CALLER: (laughing) Well, we have words for him, too.
RUSH: (laughing) So how about that consensus of science? Am I right when I say there can be no science if all you have is a consensus of scientists?
CALLER: Well, actually I have to take a little bit of issue with you over that.
RUSH: No! No, no!
CALLER: It's true, science is not about consensus, and we don't take a vote to figure out what is correct.
RUSH: Okay.
CALLER: Our natural world --
RUSH: I'm right, then. We have to go to a break.
CALLER: However, what we do have in many different areas of science is a consensus of scientists that is based upon elimination of all known competing hypotheses. For example, the theory of relativity. Now, we don't regard it as proven but we know that there is no longer a serious competitor which has not been ruled out by evidence. So to the extent that we can have a consequences in science. Now, that doesn't mean it's not open to challenge and it doesn't mean that it's final, but there are agreements among scientists which, for example, another example is the theory of global plate tectonics. Now, you won't find a great deal of serious disagreement amongst reputable geologists that that is the mechanism by which we see continents form and seabed disappearance and so forth. But that's not because we regard that hypothesis as proven. We have ruled out the competition.
RUSH: Got it.
CALLER: Somebody may yet come forward someday.
RUSH: This has been enlightening. I can't tell you how glad I am you called, Betsy. I'm out of time. I wish I had a couple more segments, but I don't. Snerdley, see if she will give us her phone number so that we may consult her in the future should we have need to.
END TRANSCRIPT
CLINTON: Global warming is occurring at a pace roughly twice as fast as had been previously thought, so I believe if we don't change things by the end of the century, instead of going up four degrees, the earth's temperature will go up nine degrees. And if that happens, we're in trouble here. Eight percent of the whole Earth's freshwater is on top of Greenland. As it begins to melt, if it melts faster, it could change the composition of the north Atlantic and interrupt the normal flow of currents, and ironically global warming could make some places colder.
RUSH: Global warming can make some places colder. Now, it's up to these people to prove this, and, of course, they can't.
END TRANSCRIPT
| Read the Background Material... |
|
| • FOXNews: 'Global Warming Could Make Some Places Colder' • GateWayPundit: Bill Clinton: "Global Warming Could Make Some Places Colder" (Video) |
You can do a simple test to immediately see press bias.
Google can search a single site. For example, to search CNN for the term "climategate" simply type the following into Google and see:
| site:www.cnn.com climategate |
I did a little test on fairness and here are the results.
| Site | Search Term | Results |
|---|---|---|
| CNN | site:www.cnn.com climategate | 0 |
| NY Times | site:www.nytimes.com climategate | 5 (in comments mostly) |
| MSNBC | site:www.MSNBC.com climategate | 0 |
| CBS (See BS) | site:www.cbs.com climategate | 0 |
| ABC News | site:www.abcnews.com climategate | 0 |
| Wall St. Journal | site:www.WSJ.com climategate | 1 |
| Financial Times | site:www.FT.com climategate | 8 (comment/Opinion) |
| NY Post | site:www.NYPost.com climategate | 2 pages |
| Huffington Post | site:www.huffingtonpost.com climategate | 10+ pages |
| Fox News | site:www.foxnews.com climategate | 10+ pages |
While CNN has ZERO pages on Climategate, they have more than 10 about the Whitehouse Gatecrashers.
So much material, so little time!
Should clarify:
pages= pages of results... about 10 per page.
Thanks so much!
The MSM is boycotting this important story.
You can do a simple test to immediately see press bias.
Google can search a single site. For example, to search CNN for the term "climategate" simply type the following into Google and see:
| site:www.cnn.com climategate |
I did a little test on fairness and here are the results.
| Site | Search Term | Results |
|---|---|---|
| CNN | site:www.cnn.com climategate | 0 |
| BBC | site:www.bbc.com climategate | 0 |
| NY Times | site:www.nytimes.com climategate | 5 (in comments mostly) |
| MSNBC | site:www.MSNBC.com climategate | 0 |
| CBS (See BS) | site:www.cbs.com climategate | 0 |
| ABC News | site:www.abcnews.com climategate | 0 |
| Wall St. Journal | site:www.WSJ.com climategate | 1 |
| Financial Times | site:www.FT.com climategate | 8 (comment/Opinion) |
| NY Post | site:www.NYPost.com climategate | 36 |
| Sky News (UK) | site:news.sky.com climategate | 68 |
| Huffington Post | site:www.huffingtonpost.com climategate | 6,530 |
| Fox News | site:www.foxnews.com climategate | 855 |
| Free Republic | site:www.freerepublic.com climategate | 13,400 |
While CNN has ZERO pages on Climategate, they have more than 10 about the Whitehouse Gatecrashers.
There are about 39 hits in a search for Newsweek, but they are all people arguing about it in forums or disparaging it.
I was wondering if you get the Limbaugh Letter for December. If so his interview with Sarah Palin is in it. Is there a way you could post the interview. I am sure it would be interesting to read.
Ain’t it the truth!
LLS
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.
