posted November 06, 2013 09:18 PM            

RUSH: You know, there are all kinds of left-wing publications and individuals, folks, who are beside themselves over global warming. I have an entire Stack of Stuff today on this. From the Australian newspaper: "Twenty-Year Hiatus in Rising Temperatures Has Climate Scientists Puzzled," and they are all citing a magazine article in The Economist. "In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity -- the way climate reacts to changes in carbon dioxide levels -- would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded."

Because this story indicates that carbon in the atmosphere may actually be making things cooler, not warmer. They are beside themselves with rage and anger and frustration in the global warming community, which we know is a hoax now. That continues to be something that's utterly laughable to me. We know by virtue of released e-mails from the University of East Anglia in the UK that the whole thing -- the manmade global warming program -- is a hoax. It's a political hoax.

I realize there are some people who haven't heard this. We have new listeners tuning in each and every day, and I realize that many of you new arrivals here think that global warming is the law of the land. You've never questioned it, and you think it's happening. Global warming is as real as the sun coming up. Considering the alternative is impossible, and you believe that people who don't believe in it are literal kooks. I want to tell you new arrivals about this -- and I know you low-information people are here in increasing numbers each and every day.

Again, I've got no reason to make anything up. I have no reason to lie to you. There's nothing in it for me to do that. I don't have an agenda so important to me that I want people believing what I believe when it isn't true. That's the exact opposite of what my objective is. My objective is to have people grounded in truth and reality in greater and greater numbers, governing themselves responsibly, participating in the arena of ideas. I have no interest in lying to you. I have none.

It wouldn't facilitate one thing. It wouldn't get me anything. I'm not trying to get your votes. It doesn't matter. I have no reason to lie to you. Now, there are rare times when I'm wrong about something, but not purposefully. I'm telling you that if you are a new listener to the program or a recently arrived low-information person, the manmade global warming story is a hoax. Revealed scientist e-mails, one scientist to another, acknowledged how they left out data that contradicted their theory.

They added data that wasn't true. The whole hockey stick that explains medieval warming and so forth, none of it's real. It was all manufactured. It literally is a hoax. So in light of that, I marvel at the release of stories nearly every day about people just now figuring out that it isn't warming. Regardless, manmade or otherwise. The stories they're telling themselves to explain this are hilarious, if you operate from the baseline level that it's a hoax. Now, you may want to believe it's true.

I wouldn't be surprised if a number of you do -- and here's why. The way you've been approached on this is to first make you feel guilty. And if not you personally, at least other Americans who've been living their lives too "irresponsibly" without concern for the environment. They've been polluting, they've been wasting electricity, they've been driving big cars, they've been cooling or warming their homes to extremes, whatever. You have been made to feel appropriately guilty or angry, but then you have been offered absolution.

You've been offered a way out of the guilt for having contributed to the destruction of the planet, and that is if you will go out and buy a hybrid, or if you will oppose oil companies, or if you will oppose fracking. If you will oppose the Keystone pipeline, if you will oppose the growth of any fossil fuel industry, then you're a good person. If you will agree that people need to pay higher taxes in order to save the planet, you're a good person. They've offered you absolution.

It's all a hoax.

I would hope you could be made to believe this. If I could convince all of you who don't believe me to accept that manmade global warming is a hoax -- and I could do it, if you'd give me two straight hours. I could do it probably in less time than that. I could walk you through how it's been done. I could have you nodding your head in agreement at several intervals as I explain how the left has been approaching you on this.

I would ask you some questions that, if you honestly listened to and tried to answer, you would have no choice but than to conclude I'm right. But you would also have to be able to independently think, not just accept a bunch of propaganda. One such question: "Who is say...?" I mean, how old is the earth? Nobody knows for sure. Some people think it's 10,000 years; others think it's billions. But whatever the answer, your length of time on the earth is insignificant. It's infinitesimal.

Your time on earth is barely the size of the head of a pin, if that big. So what possible impact could you be making? But more importantly than that, who's to say that the time you are alive is not normal? Or who is to say that when you were alive is normal? What is normal? In 10,000 years or a billion years of the existence of the earth, what is the normal temperature? What kind of vanity does it take to think that the spate of perfection, the state of perfection and normalcy happens to be when you're alive?

And then when that's changing, something's dreadfully wrong? How do you know all these things? Why do you accept that when you happen to be alive, it's normal? Anyway, I'm just taking individual little stabs here at trying to make you think and question the propaganda that you have been assaulted with that America primarily is responsible for the earth getting warmer -- and that means utter disaster, by the way, when it probably doesn't anyway. If it got warmer, it'd be better for some.

There are some people who've been freezing their tushes off for six months who'd probably appreciate it being a little warmer. Anyway, the point is, there's this article out in the economist which has everybody just roiled. They don't know what to do. In fact, there's a companion story here about the problem in the UK. Old people are freezing to death. Two things: It is so cold, and taxes are so high, that old people cannot afford the fuel necessary to stay warm -- and, sorry, their windmills aren't cutting it, and the solar farms aren't cutting it, and all the people out driving hybrids is not making their houses warmer.

So old people are dying in Britain because it's so cold, and taxes -- environmental taxes -- are so high. So that's one. But here's what's got 'em all upset in The Economist. "Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth's surface have been flat," they haven't moved, "while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar." Everything you were told about greenhouse gases was wrong. "The more of it, the worse it gets! The more of it, the hotter it gets!" Well, greenhouse gas emissions have soared.

By the way, do you know that "greenhouse gas" is what you exhale?

Do you realize that by virtue of your very existence, you are poisoning the planet? Sorry, carbon dioxide, you exhale it. (exhales) I just poisoned the planet! The problem is, I can't help it. I was designed that way. Do you really think that a God... That's another problem. You may not believe in God. If you don't believe in God, manmade global warming is a real easy to accept. If you do believe in God, becomes a little harder. 'Cause if you believe in God, then you believe in creationism, and then you have to accept that you really don't matter.

Not in these terms.

Your life matters in terms of what it makes, but in terms of the ecosystem and how complex it is, you can't possibly matter. None of us do. But of those who matter, only those who fly on jets and drive cars do? Heh-heh-heh. Right. Right. The people that fly in jets and drive cars, they're the ones that are ruining the earth? Yeah, right. People who are engaging in progress are destroying the planet? Right. That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

Anyway, "Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth's surface have been flat," they haven't moved; in fact, they may be lowering, "while greenhouse gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750." Can I put that another way? In the ten years from 2000-2010, a hundred billion tons of carbon was added to the atmosphere. That's 25% of all the CO2 since 1750.

That's really concentrated levels. "And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, 'the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.'" Hansen, by the way, is one of the hoaxsters. "Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise" to scientists, but it's not to me. "Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, in Britain, points out that surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models.

"If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years," meaning their models are all wrong. "If, however, temperatures are likely to rise by only 2°C ... the calculation might change," and it goes on to get into some scientific minutia here. But the point is that just one story has the entire science community in an absolute tizzy. In the Australian, the way they write this in their headline is: "Twenty-Year Hiatus in Rising Temperatures Has Climate Scientists Puzzled."

Twenty years!

The actual length of time that there hasn't been any warming is now 20 years, despite all that carbon dioxide put in the air, and they can't figure it out. Well, it's very simple. They were bat-excrement crazy! They're just flat-out wrong. "The fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted." No, it's not. It should be. But it isn't. Another story: Sunspot activity has slowed down, and that means global warming has stopped, and the earth is beginning to cool. Enjoy global warming while it lasts!

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The last ice age was 4,000 years ago. Therefore, my friends, the earth has been warming for the last 4,000 years. The problem is, scientists can't tell us why. Not the last 4,000. They say global warming is just in the last 25 years -- ah, "manmade." Yes. But why has it been warming for 4,000 years? They can't tell us. They have no idea. In fact, they don't know why we have ice ages in the first place. They don't know why it cools. All we know is that a lot more people die from the cold than from global warming. And here is Vincent, Indianapolis. Hi, Vincent. Glad you called. Great to have you on the program.

CALLER: (garbled cell throughout) Hi, how are you today?

RUSH: I'm fine. Thank you very much.

CALLER: Okay. I just wanted to call and thank you and let you know that I started listening about six months ago, and my eyes have been opened and my mind's been enlightened from you. I watch the news now with more realization (sic) eyes.

RUSH: Six months ago? How did it happen?

CALLER: Well, I was raised in a Democratic family, then just started cruising through the radio, trying to find something that I could listen to, and happened upon your show and was just, "Okay, somebody making sense."

RUSH: "[S]omebody making sense." So stuff that you had probably thought all your life. Was I saying things that you hadn't heard before or things that you believed anyway?

CALLER: Pretty (garbled cell) just my family, "Why is this happening?" and none of them could give me an answer.

RUSH: But you were able to have those answers explained on this program?

CALLER: Absolutely, yes.

RUSH: Well --

CALLER: I'm one of the few under 35-year-olds -- 27 here at the end of the month -- and it's just that we're not all low-information voters out here in this age range, and we all do (garbled).

RUSH: I know. And it's because of people like you that we have hope.

posted November 06, 2013 09:21 PM            

RUSH: "Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon, once served New Mexico in the US Senate, does not believe that humans are causing global warming. 'I don't think the human effect is significant, compared to the natural effect.' He's among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York. Harrison Schmitt contends that scientists are being intimidated if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels."

In fact, I've got to find it. There's a story in this you will not believe. It's gotta be right after this, and I know I organized this well today. Yes. Here it is. There's a chart out there. The Earth has not been warming since 1998, and this year -- last year, this year -- is colder than the previous year. It's cooling. This is not anecdotal. It's scientific, temperature research surveys. We are actually cooling -- and, of course, every day we have the Drive-By Media, newspapers, magazines, the first thing you hear when you turn on the news: "It got worse today. The news today was even worse than experts expected." Whatever it is, the crisis is ongoing.

Reuters has a headline: "Global Warming Seen Worse than Predicted." We are cooling! We're having record cold temperatures in over two-thirds of the country and throughout Northern Hemisphere this winter! Reuters says, "The climate is heating up far faster than scientists had predicted, spurred by sharp increases in greenhouse gas emissions from developing countries like China and India, a top climate scientist said on Saturday." This guy's name is Field.

"Field said 'the actual trajectory of climate change is more serious' than any of the climate predictions in the IPCC's fourth assessment report called 'Climate Change 2007.' ... 'We now have data showing that from 2000 to 2007, greenhouse gas emissions increased far more rapidly than we expected...'" Well, now, what should the story, then, be? If between 2000 and 2007 greenhouse gases increased far more than expected and the temperature is going down, what should we conclude? That greenhouse gases lead to cooling! China's freezing, too. China's not going through any warming.

Then there's this, from BusinessandMedia.org: "Bill Clinton Fears 'Climate Will Crater and We Won't Be Able to Preserve Civilization.'" Now, Clinton used to always think that Algore was a little nutty on this climate stuff, and now Clinton has picked it up? "Bill Clinton Fears 'Climate Will Crater and We Won't Be Able to Preserve Civilization'"? What do you think this is all about, folks? This is nothing more... In fact, the stimulus bill, the Porkulus bill was sold and presented to you identically to the way global warming has been. Everything's a crisis! Everything's an emergency! There's no truth to anything that's being said about all this, be it global warming or what the stimulus package is going to do. It's a disaster, and it's all designed to get you to agree to pay higher taxes down the road.

posted November 06, 2013 09:27 PM            

RUSH: I have a bunch of global warming news in the Stack that I did not get to yesterday. It's about the IPCC, the United Nations unit, I guess, that is the repository for the hoax. You know the University of East Anglia in Britain. Well, the hoaxers are there, but they reported to the UN, this guy at Penn State with his fake hockey stick graph. These guys all reported to the IPCC.

All of these models that they constructed over the years predicted calamity by now, and the calamity never happened. I was still living in California 1985, and I'm watching This Week with David Brinkley on Sunday morning, and there's this guy named Oppenheimer, and he's a global warming guy. He's saying, "We've got 20 years!" This is 1985, and he says, "We've got 20 years! I don't know if we're right, we're not sure if we're right, but we can't take the chance!

"If we don't get started now on reducing greenhouse gases," and all that same BS, "then we're not gonna have any chance to stop this." That was 1985. So those 20 years ended in 2005. The bottom line is, there isn't any warming. Their models have been all wrong. UK Daily Mail: "A leaked copy of the world's most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong."

This is not news to you. Because you listen here, you're on the cutting edge. But it's just added information to put in your back pocket and have on file. The UK Daily "Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)," which is the holding company, if you will, for all the hoax data.

"[T]he final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly 'assessments' are accepted by environmentalist [wackos], politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science. They are cited worldwide to justify [increasing] fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for 'renewable' energy.

"Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that the world has been warming at only just over half the rate claimed by the IPCC in its last assessment, published in 2007," despite the fact that there is bunch more CO2 in the atmosphere. The so-called greenhouse gas has just been expanding by geometric proportions, and yet the temperature increase is negligible.

Back in 2007, the UN "said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade -- a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by [their precious] computer climate models. But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade -- a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction. The 31-page 'summary for policymakers' is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time.

"It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures -- and not taken enough notice of natural variability." Natural variability! They didn't account for nature! The left never does, when it projects anything -- taxes, rates of increase or decrease. Anyway, the hoax continues.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Stick with the global warming here for just a second, because, again, you in this audience, because you here are fully aware of the facts about it, you're fully aware that I call it a hoax, and that might be off-putting to some. The simplest way to explain to people who want to believe it's true -- and you know who they are. Those are people looking for ways to make themselves matter. They run around and they hear that they're to blame for the world getting warm, or that the country is, America is to blame, our prosperity, our high standard of living and the fact that we've stolen all these resources from around the world, that we're using more oil than we have any right to, and all of that.

When they're hit with a solution, then they can be big people. They can do something about it. Everybody wants to matter. And that's the sales pitch. So all you have to do is go out and, you know, buy some new kind of newfangled hybrid car or agree to raise taxes or, if you go to the store, buy everything and anything with a green label on it and you are saving the planet. I understand it's seductive for people who want to believe it. But it is a hoax in the sense that it's nothing more than another of the never-ending issues, political issues by the left, by the Democrat Party, to advance their ultimate agenda of bigger and bigger government and more and more control.

That's all global warming ever was. For the scientists involved in it, it was a living. You go out and promote what the leftists wanted to hear, and you got grant money. And if you run around and really sound like you believe it, then they're gonna make you a star. And if you're Algore and you realize you can capitalize on your vice presidency, you can become a multimillionaire spreading this hoax, which he has done. But Algore, 2007 prediction, that summer in the North Pole could be ice free by 2013. Algore made this prediction. He cited it in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech.

There's another totally fraudulent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. Gore hadn't done anything but make a movie that itself was filled with misrepresentations about the amount of ice the poor polar bears have to live on, doctored photos. He said in his acceptance speech in 2007, getting a Nobel Peace Prize, that the North Pole would be ice free by 2013. If that was the case, New York City would be underwater by this year. "In his Dec. 10, 2007 'Earth has a Fever' speech, Gore referred to a prediction by US climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arctic’s summer ice could 'completely disappear' by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions."

Now, if you haven't heard this, the ice at the North Pole, arctic ice, is at a record amount this early in the post-summer season. Algore said six years ago there wouldn't be any arctic ice. Today the truth is, there is a record amount of arctic ice for this time of year. He couldn't have been more wrong. Now, let's go back. Here's a story from the AP: "Documents released Friday by the Nixon Presidential Library show members of President Richard Nixon's inner circle discussing the possibilities of global warming more than 30 years ago."

Now, one of Nixon's favorite people was Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He's a Democrat, but Nixon liked the guy. I think he was ambassador to the United Nations for Nixon. Moynihan told Nixon in an inner circle meeting 30 years ago that we would be underwater by the year 2000 because of the rapidity of global warming and the North Pole and the South Pole ice would melt and flood the coasts of this country.

"There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo. 'This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit,' he wrote. 'This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.'"

Thirty years ago, Moynihan, smart guy. George Will thinks he's the smartest guy that ever lived. George Will loved Moynihan. Moynihan bought into this. That's how seductive it is. Otherwise intelligent people buy into this notion. Their vanity and everything else makes it possible. "Oh, yeah, we have the power to destroy the planet. Oh, yeah, we have the power to raise temperatures and melt all the ice, oh, yeah." We don't have any such power. We couldn't do any of this if we wanted to. But never mind. "Moynihan was Nixon's counselor for urban affairs from January 1969 -- when Nixon began his presidency -- to December 1970. He later served as the US ambassador to the United Nations."

So in 1969 -- I was 18 years old -- Moynihan tells Nixon, the temperature is gonna rise 7 degrees Fahrenheit by 2000 and bye-bye New York and Washington. And it's just progressed. I mean, that's about the beginning of the modern era of the feminist movement as well, by the way. Coincidence? Hmm. There are no coincidences. I learned that from the Clintons. So the hoax is out there. Every one of these proponents is dead wrong about everything they say, and yet people like me and you who object to it, we are called deniers, and we are targeted for some sort of character assassination and attack because what this is is nothing more than a leftist political effort to expand the size and role of government.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Minor, minor, minor -- all caps, MINOR -- correction. Antarctic sea ice, the ice at the South Pole just reached a record high during their winter. It is the North Pole ice, Arctic ice, that's increased by 60% compared to last year's melt season. So it's the South Pole where there's a record amount of ice, and at the North Pole, 60% more ice than last year. Remember, the North Pole ice was supposed to be melted by now.

That's what Algore said would happen, accepting his Nobel Prize in 2007, if we didn't change anything -- and we haven't. All we've done is add more CO2, the supposed killer. CO2 is supposedly the primary agent of warming. We've added it out the wazoo because we can't help it. We exhale it. There's nothing really we can do. Yet not only the ice not melt, there's 60% more of it! Now, Moynihan back in 1969 was talking to Nixon about this.

He said air pollution, CO2, was causing the warming. They were getting ready for global cooling. A 1975 Newsweek cover was gonna talk about the ice age coming. So they're really confused how to play it back then. But Moynihan told Nixon it was air pollution that was causing global warming. Now we're being told, by the way, air pollution is what stopped global warming, like volcano eruptions.

Yeah, yeah. That's putting so much smog and dirt and junk up there that it's interrupting the warming process, and those brilliant models didn't account for any of this, damn it! And then there's the dust from the Sahara Desert. That's what's being blamed for no hurricanes. Well, they're really ticked off about that. The left is beside themselves that there aren't any hurricanes 'cause that's what they promised.

You know, after Katrina, global warming was supposed to increase every hurricane, you know, by a week. Each one would be deadlier than the one before it, and there haven't been any. They're just vacant, folks. They're empty. They're so devoid of facts to back up any of their claims or contentions.

Let's start in Grafton, Ohio, with Rich. Glad you called, sir. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. It's an honor and a pleasure to talk to you.

RUSH: I appreciate that, sir. Thank you.

CALLER: I wanted to talk to you a little bit about models. I work for NASA, and couple years ago I went to the Goddard Space Flight Center website where you can download the models that they use, and the process of going through 'em, I found out that one of the biggest variables in determining what the temperature is going to be is what the cloud cover is, and we don't have a way of figuring out or even modeling exactly what the cloud cover's gonna be, and it can swing the models one way or the other.

RUSH: Are you familiar with the name Dr. Roy Spencer?

CALLER: Yes, I am.

RUSH: Well, that's one of Dr. Spencer's areas of investigation, has been the role of cloud cover in global warming.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: It's impossible. You can't measure it. You can't predict it. It's really impossible.

CALLER: That's right.

RUSH: You can't measure cloud cover worldwide. They dissipate and form so quickly, and in all of weather forecasting, predicting cloud cover -- what percentage of the skies be covered by clouds, other than when you have a storm system moving through -- is such a variable, nobody can get a handle on it. It's as much as we can do to understand how they're formed, and how much it's gonna happen. We're clueless.

CALLER: That's correct. It's KS modeling, and you can't do it. But the other thing I wanted to tell you is when you go to figure out a model, because you can't sample every place on earth, you have to figure out a grid size that you're gonna use, and the size of the grid that's typically used, whole islands like Japan fall through the grid. So you have to go back. I believe we should study this better, but the reality is, the models just aren't mature enough to make the kind of predictions that people are making.

RUSH: Yeah, they never have been. You know what? School's out, as far as I'm concerned, on how many of these scientists are actually knowingly participating in a hoax and how many of 'em really are true believers on this stuff and think their models are infallible and so forth. This is the one thing that I don't know, and it'd be impossible to find out, really.

The political movement funds these people with donations if they produce the right outcome in their research. So that tends to dictate what kind of research you're gonna get in your lifestyle, if your living depends on it. But there's no question that they have, in this movement, converted a bunch of just everyday, ordinary meteorologists into huge proselytizers for it.

Your average, ordinary everyday local news-weather guy has become one of the biggest proponents -- whatever market you go to -- of global warming. It's almost required that you buy into this in order to get that little stamp of approval from the AMS. But the modeling, my problem with this is... I'm not a scientist on any of this stuff, and yet I I've talked to scientists, and they cannot deal with my reasoning on this, 'cause it isn't scientific.

I've talked to many of them about this. So the left asserts there's global warming, and they assert that there's manmade global warming, and they assert that it's caused by CO2, and they assert that they've got models for it. I can dispel all of that with my religious beliefs. I can dispel all of that with common sense. But they can't rely on that, the scientists who oppose it.

They say they have to come up with other science that contradicts the science that's put forth by "the believers," if you will. So they've embarked... Some have done great work in doing so, but they are routinely denied permission to testify at government committees, like Senate and House committee hearings on this stuff, and if they are allowed to testify, they're shouted down, and they're not shown much respect, which is just more proof that the fix is in regarding this.

I have never believed the manmade global warming allegation, but I fully understand however the people who do. All it takes is a 105-degree day in July, and the normal reaction is, "Man, it's getting hotter! I wonder if we're getting hotter?" When I was a kid, everybody wondered, "Are we on getting closer to the sun?" This is a natural thing. This is really where the left is really smart. They have the ability to tap into what people of their own volition are already concerned about, and then they give 'em a reason, and they give 'em substantiation for it.

But the whole thing is a joke.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: John in Savannah, Georgia. Hello, sir. I appreciate your patience. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. I'd like to thank you, first of all, for what you do to put common sense and conservative values out there in front of the indoctrinated masses.

RUSH: Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that.

CALLER: My comment was brought to mind by a previous caller's discussing the issue of global warming, climate change, or whatever you want to call it these days. I am a retired aerospace engineer. I've done a lot of work with math models and that sort of thing, and I think one thing that people don't realize when you're building a math model, is generally the work you do is built on the work of others. In other words, rarely are you building a model from first principles where you go through the physics of the situation. You basically rely on work that is done by previous individuals.

RUSH: Not only that, aren't you relying on the past to predict the future as well? I mean, what other kind of data input do you have?

CALLER: Well, actually the math models themselves predict the future. However, they should also jibe with the models, data of the past. In other words, you check your models with past data and then use it to predict future data. Now, that's a fundamental problem. As you know, there were scandals in Great Britain where the data was actually fudged because it didn't match up with existing models.

RUSH: It didn't match the agenda.

CALLER: Well, yes. Yes. I believe it is the agenda. I think there are basically, as you discussed a little earlier, two different approaches to this. One is the true believer, and the other is the one who's gotta get his research funding. That is brought over mass media to the American public, and they swallow it hook, line, and sinker. But specifically to the comment I was going to make, a great deal of the work on -- and you know the term "runaway heating" or the "greenhouse effect."

Most of that, or I would say all of that, is based on some work that was done on stellar atmospheres in the early 1900s, back when Einstein and other physicists were looking at how stars evolved and grew. A gentleman (and I don't have his name in front of me) did some work on stellar atmospheres looking at the heat and light transmission through stellar atmospheres.

Now, these stellar atmospheres take a look at things like photons starting from the center of the star and moving out. It takes tens and hundreds of years for a photon to emerge from the sun from the center. It bounces around in there and it takes that long. Now, this fellow was looking at that. He used differential equations, which some of your listeners may be familiar with.

RUSH: I doubt very many.

CALLER: Maybe not, but these equations are notoriously hard to solve, and there are many equations that cannot be solved explicitly on paper.

RUSH: You know, that is exactly right. So what then is relied upon is the complexity, and, "You must just trust us. We wouldn't lie to you. We are the only ones capable of running these models and putting them together and then analyzing what they say. It's so complex, just trust us." But one of the problems here, John, is that scientists refuse to release the data after a whole lot of Freedom of Information Act requests, and the hoax was exposed when the data was leaked from the University of East Anglia.

There had been people asking for the data, the hockey stick data, all of this stuff. They've been asking for it, the stuff in the models you're talking about. They wouldn't release it. "Oh, it's too complex. You wouldn't understand it. It could easily be distorted. It takes professionals like us to be able to analyze this and tell people what it really says, and we're the only ones capable of charting it and graphing it and putting it in an understandable format for people to see and absorb."

But then somebody at East Anglia says, "You know what? I'm gonna leak some data that's in these e-mails," and they found out that they were plugging in data, as you say, to fit an outcome that they wanted or predicted or the models they'd predicted. They were fudging it. They were fudging it, because they didn't like the result. It's like economic models.

You cannot factor dynamism, or they refuse to, in an economic model. The left, CBO, whatever. A tax cut or tax increase is proposed into law, and they do a static analysis of it because they cannot model dynamism. They can't, just like they can't model cloud cover. They can't analyze it, they can't predict it, they can't explain it -- and it's a huge factor. So ultimately, here, John in Savannah is right on the money.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: By the way, our previous caller, John from Savannah, talking about photons and how long it takes them to get anywhere from the middle of the sun -- let me tell you something. Apple has found a way to capture 'em fast. The new iPhone 5S has not expanded the mega pixels in the camera. It's still eight. But they've opened the aperture to F2.2. More light's gonna get in. You're gonna be able to capture more photons, so the global warming modelers may have a tough time with their photons, but Apple has it covered. They've found a way to capture 'em like that (snapping fingers) to even improve on your pictures. Not a plug, not a plug, just photon news.

posted November 06, 2013 09:46 PM            

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted November 07, 2013 12:28 PM            

quote:

---

They are beside themselves with rage and anger and frustration in the global warming community,

---

Projection.

quote:

---

We know by virtue of released e-mails from the University of East Anglia in the UK that the whole thing -- the manmade global warming program -- is a hoax. It's a political hoax.

---

This is a false assumption by skeptics not based on facts, but upon belief and desire.

quote:

---

Again, I've got no reason to make anything up. I have no reason to lie to you.

---

That's not quite accurate, is it? He has a vested interest in promoting Conservative ideas. The real people that have no reason to lie are the scientists.

quote:

---

My objective is to have people grounded in truth and reality in greater and greater numbers, governing themselves responsibly, participating in the arena of ideas. I have no interest in lying to you. I have none.

---

Laughable from the biggest name Conservative talking head.

quote:

---

Now, there are rare times when I'm wrong about something, but not purposefully

---

There are regular and frequent times that he's wrong, which is why he won't submit to most interviews. He views them as traps, because he knows he'll find himself quickly drowning in the deep end unable to spin his way out.

quote:

---

They added data that wasn't true. The whole hockey stick that explains medieval warming and so forth, none of it's real. It was all manufactured. It literally is a hoax.

---

This wikipedia article is a wealth of information on both the "hockey stick" graph as well as "climategate". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Key finding on the "hockey stick" graph:

New studies using different methods continued to extend the period covered by reconstructions, and agreed well with Mann et al. 2008, as in the Ljungqvist 2010 2,000 year extratropical Northern Hemisphere reconstruction. Studies by Christiansen and Ljungqvist investigated previous underestimation of low-frequency variability, and reaffirmed Mann et al.'s conclusions about the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period.[212] as did Ljungqvist et al. 2012 which used a larger network of proxies than previous studies. The hockey stick graph was further extended and confirmed by Marcott et al. 2013 which used seafloor and lake bed sediment proxies to reconstruct global temperatures over the past 11,300 years.[213]

Key context for "climategate":

Eight independent investigations of the allegations and the emails all found that there was no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct by the scientists. One report, by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), considered detailed petitions raised by conservative activists and business groups with reference to the emails: the EPA examined every email and concluded that there was no merit to the claims in the petitions, which "routinely misunderstood the scientific issues", reached "faulty scientific conclusions", "resorted to hyperbole", and "often cherry-pick language that creates the suggestion or appearance of impropriety, without looking deeper into the issues."[211] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Way to let your imagination shine, Rush! It literally was never a hoax.

quote:

---

I wouldn't be surprised if a number of you do -- and here's why. The way you've been approached on this is to first make you feel guilty. And if not you personally, at least other Americans who've been living their lives too "irresponsibly" without concern for the environment. They've been polluting, they've been wasting electricity, they've been driving big cars, they've been cooling or warming their homes to extremes, whatever. You have been made to feel appropriately guilty or angry, but then you have been offered absolution.

You've been offered a way out of the guilt for having contributed to the destruction of the planet, and that is if you will go out and buy a hybrid, or if you will oppose oil companies, or if you will oppose fracking. If you will oppose the Keystone pipeline, if you will oppose the growth of any fossil fuel industry, then you're a good person. If you will agree that people need to pay higher taxes in order to save the planet, you're a good person. They've offered you absolution.

---

It's often bizarre to watch a Conservative rationalize, and try to come up with a psychological reasoning for things.

quote:

---

If I could convince all of you who don't believe me to accept that manmade global warming is a hoax -- and I could do it, if you'd give me two straight hours. I could do it probably in less time than that. I could walk you through how it's been done. I could have you nodding your head in agreement at several intervals as I explain how the left has been approaching you on this.

---

Hilariously wishful thinking. This guy is like you, Randall. He thinks that if he just puts enough misleading information out, people will become convinced.

quote:

---

I would ask you some questions that, if you honestly listened to and tried to answer, you would have no choice but than to conclude I'm right. But you would also have to be able to independently think, not just accept a bunch of propaganda.

---

Sounds right out of your thinking here, Randall. On multiple occasions you've tried to suggest the irrationality of accepting science by inserting your belief that there is some disqualifier that you've not been able to prove.

quote:

---

So what possible impact could you be making?

---

This has precisely been your argument at times. No wonder you enjoy this.

quote:

---

Anyway, I'm just taking individual little stabs here at trying to make you think and question the propaganda that you have been assaulted with that America primarily is responsible for the earth getting warmer

---

Except that people that follow the science aren't the ones falling for propaganda. It's the other way around. You can tell by the fact that the sceptical side is rigid and stubborn, while the scientific side allows for debate.

quote:

---

Two things: It is so cold, and taxes are so high, that old people cannot afford the fuel necessary to stay warm -- and, sorry, their windmills aren't cutting it, and the solar farms aren't cutting it, and all the people out driving hybrids is not making their houses warmer.

---

Way to incoherently mash-up ideas.

quote:

---

"Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth's surface have been flat," they haven't moved, "while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar." Everything you were told about greenhouse gases was wrong. "The more of it, the worse it gets! The more of it, the hotter it gets!" Well, greenhouse gas emissions have soared.

---

The missing bit of context here is what we've been talking about. The warming occurred, and then flatlined at high temps. We're in a statistic anomaly, but that doesn't do away with the warming that's happened, nor has any cooling occurred.

quote:

---

By the way, do you know that "greenhouse gas" is what you exhale?

---

Perhaps the silliest of attempts at argument.

quote:

---

If you do believe in God, becomes a little harder. 'Cause if you believe in God, then you believe in creationism, and then you have to accept that you really don't matter.

---

Brilliant and scientific.

quote:

---

Your life matters in terms of what it makes, but in terms of the ecosystem and how complex it is, you can't possibly matter.

---

Except that it's been well known for decades, if not at least a good century, that humans do affect ecosystems. That's not a particularly difficult thing to establish.

quote:

---

"If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years," meaning their models are all wrong. "If, however, temperatures are likely to rise by only 2°C ... the calculation might change," and it goes on to get into some scientific minutia here.

---

Love that. When it gets to things Rush would rather not consider, "it goes on to get into some scientific minutia." Funny.

quote:

---

The actual length of time that there hasn't been any warming is now 20 years,

---

No. Not if you decide to bring 1998 into it.

quote:

---

despite all that carbon dioxide put in the air, and they can't figure it out. Well, it's very simple. They were bat-excrement crazy! They're just flat-out wrong.

---

Also wrong. The measured warming took place. There's no denying it. Even a 20-year hiatus from active warming doesn't disprove warming occurred, nor does it disprove the most accepted reasoning for the warming. The only correct thing he's pointed out is that lack of additional warming in recent years is a mystery. That's the sole factoid here.

quote:

---

Another story: Sunspot activity has slowed down, and that means global warming has stopped

---

It is true that Sun activity has dropped, though pairing that idea with cooling is premature. We haven't seen statistical cooling.

posted November 07, 2013 12:41 PM            

The fact that he can't even decide whether its 20 or 15 years is just one of the hundred waffles in his diatribes, which are mostly hypnotic suggestions that he tells the only truth anyone will find anywhere on earth...

posted November 07, 2013 02:15 PM            

However we have had the global freezing panic already and that didn't pan out either.

Both sides are being funded to do their forecasting so money is not the deciding factor here as to who is honest

posted November 07, 2013 02:51 PM            

This is an absurd discussion to have in the first place simply from the context of a partisan quoting a partisan talking head as evidence of science. It doesn't get much more OBVIOUSLY ridiculous than that, right?

quote:

---

You are the biggest Dittohead on here, except that you parrot those who fudge measurements.

---

"Dittohead" is the express nomenclature of Rush Limbaugh listeners which I'm not a part of. Semantics aside, you make the assumption that our positions are equal, that I'm relying on information that is equally as bad as yours when I'm not. If a "Dittohead" is one that finds value in nonsense such as Rush Limbaugh, I most certainly don't fit the bill.

Until you're able to prove some fudging of measurements, I'll consider such pronouncements nonsense (as per the usual).

quote:

---

It's a money-driven hoax, plain and simple. People are waking up. Sooner or later, the alarmists will represent a tiny faction of believers, including yourself, I fear.

---

Every bit of this is unfounded factually.

You're smiley indicates that you're simply seeking to wind me up. I get it. The easiest way to do so is to purposely say dumb stuff. I get that as well. Why you put yourself debate with me is what I question. Who's more masochistic here, you or me? Is your pain of going up against someone that is both right and tenacious more painful than my going against someone who's got an belief not grounded in fact who'd generally rather get along with everybody than make waves? Smileys don't do anything against logic or reason, do they?

quote:

---

You are ardent and loyal

---

posted November 07, 2013 02:56 PM            

quote:

---

Your side has actually refused public debate. What do they fear, if they are using science? Because it's political diatribe, not science. Rush is right!

---

posted November 07, 2013 03:00 PM            

quote:

---

This statement is utterly wrong. You would know this if you actually paid attention to the science. If science didn't pay attention to the debate, why have they done studies specific to addressing the debate?

---

posted November 07, 2013 03:41 PM            

No one here with the exception of religious propheys wants the world to end, or expects it to. The world will go on and I for one want it to be habitable and not covered in coal slag, poison water and nuclear waste.

As far as I can see, the scientists are continually debating. And if they were wrong, time will tell, as in every other scenario that was discovered to be incomplete or calculated wrong..

posted November 07, 2013 03:48 PM            

In other words he creates a bubble world to wrap around his audience and he does it for money just like those you call mercenary.

posted November 07, 2013 04:02 PM            

quote:

---

Why do you Liberals want the world to end? Why so pessimistic? Is it really that important that you believe humanity can control climate?

---

Why are you attributing characteristics to us? Why would you claim that liberals want the world to end when it's liberals that are asking for caution based upon science? I'm not pessimistic in the slightest, nor are my opinions based in desiring that humans influence the climate. What I want is for you to take the known, established science seriously. That's it.

quote:

---

We can't control the real factor (the Sun), so let's find something we can appease ourselves with and make a lot of money by taking from wealthy nations and redistribute it to smaller nations.

---

No. It's not solely about the Sun. The Sun as the sole director of climate was proven false years ago.

quote:

---

Don't you know that when the predictions don't come true, you can only keep up the ruse for so long?

---

No, because your fundamental flaw is in thinking that it's a ruse. If a prediction doesn't come through, who cares? We're still sitting atop the temperature record for recorded time.

quote:

---

If man suddenly vanished, the CO2 levels would barely drop.

---

Indeed, which makes your belief in a coming cooling unlikely.

quote:

---

I understand why you Liberals hate Rush so much. I used to hate him, too, back when I was a foolish, blind, parotting Liberal.

---

quote:

---

"you" liberals is a device to lump a bunch of people in the OPPONENT camp when one has no argument with neutrality.

---

Indeed.

quote:

---

No one here with the exception of religious propheys wants the world to end, or expects it to. The world will go on and I for one want it to be habitable and not covered in coal slag, poison water and nuclear waste.

---

As any sensible person would and should.

quote:

---

As far as I can see, the scientists are continually debating. And if they were wrong, time will tell, as in every other scenario that was discovered to be incomplete or calculated wrong..

---

Yup. Pragmatic.

quote:

---

The world looks much better with my head out of the sand.

---

posted November 07, 2013 05:31 PM            

quote:

---

A coming cooling unlikely, because if man disappears, CO2 levels don't diminish? Really?

---

The National Academies of Science says:

This paper shows that the climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. Following cessation of emissions, removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide decreases radiative forcing, but is largely compensated by slower loss of heat to the ocean, so that atmospheric temperatures do not drop significantly for at least 1,000 years. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.long