All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 14, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:35
November 14, 2005, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Is this on the level, Brett, the uh Saudi story?
The uh Saudi Arabian foreign ministry is asking that any nation that captures a Saudi who is acting as a terrorist in Iraq, acting as an insurgent in Iraq, that rather than deal with them themselves to turn them back over to the Saudi government so they can deal with them.
They might have to clear this with Senator McCain first, because I suspect the Saudi way of dealing with uh some of those individuals may not meet his uh meet his muster.
This good news bad news thing that I've been talking about in today's program.
Now here's some bad news, but I can see some good news coming out of it.
From the let's tax everything we can possibly think of world in New Hampshire, they're property taxing you on the basis of your view.
If you have a beautiful view, you are going to be assessed higher property taxes.
This story comes from the uh Washington Post today.
They went up to Plainfield, New Hampshire, and they find some residents who have beautiful views who are seeing their property tax assessments going up because the community believes that if you have this gorgeous view, your property obviously has a greater value, and therefore we need to extract more money from you.
So people who have a good mountain view or a good lake view are seeing rather significant increases in their uh in their property assessments.
Like I said, that's probably bad news, especially if you live in New Hampshire and you have a beautiful view.
You're not going to have to pay the government for the right to have your attractive view there.
But I'm guessing this could cut both ways.
What if you have a terrible view?
What if you have a terrible view?
You know, I suppose if you've got a junkyard next to you, that probably should result in your uh property taxes going down.
What if Rosie O'Donnell lives next door?
Should you be able to lower your property taxes then because of that view?
I was going to use Janine Garofalo as my example there, but I was advised that nobody knows who she is.
I'm trying to figure out who the liberal my ugly liberal woman would be for the purpose of that example.
And Barbara Streisand's controversial.
I mean, she's not beautiful, but it is simply not fair to say she's ugly, right?
Not ugly.
Uh I love Cheryl Crow.
She's beautiful, so we can't use her.
So I got Rosie, I got Janine Garofalo, who, well, anyway.
Uh I've got good news for you here.
This is in fact great news.
Any radio talk show host who doesn't normally do a national show, I do a local show, who doesn't normally do a national show.
If you are a conservative radio talk show host, and you could have anything happen when you were going to do a national program, it would be to have Al Gore speak.
Now he doesn't talk much anymore.
He's essentially done three things ever since he ran for president in 2000.
He grew a beard, shaved a beard, and he started this goofy cable channel where people submit their own videos.
You ever watch that?
You ever watch those videos?
You can't say for 40 seconds.
Nobody has ever lasted on the Al Gore channel for more than 40 seconds.
You can't.
Did you ever last more than 40 seconds?
You'll tune it in.
Well, this is weird.
What's this?
So the weirdness catches you for about 30 seconds, then your mind starts to wander.
By 40, you're back to ESP under to a normal channel.
Anyway, Al Gore is speaking.
Al Gore is now saying global warming is a greater threat to the world than terrorism.
Global warming's a bigger threat to the United States than terrorism.
Yeah, tell that to the 9-11 families.
Those buildings just melted on their own because the planet is warming up.
We've got terrorism spreading throughout the world, is being used as a tactic by individuals who are trying to impose their religious views on the entire world and will slaughter anyone that doesn't agree to them.
But this out-of-touch guy who almost was the president of the United States thinks global warming is a bigger problem.
For those of you who think that elections do not matter, he almost won.
Had he won, had he won, he would have been the president on 9-11.
And rather than attempt to deal with the terrorism problem, and without regard to your position on what President Bush has done in Afghanistan with their own internal security or even in Iraq, and there are opinions all over the board on that.
He has made it a priority.
And his mission is to try to deal with this problem.
It is the defining issue of President Bush's presidency.
Whether you agree with him or not, it is the number one priority had gore one.
It would be an afterthought as he's sitting around figuring out what to do with global warming, because by his own words, this is the biggest threat to the planet.
Now, myself, I think this whole global warming warming thing is an idea that was cult-like originally and is being bought into by a lot of people that ought to know better.
We're now losing Fox News channel.
Is there any part of the media other than Russia's show that's left?
Fox News Channel last night ran a one-hour documentary.
The heat is on the case of global warming.
They acknowledged that it was not fair and balanced, which is the slogan that they use for everything else that they do.
It was done from the perspective of the individuals who believe that global warming A is happening and B, it's a serious problem, and C that man is causing it.
The program aired after Roger Ayles, who's the head of Fox News Channel, was lobbied by Bobby Kennedy Jr., who is one of the leading environmentalists in America.
He's with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
And by Larry David's wife Lori.
Larry David, too obscure a reference that people know who he is.
Larry David's the creator of Seinfeld who does a hilarious show on HBO called Curb Your Enthusiasm.
Laurie David's a big-time environmentalist.
So the two of them go to Ailes and they pound on him, and the next thing you know, Fox News Channel is running a documentary on the terrible threat to the planet of global warming.
Now I'm going to deal with global warming in a second, but I will also want to deal with the fact that this was on Fox.
Why do you think they approached Fox?
Why didn't they go to MSNBC?
Other than the fact that no one would have seen it.
Or why didn't they go to CNN?
Why didn't they go to Al Gore's goofy channel?
They went to Fox because Fox has an audience that isn't the same as all those other sources.
If you turn on television or pick up a newspaper or pick up a magazine, you expect to be lectured to by the American left and told the entire liberal ideology and the whole doctrine is going to be given to you with the under the pretense of objectivity.
You kind of expect that Fox is going to be our haven.
Are we losing Roger Ailes entirely?
Or just on the issue of global warming?
Now I know how this stuff happens.
Anyone who is a prominent American conservative, and I'm sure it's happened to Rush, has had to go through this in his or her own life.
You get out there, you're outspoken, you find a large audience, you're initially condemned as an extremist and all these other things.
Eventually, after a while, when they realize you're not going to go anywhere, like Fox News channel, they start to court you.
They even have terms for it.
When a Supreme Court justice starts moving to the left, like Suter did, or even better, like Anthony Kennedy has sort of slid leftward, the term they use is, well, they're growing.
They're evolving, they're developing, they're becoming more sensitive.
And the way this works is conservatives, I think become flattered by the attention of liberals, particularly liberal celebrities.
They want to fit in, they want to be popular.
Let's call it the Ariana Huffington syndrome.
Remember her?
Is she too obscure?
Want to avoid the obscure references.
Ariana Huffington was the wife of a rich guy in California.
He had a lot of money, and somehow that turned her into a celebrity Because she was the puppeteer pulling his strings and she became a prominent American conservative.
Then she started hanging out with a bunch of celebrities like Bill Maher and she liked it, and all of a sudden she's a liberal and they love her now rather than condemn her.
So there's this catalization of conservatives in which just say a few things that we like, and we'll be nice to you.
We won't say these mean terrible things to you anymore.
And gradually you get the acceptance from people who in the past condemned you.
You get closer to what they call their version of the mainstream.
And then get a few pats in the back.
And I'm sure for Ails and for Fox News Channel, they can rationalize the decision.
Luck.
It's a throwaway.
We put it on for one hour on Sunday night, then we rebroadcast it.
Nobody's watching Fox News channel on Sunday night anyway.
It's just a throwaway.
Our meat and potatoes are still going to be O'Reilly and all the other shows that we have on the air.
We got all our stuff for the right wingers.
This is nothing.
But we get acceptance from some quarters of the left, and we can say to them, look, we're not this one-sided right wing organ that you claim we are.
We ran a documentary on global warming.
But what they gain by doing that, plot it's from Larry David's wife, what they gain from that comes at the expense of, I think their core of audience who doesn't want to see it.
I can get a documentary on global warming literally at 350 channels on my TV.
They are everywhere.
Now I'm lecture two on this by Fox News Channel, which is, I suppose, an indication that the notion of global warming being real is just accepted.
It's fact.
We can't even present the other case anymore.
The orthodoxy has been drilled into our head.
There's no more argument.
You're a nut if you don't buy into it.
Well, I don't buy into it.
I don't buy into it.
Not that I watched the documentary.
I've heard these arguments again and again and again and again, and none of them make any sense.
It is possible.
In fact, it is probable and it may indeed now be definite, that the planet seems to be a little bit warmer now than it was 30 or 40 years ago.
What that proves, I don't know.
But to suggest that the planet is on a permanent long-term path toward burning up is ludicrous.
We have no idea what the temperature on the planet was 200 years ago, much less 2,000 or 20,000.
For those of you who ascribe to the big bang theory, tell me what was the temperature of the planet one billion years ago.
You don't know.
So how do we know that this is anything other than a short-term blip on a planet that has short-term blips back and forth all the time?
We don't know that.
But even if you buy into the notion that it's happening now, to suggest that man is the reason for it is so arrogant.
We can't warm up the planet.
How'd the planet warm up in the past?
Or has it never warmed up in the past?
This is the first time the planet has ever warmed up.
Well, it not only has warmed up, it's cool.
We had an ice age on this planet.
Obviously, all sorts of things have happened to the planet.
To ascribe them to man is nonsensical.
And even though you are portrayed as a kook for suggesting otherwise, I don't buy this whole global warming nonsense.
I don't I don't buy into it.
It doesn't make sense, and there is another legitimate side of this issue.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush.
Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
I'll give you this.
The planet appears to be in a short-term warming trend.
It appears to be slight, but it appears to be in that.
Why it's happening, I don't know.
Nor does anybody else.
Not Bobby Kennedy Jr., not Fox News Channel, they don't know why.
They also don't know if it's going to reverse next year or next decade or in the next century.
They don't know any of that stuff.
We simply do not, they don't know if it's going to rain tomorrow.
To wheeling West Virginia Ed on a cell phone, Ed, you're on EIB.
Thank you for listening.
I like make a comment about global warming.
I'm retired.
I was a manufacturing engineer for most of my career.
And I'm a total believer in cause and effect.
Nothing just happens.
I think we are doing enough to this planet to probably cause some global warming.
I'm not saying we are, but my only comment I really would like to make, I wish Rush and you wouldn't talk about it.
Someday you might be embarrassed because maybe it was significant.
What?
If I get a bad sunburn, I'll have to acknowledge that it was happening.
You say you state this with regard to what with regard to cause and effect.
Right.
Let me ask a few questions, and let's deal with this from an engineering standpoint.
Sure.
Can we make it rain?
No.
Why not?
You can see the clouds, but it's a it's probably not that effect.
So we can't make it rain.
No.
We can't even do that.
We can't even make it rain for one minute on a twenty-five square foot area.
But we can warm up the entire planet.
Eighty percent of this planet is water.
Huge portions of the landmass have no human beings on it.
So for almost all of the planet, there aren't any factories, there aren't any SUVs, there are no men, there are no brush fires, there's no nothing.
To suggest that we are responsible for some sort of global climate change is preposterous.
Now your notion on this cause and effect that what caused the ice age?
What caused the ice age?
Yeah.
I don't know.
You don't know.
There's got to be a cause, though, right?
That's right.
Why do you presume that even if I give you that we are in a short-term warming phase, that man is responsible as opposed to going back to your default answer of I don't know when I asked you about the ice age?
No, I'm not saying that's uh uh what really cause it.
My only comment is is we don't know.
That's my Ed's my point.
We don't know.
You just got done saying that Rush and I are going to running the risk of looking ridiculous.
Bobby Kennedy Jr. runs the risk of looking ridiculous.
He's used to doing it.
It happens to him all the time.
I am merely saying that we should not accept it as fact because there are a lot of reasons to believe that man cannot have an effect on climate.
If man can't affect weather, weather is short-term phenomenon.
Weather is if it's raining today, what the temperature is today, if we can't even affect weather for a very short brief brief period of time, how arrogant are we to presume that we can affect climate, which is the overall temperature of the entire planet.
If you can't warm it up at all above you, how in the world are we warming the entire planet in areas that are nowhere near human beings?
They haven't been able to find a link in terms of weather, not climate now.
Weather from an industrialized part of the United States to a rural part of the United States.
If emissions and all these other things that man produces was the cause for planetary warming, wouldn't you think that there'd be a significant impact in the weather right over those communities as opposed to an area that is not developed?
Yet it has not happened.
But I agree with you, Ed.
We do not know.
We do not know yet this is being presented to us as fact for political reasons, and way too many people are unquestioningly uh buying into it.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for oh, I'm too early for my break.
I'm way off on my time check.
I knew I'd screw some.
I have not screwed up the adoptive soldier.
I thought I had a break coming.
I don't have a break coming.
Let's go to Sacramento and Glenn.
Glenn, you're on EIB.
Hey, I'm uh wondering what it is about uh about global warming that's uh not being understood here.
Are you that ignorant to think that we as a as a human being don't uh affect the climate and and weather?
Weather is part and parcel of climate.
How do we affect weather?
You can't you can't you can't have six billion people on the planet and not affect climate.
You're more do not do any we don't do anything about and I gotta say, I'm a conservative.
Yeah, no, no, I know that I well you throw these statements out, I want to challenge them.
You can't have six billion people, you said, not that we have that many.
Six billion people on the there's six billion people on the planet.
Do we not burn fossil fuel?
Yeah, we do.
Fossil fuel affects uh affects weather and climate.
I mean, it's a lot of things.
How does it affect the weather?
I'm sorry?
How does it affect the weather?
It puts plenty of emissions into the air which reflect plenty of sunlight back out into the atmosphere.
As this planet starts to do that, things start to warm up here because there's no way that the other heat that the sun leaves here on this planet can escape back out of the room.
Why is there no difference in space?
Why is there no difference in the temperature therefore from rural areas to urban areas?
Well, there's a I won't say there is a significant difference or or even a moderate difference.
Um here in Sacramento, for example, I live on the west side of the river in Sacramento, and most of the time.
But the east side is warmer than the west side.
And I can't hardly see the the I can hardly see the buildings down there.
Yeah, and that's somehow affecting the weather.
There is no way that you can link it to the weather.
We can't make it rain.
We can't cool things down, we can't stop a tornado.
We can't calm down the hurricanes, but you're telling me we're warming up the planet.
I just don't buy it.
Mark Belling's sitting in for Rush.
Yeah, well, I'm not buying odd op the soldier is underway today, we're kicking it off today.
This is Russia's baby.
This is the program by which an active duty member of the military anywhere in the world can go to Rushlinbaugh.com.
Once you sign up, you're on a list, and you are eligible to receive a free subscription to Rush twenty four seven and the limbaugh letter, provided that enough of our listeners go to the site and match up and adopt a soldier.
You have the ability, if you're not active duty military, to go to Rush Limbaugh.com.
You can sign up for a sponsored subscription at a discount for an American soldier who will then receive Rush twenty four seven limbaugh letter.
These are the men and women that are protecting us all over the world.
They have an opportunity for once to get a media source that ratifies the world view that a lot of them have.
And that's the beauty of the program.
And there's been a tremendous response so far and the sign ups now for active duty military for the men and women in the military active duty.
Right now just go to Rush Limbaugh.com.
There is a place to sign up, and there is a place for you to sponsor a subscription to uh rush twenty four seven, which includes the Limbaugh Letter.
How do I explain it?
I don't want to mess this up.
I can take the commercial breaks at the wrong time.
I have to do it tomorrow.
I'll have lots of practice.
Great.
To uh cell phone in St. Louis, Jim.
Jim, you're on EIB with Mark Belling.
Hey, good afternoon.
Hey, I I find it kind of disturbing.
I I'm an environmental chemist here and they these advocates for global warming think that the Earth should remain in a static condition from century to century.
It has never been the case.
Uh one of the one of the things I also disturb you is that every uh six months we have to calibrate our thermometers in our in our laboratory.
And it's used with a with a National Institute of Science and Technology thermometer.
And even the thermometer, a scientific thermometer is good, you know, a good quality thermometer that we buy every every, you know, for our refrigerators.
If you calibrate those every six months, they will give you a different temperature.
Your point is that the instrumentation is not even precise.
Right.
But the best of it.
I mean, first of all, just coming up with an average global temperature is quite a challenge.
We don't have a thermometer every mile in the oceans.
We don't have accurate recording devices all over the planet, and even though we've gotten better at it, what did we have fifty years ago?
You tell me how they calculated the average global temperature in nineteen thirty-seven, for example.
They had rudimentary equipment.
Much of the world didn't even have this equipment.
They are coming up with guesses as to what they think the planet was in various location.
What was the temperature in the middle of the Sahara in nineteen twenty one?
They don't know because it wasn't being accurately recorded at the time.
Furthermore, we've only been recording these temperatures less than two hundred years.
We have no indication what the weather was anywhere as recently as seventeen thirty.
So all we're working on is a very short-term comparison in saying that the weather seems to be a little bit warmer than it was in this any other point in this very recent time that we're recording anything.
Furthermore, I am told that the highest average global temperature on record, which again doesn't go back very far, was nineteen ninety-eight.
Now that's seven years ago.
If we're warming, how come we haven't topped the record for ninety-eight yet?
I don't think we have a great grasp as to what the global temperature is right now, but we certainly didn't in the past, and that's what we're comparing this to, it may simply be that we've gotten better at measuring this temperature, and maybe we were lowballing it for a long time because of the lack of a good ability to get proper readings in much of the world.
What was the global temperature for ex was the average temperature, for example, on the northernmost tip of Antarctica in 1896?
No one has any idea.
So how can we make these huge claims that the planet is warming, that it's a permanent process, and then to leap again that man is responsible when we don't even work off of a good base of historical knowledge here.
I just think you can't do it.
Can I I also and also one of the things that they're doing when they came up with this one to two degrees warming over the last hundred years is they're comparing the temperatures now with the temperatures back during the industrial revolution, when another environmentalist theory c kicks in where you have all this coal dust all over everything, and they admit that this coal dust has reflected some of the sun's rays and made the temperatures cooler.
And and so they take this temperature when it was probably the coolest in the last five hundred years, and they compare it with today when we don't have soot everywhere, and they say, well, wow, a one to two degree difference in temperature.
This means that it's warming and it's abnormal.
Well, I'm sorry, it doesn't matter.
You're right, they may have s they may be using as their starting point an unusually cool period.
I mean, you can make these numbers work to tell you whatever they want to tell you.
I could go back to that 1998 number where the average global temperature hit a high point, which was significantly higher than it was prior to that, but it was the record, and I could well now we appear to be cooling because we haven't topped the ninety-eight high point.
You can make the numbers do whatever you want them to do if your purpose here is in advancing an ideology, and what this is all about is simply rip it on American business and rip it on the American economy and telling us we can't have any coal plants, you can't drive the automobile of your choice.
It's all it's driving all of this here.
That's the motivation.
They don't have any concern at all about the expansion of the economy in Africa, the great drive of many humanitarians, led by Bono, to develop the nations of Africa and get a viable economy there.
That would mean industrializing it, right?
Well, wouldn't that therefore mean that you're going to have more warming as you have more automobiles and more mechanization going on in Africa?
They don't address any of that.
This is all about ripping on the American economy, ripping on American corporations.
What I'm not going to argue is that if there appears to be a short-term phenomenon going on with regard to the planet warming up.
But to extrapolate that into a long-term thing is just silly.
When you're right, the climate on this planet has changed all the time.
It can be extreme, it can be violent, and we don't have any real under ability to understand why it's happening.
Thank you for the call, Jim.
To Tallahassee and Rich.
Rich, you're on EIB.
Mark, I used to listen to you, Milwaukee all the time.
Great.
Good to have you.
Um with regard to global warming, this all started by the UN's IPCC, the intergovernmental panel on climate change, and uh they had an agenda, and it's really bad science.
And the the thing is is global warming has been occurring since the last glacial ice age, and that's arguably thirteen to eighteen thousand years ago, long before man had anything to do with putting CO2 in the atmosphere.
And the second thing is good science is always predictable.
And not one every year, every two years the IPCC revises their temperature increase predictions.
And not one time have they been accurate.
Not one.
And water vapor, which they usually don't include as a stop you at that point because the point you make is very significant.
You're talking about a short-term prediction for what it's what's going to happen in the next year to two, correct?
Absolutely.
And if they're wrong about a year to two, how can they tell us with the certainty that they act what the temperature will be in one hundred years, much less one thousand years when they can't nail it for the next year to two?
I always mock them because they can't do a good job of coming up with a ten-day weather forecast.
The meteorologists are getting better at the two and three days, but the ten days they're just guessing.
They're all over the map on that.
How therefore can you tell us that global warming is going on?
Their response is is that short-term weather is indeed rather unpredictable and violent, but when you average everything out, you can see the long-term Trend.
Well then, as you state, why can't they get the one year prediction accurate?
They can't do that because the end because the answer is they're just really guessing, and they are guessing with a bias toward drawing a certain conclusion.
It fits their entire agenda to buy into this.
If we can just prove that global warming is occurring, we'll then leap forward without any logic and say it's man's fault, and therefore we can rip on the SUVs and rip on the oil companies and rip on the utility companies, rip on everybody who engages in this behavior that we don't approve of.
And it's all about proving a point that they need to prove in order to rip on the people in the companies they don't like.
Largest emissions that they leave out is that water vapor accounts for more than 98% of all the greenhouse gases.
You know, but we can't control evaporation.
So, but we, you know, CO2 seems to be something that man's doing, so they focus on that.
They focus on that because they want to pin it on man.
You're exactly right about that.
Thank you for the call, Rich.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
Fox News Channel, which is supposed to be on the side of sanity.
Became the latest mainstream news media organ to buy into the global warming hype with a documentary that they aired last night.
Uh what are they going what's the next report?
Alito why he's too extreme for America.
Have we lost Fox?
Or is this aberrational?
By the way, all the usual suspects are here.
In an article posted on the website of political activist Ariana Huffington, another one who used to be a conservative and is now a liberal, Robert Kennedy Jr. reiterated his claim that he was instrumental in convincing Fox News Channel chairman Roger Ailes to produce the climate change documentary.
Quote, last year, I asked Roger, as a personal favor, to attend Al Gore's New York City update on global warming science.
Although he left that presentation still agnostic, he was convinced that the debate deserved a public airing.
I argued that since there is no such thing as Republican or Democratic children, global warming should not be a partisan, but only a scientific issue.
Well, first of all, they always make it partisan.
They wanted to blame the hurricanes on Bush.
Everything here is about their agenda.
If they were consistent, and Al Gore made the statement that global warming is the greatest threat to the planet right now, greater than terrorism.
If they were consistent, they would oppose economic development in the third world.
Why have industrialization spread to the entire globe?
Why not confine it to the places that it is now?
Let's keep the entire world in abject poverty with no industry, no jobs, no nothing.
If they were consistent, that's what they would advocate.
But they're not consistent because this is all about banging on the United States and banging on American industry.
And it's just junk science.
I'm not denying.
The planet does seem to be in a short-term warming phase.
But I can't comment on whether or not it's warmer than it was 500 years ago, much less 5,000 years ago, because we have no basis at all for knowing what the temperature was then.
We do know, for those of you who are not creationists, that the planet's been around for a long time, and that we had an ice age.
We had dinosaurs on the planet.
We've had all sorts of things on this planet that were a lot different than now, and almost none of them can be attributed to man.
Since man wasn't here for more than a fraction of the planet's existence, again, this is for those of you who are not creationists, as I am.
We've been around for a long time.
The other part of this is the incredible arrogance of believing that the entire planet is centered on man, that man is the only thing that matters.
This planet has more water than anything else.
It has vegetation all over it.
Water and water vapor makes tremendous, has tremendous impact on weather and climate, as does vegetation.
Yeah, I suppose you can argue that a few smokestacks and a few cars also may do something.
But to suggest that man is the only thing is just silly.
There's nothing scientific about it, and it doesn't make sense.
And those of us who are skeptics about it shouldn't be bullied into silence because Bobby Kennedy Jr. and Ariana Huffington are leaning on Roger Ayles.
Somebody's got maybe we need to get a conservative to lean on Roger Reels.
If uh you guys see Bobby Kennedy Jr. anywhere near Rush, gotta keep him away.
We don't want to lose Rush.
We can't lose Rush.
We may be losing Fox.
We can't lose Rush.
To uh Sarasota and Harry.
Harry here on EIB.
Yeah, Mark.
You know, I think Fox News is allowed a mulligan here and there.
Um that's what I call the.
No, they've already had the mulligan for those of you who are non-gulfers is the tea shot that you guys get to have a do over.
They already have a mulligan, Harry.
It's called Geraldo.
Geraldo is their mulligan.
We can't give them any more.
Yeah, but this was uh this was a special.
And uh I have to admit, after I threw my shoe at the TV set because I was looking for my fair and balanced, I I did turn it off after I started hearing about the glacier shrinking.
And uh if I could add something else, I'd like to ask them how the glaciers formed in the first place.
Yes.
How how did they how did they form?
How did that happen?
In fact, for that matter, whatever the climate is, you know, we've got the poles are the coldest and the equator is the warmest.
How'd that all happen?
How'd that all happen?
How did we happen to be positioned at the precise di direct uh uh distance from the sun so that we would have a habitable planet?
How did all of those things occur?
Did man somehow position the planet so that we would be in the right place for human life to be able to exist?
Because human beings couldn't survive on their own in Mars or Venus.
How did that happen?
There's there's a notion here that discounts the potential that discounts any kind of possibility that something other than man is responsible here, in particular that there might be a God who has a plan.
And I think that this drives all of these things to just suggest that we know what's going to happen with the weather and the climate.
We know what there was in the weather and the climate, even though we have no instruments to do it, and to exclude any other forces, be them natural or supernatural, is not only silly, it's just real, real egotistical.
Right there with you.
Thank you for the call.
I appreciate it.
Palm Desert, California and Maureen.
Maureen, you're on EIB.
Hi there.
I have a problem with this.
I live in one of the hottest places in the world over here.
And I have to Are you there?
Yes.
And I have to tell you that this summer was cooler than last.
Uh it does get to be 118, 120 here.
It's not not, you know, that, but this is so stupid.
I can't believe it.
They told us if we dropped an atom bomb, we'd destroy the world.
A Mount Pinatubo goes off like three atom bombs, and it didn't destroy the world.
I'm sorry, go ahead.
No, go ahead.
I'm sorry, Maureen.
I said there is nothing on this earth that we have put on it.
It was all here.
Nothing's been added to the earth.
There is nothing man can do to destroy this earth.
Yeah, I mean, I agree with you.
I think man can destroy human life and man can destroy plants, but I don't think man can describe the planet.
And to believe that we can, I think, is a non-scientific way of viewing things.
It's just leading yourself to a conclusion that you wanted to draw all along.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush.
Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
Let's go quickly to Pensacola and Ron.
Ron, good afternoon.
Yes, hello, thank you for listening to me.
Uh uh the lunar rovers and the satellites around Mars have indicated that in the last few years and things, there is some problems with the uh receding of the frozen poles there.
And maybe we could send Al Gore and all the other wackles up there to figure out what they're walking.
That is global warming on Mars, huh?
Yes.
Are you talking about Mars or the Moon?
No, Mars.
Mars.
Global warming on Mars.
Well, that's no doubt because the evil United States military industrial complexes launched those rockets, and we're flying past.
After all, the rovers are up there and we're taking the pictures.
We're now not just warming the planet, we are warming the entire solar system.
We're going to melt the galaxy by the time we're done.
By the way, I do have the new Fox News scheduled documentary schedule for the rest of the week.
Tonight, Bush lied about WMD.
Tomorrow, driving his murder, and then finally at the end of the week, talk America, talk radio, America's secret plague.
All of those coming up this week on Fox News Channel.
▲
Export Selection