All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 2, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:13
January 2, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And happy new year from KO Geo Radio in San Diego on the west coast of the United States, and wishing for you and yours a healthy and happy 2007.
I know it's going to be a remarkable year here at the EIB network.
Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh.
Rush returns tomorrow, and of course, the latest at rushlimbaugh.com as well.
And your calls coming up today at 1-800-282-2882.
Now, let me shift gears because this story is just too funny.
This story is just too good.
This is an oh, this is our local Pulitzer Prize-winning San Diego Union Tribune editorial: Threatened species.
Subhead, time to address the polar bear decline.
Decline.
This editorial goes on to congratulate the Bush administration for listing the polar bear as, quote, threatened under the Endangered Species Act, which is on its way to being listed as endangered.
And that the whole thing is linked to global warming.
The editorial cites that the polar bear population, believed to be between 20 and 25,000 in five countries, has been shrinking.
And it goes on to deride the Bush administration for not taking global warming more seriously, calling on Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to use the example of the polar bear decline to get the administration on the right side of global warming.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, none of that is true.
Nothing that I said right there, except the name of the Interior Secretary, is true.
That was true, Dirk Kempthorne.
I have no idea who he is either.
But here is the truth.
A little over a year ago, three environmental groups, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Greenpeace, the three of them, sued the Bush administration to force the designation under the Endangered Species Act from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, designation as threatened or endangered.
They were going for endangered.
They settled for threatened because the Bush administration rolled over and settled the lawsuit.
So it was on the settlement of a lawsuit that Secretary Kempthorne made last week's press conference announcement.
The facts are that the polar bear is not threatened at all.
Mitch Taylor is a polar bear biologist with the government of Nunavut, a territory, I hope I said that correctly.
I don't mean to be satirical about it, a territory in the country of Canada.
Now, to the extent there is still such a country, there is a part of it called Nunavut or something like that.
And according to biologist, polar bear biologist Mitch Taylor, the polar bears are, well, increasing.
In a 12-page report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Taylor stated, quote, no evidence exists to suggest that both bears and the conservation systems that regulate them will not adapt and respond to the new condition, unquote.
In other words, Taylor said the polar bears adapted from grizzly bears about 250,000 years ago because, well, there was global cooling.
There was more ice.
And they developed about 125,000 years ago as a distinct species, again, because of climate change.
In other words, God's creation adapts.
If it's going to get warmer or colder, which it has many times over history and prehistory, the polar bear adapts.
In the Toronto Star in May, Mitch Taylor, the polar bear biologist with Nunavut, opined: of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or are increasing.
They are not going extinct or even appear to be affected at the present time.
Now, here's the killer.
The article from the Pulitzer Prize-winning Union Tribune indicates a reduction.
The polar bear population has been shrinking.
Here is Mr. Taylor.
The current population is, he says, between 22,000 and 25,000.
The problem with that number as a shrinking number is that a half century ago, yes, even before SUVs doomed the planet, there were only 8,000 to 10,000 polar bears.
Now there's 22,000 to 25,000 and they're being labeled threatened again because of a political agenda that is willing to twist the truth, to even twist the scientists into a pretzel to come up with some kind of reason why the Bush administration ought to be slapping higher taxes on you and taking away your vehicle.
That's what this is all about.
The polar bears are not declining.
The polar bears are increasing.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, here's the kicker.
Oh, there's more.
As if you thought that wasn't fun enough.
How about this one?
The United States government, the same one that is now classifying the polar bear as, quote, threatened, the United States government also sanctions the hunting of polar bears by native tribes in the Arctic area.
Let that one just sink in for a minute.
For sensitivity and political correctness reasons, namely that these survivalist tribes have a tradition and heritage of killing baby seals and whales and polar bears and what have you up there because that's what they eat.
We've got to let them continue, of course, in their native indigenous pre-European oppression ways.
So, of course, they're killing polar bears.
It's no problem to the threatened polar bear.
How do you like that one?
Oh, and this business about the loss of the sea ice habitat, we've all seen on TV, I saw this story on this that followed the environmentalist wacko position showing the polar bear running across the bare earth with just patches of ice, like he's lost.
I mean, if he didn't have ice, he'd be lost.
Ladies and gentlemen, the polar bear, like everyone else, would rather be warm.
That's why he has a fur coat about 25 inches thick.
You know, he only weighs about 94 pounds, but it looks like he weighs about 800 pounds because that's the fur coat he's wearing.
Because it's damn cold up there, and he's had to adapt to it.
By the way, this business of the Greenland ice melt, the Greenland ice cap, is melting, depriving the, as say the environmentalist groups, depriving the polar bear of his traditional hunting grounds where he can use the ice shelf to hunt the seals.
Wait a minute, I thought we were protecting the seals.
Anyway, don't get me off onto that.
Let's go back to the ice melt.
Greenland ice was melting at a more rapid rate in 1991 than in 2005.
The Greenland ice cap is actually thickening.
The Greenland ice cap is actually thinking, thickening.
Now, it is thickening in a part.
By the way, why is it called Greenland, class?
Why is it called Greenland?
Why do we call this place covered with ice Greenland?
Because 1,000 years ago, when the Vikings discovered it, it wasn't covered with ice.
Archaeologists have uncovered Viking settlements with agriculture, including grapevines, for crying out loud.
Now, grapevines don't traditionally grow in the Arctic.
They're traditionally a warmer kind of thing.
I'm no farmer, but give me a break.
I think I've seen grapevines in Mediterranean countries and Napa Valley and maybe even upstate New York for a couple of months.
But this stuff is so crazy about Greenland.
Why do you think it's called Greenland?
There wasn't any ice a thousand years ago when the Vikings found it.
And indeed, there is climatological people will tell you this.
Evidence that several times, maybe more than several times, during the course of time, Greenland has been covered and uncovered by ice.
It comes and goes.
My goodness.
By the way, there's nothing we can do to stop it.
It kind of comes and goes on its own.
It freezes up and it melts down.
And neither you nor your SUV can do anything about it.
The arrogance of the idea that humans can slow down, stop, or reverse such long-term monumental geophysical things like whether or not Greenland is getting more icy or less icy, is the height of arrogance.
And by the way, is there a reason why it appears that in some respects the globe is getting warmer?
It's the oldest reason in the existence of our planet.
It's the oldest reason in the existence of our planet.
This in the Telegraph from the UK over the weekend, quote, headline, the truth about global warming, it's the sun that's to blame.
Here's the story, quote, global warming has finally been explained.
The earth is getting hotter because the sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past thousand years.
Oh, really?
When was the last time it burned brightly?
A thousand years ago.
The last time Greenland was green.
The polar bears, by the way, survived that meltdown a thousand years ago, and they'll survive now.
The real question is, will our common sense survive?
Will our freedoms survive?
Will our choice of an SUV to drive survive the current madness about global warming?
I'll take your call at 1-800-282-2882 after this.
Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh.
Rush back tomorrow here on the EIB network.
I was just watching CNN's coverage of the demonstrations against Saddam Hussein's execution.
They had to keep taking the scope of the picture down narrower and narrower because it kept showing blank spaces in behind because there's only about 20 guys in the demonstration.
Yikes.
All right, Patrick in San Luis Obispo, you're next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi, Patrick.
Hi, how's it going?
Good.
Happy New Year.
Happy New Year to you.
I was a little against your optimism about the American people and how smart they are.
Maybe it's not that they're not smart, but they kind of just don't care anymore.
I do high-speed internet, and I go into many different Values of income of life of people in San Luis Obispo County and Sonoma County, all over.
And my consensus is people are just happy with the little piece of pie or the bigger piece of pie or the biggest piece of pie that they have.
And they really don't care too much about who's elected.
Well, because, and this is, I guess maybe you're saying the same thing I am, because as the polls are showing, that people, generally speaking, are very happy with what they're doing personally.
They think, for instance, that in terms of looking at the economy in 2007, that they're very optimistic the economy will be very good as to them.
But many of them say, but it probably won't be very good overall because they've been led by the propaganda, the drive-by media, to believe we're suddenly in some terrible economy when it's, of course, a very good economy.
So, you know, I don't know, Patrick, that you would not have faith in the American people.
All I was saying is I think that the majority of Americans continue to espouse the typical American, and I think unique American philosophy of optimism, of hope, of feeling that yes, this year will be better than last because last year was better than the year before, that yes, we have adversity, yes, we have things to overcome, and the more the better because we can't overcome them in freedom.
There are opportunities in this country not available elsewhere.
People can rise to whatever level they want to rise to.
So, I mean, that's what I was saying, and I'll stick with that, see if anybody else disagrees.
Here's Ron and Gregory.
Is it Michigan?
Ron, go ahead.
Yeah.
Nice talking to you.
Let's talk about the year 1953 at the North Pole at Tule Air Force Base.
And the ice cap gets bigger every year.
Believe me.
It melts in the summertime because the sun is shining 24 hours a day, seven days a week for four months.
Then there's two months where it changes.
Right now, it's 30 below zero at Thule Air Force Base.
And when a storm comes, it comes 100 miles an hour and it covers valleys.
It covers everything with another six or eight or ten feet of snow.
Well, there you go.
Now, Ron, you haven't been there since 1953, though.
You don't know that it doesn't have a lawn out there today.
Believe me.
All the water in the Gulf of Mexico where I go and different places, the Detroit River, it's lower than it's ever been.
And the ice cap, it just ain't going to melt.
Well, you know, it melts and then it freezes.
And this is what it does, as you point out, because of the seasons.
Now, I would remind people, it's warmer in the summer and cooler in the winter.
And this is true on the planet Earth.
And therefore, when you're seeing these melting pictures in the summertime, that's natural and it happens.
There will also be a refreezing in the wintertime.
We had a river up there that was 100 feet wide, two foot deep, and ran 25 miles an hour in the summertime.
In the wintertime, there is no water in that river.
It's empty.
There's nothing, just rock.
All right, Ron, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
By the way, if you thought that human beings are so knowledgeable and everything's been discovered and everything we know about our planet, and we know enough to know that it's our greenhouse gases and cow flatulence that's causing the warming and the greenland is becoming green again and all the rest of that nonsense.
In 2006, scientists around the world found hundreds, perhaps thousands, of new species.
In fact, scientists now say animal species that had previously not been documented.
New frogs and toads and fishes and snakes and all the rest of it.
Of the world's estimated that, in fact, I'm reading now again from the Pulitzer Prize-winning Union Tribune here in San Diego.
In fact, scientists estimate that only one-tenth of the world's estimated 10 million species are actually known.
So all the time we're finding out new plants and animals that had previously not been documented.
Don't you think that flies in the face of the idea that we know so much about our planet?
We know how it works.
We know how it heats up.
We know how it cools down.
We know about the weather.
We know about everything because we're human beings and we know everything.
And I know that the tailpipe of your SUV, plus that cow out there in the pasture, is causing Greenland to melt.
See how absurd global warming sounds when you actually talk about facts?
What do you think?
1-800-282-2882.
Roger Hedgecock in for Rush.
Here's Greg in Farner, Tennessee.
Hi, Greg.
Welcome.
Hi, Roger.
Good to talk to you.
I just listened to your earlier remarks, and it just seems to me that every time you talk about the left, and it doesn't matter if you're talking about news or talking about so-called scientists, it seems like instead of starting off with research and then getting conclusions based on facts and then formulating an agenda based on those facts, the leftists will get an agenda, and then they'll say, well, we need this conclusion to support this agenda.
And then we go out and we do research.
And then any facts or any people we come across that don't agree with our conclusions or our agenda, we just basically throw them out and we insert, either make up facts out of whole cloth or take stuff that seems to support it.
I mean, it just seems to be a common thread through all of it.
Well, there's a lot of that.
There's also a lot of this that you'll find that a study will come out saying this, and back in the 70s it was global cooling.
You know, we're going into a new ice age.
And whatever it is, it's seized upon by the left as another reason why government ought to get bigger, taxes ought to be higher, and you ought to be restricted with some further regulation of your impossibly irresponsible behavior in order to further the public good.
And it doesn't matter what they seize upon.
If it's cooling, it's the same story.
If it's warming, it's the same story.
Government always has to get bigger.
Taxes get higher.
Regulations have to increase because you just aren't responsible enough to live your own life and decide where your paycheck ought to go.
In other words, it doesn't matter what the subject is.
The answer is always bigger government, more intrusive government, a government that can give you everything you want and need.
And as President Ford pointed out when he was president, such a government can also take from you everything you have.
I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh.
Rush, of course, will be here tomorrow.
We're going to continue with open phones with all kinds of discussion.
We've got, oh, this is one of my favorite ones.
I'm just warming up to this.
One of my favorite topics on this environmentalist crusade is people deciding what you should eat.
Is there anything more insulting to common sense and a sense of personal responsibility that somebody else is going to tell me what I should eat?
I mean, not just give me recommendations, not just say, hey, this is better than that, and here's a study and so forth.
No, you cannot eat this in this city.
People are doing it all over the country.
We're going to fight back right after this.
All right, before we get to the latest nanny state direction of what food you can eat and what you can't, here's Art in Shepherd.
Is it Montana?
Art, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program and Happy New Year.
Same to you, Roger.
I haven't talked to you in about seven months, but you were 100% right about everything except how Greenland got its name.
Oh, how did it get its name then?
I said the Vikings a thousand years ago.
Well, they did.
It was the Vikings.
In fact, it was all of Norseland.
People forget that the Norse controlled everything down to Normandy and all the way up and including Finland and part of Russia today.
But anyways, at that time, it was regarded that people had to have a certain amount of land once they, you know, to be a sire of a family or so on.
And Denmark controlled both Iceland and Greenland.
But Greenland could not absorb the population growth that was occurring throughout all of Scandinavia and Normandy.
So what they did was they called Iceland Iceland, which was basically pretty nice land, and called Greenland Greenland, in order to get people to move to Greenland.
Because it was farther away, for one thing.
Right.
It's a lot of rocks.
It was a farther away.
But the land was basically equivalent to what New England is today with a lot of rocks on it and not very good for agriculture, but good for raising animals.
And what they did, if you do examine the archaeological detail up there in Greenland, you will find that it looks very much like New England today with the rock walls all around the landholders land.
And inside that, they planted where they had good ground.
They planted their grapevines, as you said.
They planted their crops and other types of crops in other places, which didn't require as fertile as soil.
But my point was, Art, that they didn't have to dig through ice to do all that.
There wasn't any ice.
No, they didn't.
I mean, the ice cap was much farther back.
It was good land.
In fact, the archaeologists that examined the people that came there, they were the huge Norsemen that you think of when you think of the invaders to England.
But when the population started dropping at the end, they had lost quite a bit in stature.
In fact, they lost over a foot in height because the amount of food available was no longer there.
No, but here's my point.
My point is today we're being sold that the melting of the Greenland ice, the retreat of this ice field, is caused by human beings and by George Bush personally, and it's a harbinger of disaster to come.
That's right.
If you look into all the scientific data that is available to the general public right now, you will find that man is number nine in the cause of global warming.
There are eight other causes ahead of it.
I could list them for you if you're interested.
You can list one through eight.
What are they?
One through eight.
Number one is the sun.
Number two is 71% of the earth that's covered with either water or ice, and that water vapor in the air.
Number three is carbon dioxide, which has always been 0.6% in the atmosphere.
The next one is ozone.
Then comes anaerobic bacteria, insects.
Then comes basically forest fires.
And after that comes geothermal events, and then comes man.
Okay, so volcanoes and then man.
That's right.
Unbelievable.
All right, good work.
Thank you.
I appreciate it, Art.
Here's David in Lowell, Massachusetts.
David, welcome to the Rush Show, and Happy New Year.
Thank you, and Happy New Year to you, and thank God for audible media, as opposed to print and visible.
That's where I get the truth.
And what I found out through listening to radio is that scientists have obviously landed on Mars and it's being talked about audibly.
The stuff that we need to know is, anyway, I said that already.
But the ice caps on Mars are getting smaller.
And they landed on Mars and they've been studying Mars for a long time.
They find out what is the reason for that.
Obviously, the Earth does not export any heat to Mars.
It's cyclical sunspot activity.
And this has clued me in on this argument for a long time.
It's the same reason here.
This is a great point, Mark.
This is a great point, David.
I think that what you're talking about is that as scientists look at the As scientists look at the other planets and they see impact from this increase in solar energy, the sun is now burning more brightly than at any time during the past thousand years, according to a study by Swiss and German scientists out of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gothengen, Germany, or something like that.
The fact is that the sun is simply shining a lot brighter, a lot hotter.
Things around the sun are warming up.
I hope everybody's following this now.
And therefore, you can look at not only at this planet, but at other planets for the impact of that.
Planets where they don't have humans or SUVs.
Mark in Nashville, Tennessee.
Next.
Hi, Mark.
Low, proud owner of a Chevy Suburban.
I spent four winters up in Alaska.
I learned a little bit about the North.
The difference between America and Canada, Nunavut's in Canada, they don't have the Marine Mammals and Fish Act, I believe is what it's called.
And what that means is, if you and I save up our pennies, we can go to Canada and we can hunt polar bears.
And then we can bring the hides back.
Polar bears, the big ones eat the little ones.
And hunters that pay tens of thousands of dollars to hunt, they don't shoot little polar bears.
So as a result, there can be more polar bears in Canada, theoretically, than there can be north of Alaska.
Because you and I can't pay any amount of money to hire a native to take us hunting polar bear in Alaska like we could in Canada.
In the U.S., that's right.
As a result, you'll see a big difference in the natives around Nome in that area versus the natives up in a barrow that actually can hunt whales.
Those people up there are hunters, and they could only benefit from us going up there and being allowed to hire them to hunt polar bears like is done in Alaska.
And the polar bears would benefit too.
Well, so far as I understand it, and the polar bear scientists are weighing in on this, the Bush administration is just flat wrong that the polar bear population is going down.
The polar bear population, in fact, is going up.
It is increasing almost double in the last hundred years, according to this scientist who made his research known, who was hired by the Canadian government.
Now, you on the left are going to have a difficult time refuting this argument because I know that you hold the Canadian government in very high esteem, dating back to the Vietnam war protesters' haven in Canada days.
I know that you believe Canadians are actually civilized Americans.
I know that you probably believe that anything the Canadian government is doing has got to be right.
And here's a Canadian government scientist telling you polar bears are not only not threatened, they're in a population boom.
That polar bears, in fact, have very, very well adapted to previous eras of either warming or cooling.
And they are adapted today to the situation that's going on, whatever that situation might be.
I think what it is, is in the wintertime, it's pretty much frozen.
In the summertime, it thaws out a bit.
I hope that science isn't beyond people who've been recently in the K-12 system.
I'm Roger Hedgecock at Rush Limbaugh at 1-800-282-2882, Russia, back tomorrow, by the way.
And all the information, all the latest, at rushlimbaugh.com.
Here's Vern in Covington, Louisiana.
Vern's been waiting a long time on another topic.
Go ahead, Vern.
Good afternoon, Roger.
Enjoy your program.
Thank you.
I enjoyed the comments about the murders in California as compared to what's going on in Iraq.
And I flew in Vietnam, and during that period of time, when our media was cheering on the 50,000 deaths in Vietnam, here in the United States, we had 150,000 deaths due to drug-related crimes.
And it's just interesting that the media is doing the same thing again.
Absolutely the same thing.
It's what I'm pointing out, Vernon.
I'm glad you brought it up again because it's what I'm pointing out, absolutely.
This playbook, as Rush points out repeatedly, the playbook is the same on the left.
It's the defeat of the United States.
It's the defeat of the Republicans.
It's the same playbook they played in the early 70s.
It's ignoring all the other facts, focusing on just one fact, and in effect, by omission, lying about what's going on, because there isn't any question about that.
Now, I wanted to get to segue from the polar bear thing.
Let me get into another one of my favorites on the wackos on the left in the environmentalist community on the food issue.
In Britain now, which is often even more wacko than we are, according to the Scotsman, a newspaper in Britain, there's a new regulation introduced by the government's television regulator called Offcom, Ofcom, O-F-C-O-M, banning broadcasters in the UK from advertising cheese during children's TV programs or shows with a large number of child viewers.
You may not advertise cheese to children.
Cheese and children just don't go together in the UK.
Huh?
Cheese, or crying out loud.
Cheese is branded, in effect, the power to do this in British law, is that cheese has now been branded as, quote, junk food, unquote.
Cheese.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, if there was ever going to be a line drawn against the crazies who are going to tell you, and I don't know this is happening in your community, but out here in San Diego, we have a city councilwoman, Donna Fry, who has introduced a bill to ban foie gras.
Froie gras.
Now, I had to research, but I did to come up with what the hell she's talking about.
And it's some kind of goose or duck liver in which the animal is, quote, force-fed.
I found out that the force-feeding goes a couple times a day, maybe five seconds worth of, that it does not harm the duck because the farmer doesn't want to hurt the duck because the duck is his living.
That it is, in fact, an imitation of nature because the food is not forced into the stomach but into an enlarged esophagus, which this migratory bird in its evolution developed in order to fatten itself and store the food in the esophagus to make for the 2,000-mile flight it's going to make.
So the bird itself knows how to fatten itself up for this flight.
And in imitation of that, going back to, by the way, the Egyptians in 2800 B.C., the earliest hieroglyphic record of force-feeding ducks in order to have fatty liver, a delicacy not invented by Martha Stewart.
So, ladies and gentlemen, you know, I've had it.
I will come up with my own information.
I will eat that which I believe I should eat, and no one is going to tell me what to eat.
Is this unreasonable?
We'll get your calls after this.
Welcome back, Roger Hedcock in for Rush Limbaugh, 1-800-282-2882.
Rush back tomorrow and all the information about his return at rushlimbaugh.com.
Let's go to Rich in Barrington, Illinois.
Rich, happy new year.
Hi, Roger.
Hi.
Happy New Year.
Yes, sir.
What's up?
Just in response to the environmental issues that Rush and you talk about, our kind of knee-jerk in-your-face reaction all the time is our right to buy a BAV.
And I mean by that, a big-ass vehicle.
SUVs, they're neither sporty nor utilitarian, really.
I mean, the way we use them around here in Barrington, we get down to the store and put a few grocery bags in the back and drive them back.
I don't, it doesn't seem like progress to me that we develop vehicles that use more gasoline rather than less.
Well, now, wait a minute, Rich.
Rich, Rich.
Yeah.
What car do you own?
A VW, GTI.
Good.
Okay, now, good.
Now, here's my point.
You have a right to come to the conclusion that that's a better vehicle for your purposes.
Right.
I don't think you have a right to tell me, and by the way, I'm hybrid.
Okay, but you don't have a right to tell me what car I can.
In other words, you don't live in a free country if the government can tell me, because of some cockamame theory about global warming that isn't true, that I can't order the car of my choice.
No, I believe that.
I believe that.
I think maybe I just told the screener.
I don't believe in legislating these out.
It would be a more intelligent discussion to realize that these things are not really practical vehicles for the use that we put them to day to day.
I mean, I.
Well, and many consumers may come to that conclusion and may shift to other vehicles, Rich.
And in fact, I have done so.
You have done so.
Others have done so.
That's fine.
Absolutely.
I feel our defense is a defense of freedom, not a defense of your particular choice.
Absolutely.
But it comes out as kind of a childish reaction.
I believe in the right to buy an SUV.
And these are not ⁇ it's in my mind a stupid choice, but you're right.
Everybody in the United States has in these United States have a free right to choose the vehicle that they want to.
There you go.
There you go.
And I think as the facts come in, and people have to adjust to gas prices and to other kinds of characteristics, they're going to select certain vehicles.
What I want you to notice, Rich, is that the selection of vehicles that we have in this country now, because of free trade, because of our ability to look at the whole world as a marketplace, we have a remarkable range of choice of vehicles now, better than we've ever had.
Oh, absolutely right.
Absolutely right.
Okay, well, that's our point.
Rich, I appreciate the call.
Casey in Beaver, Utah is next on the Rush Limbaugh Program.
Hi, Casey.
Hi, Roger.
Hey, I'm a professional geologist.
I've been for about 20 years.
And that means I look at rocks for a living.
And imagine that.
What a great job.
I understand.
I understand.
Go ahead.
This global warming debate is so absolutely absurd.
I mean, there have been hundreds and hundreds of these cycles, warming and cooling, going back 400 to 500 million years.
You can see them in the rocks.
You don't have to be a liberal or a conservative to see the evidence and say, you know, that's got to be what caused it.
You know, 250 million years ago, there was continental glaciation on Pangea, and I don't think that it mattered what people in Illinois were driving.
No, you're absolutely right.
Now, Casey, this is the thing.
I think the science is overwhelming that these cycles of warming and cooling have gone on since the planet was born, apparently.
But there's now a twist, a spin to that in the left saying, well, yeah, but the cause this time, that mankind and what we're doing and cow flatulence and some other whatever the hell else is contributing because we have abused the planet so badly, blah, blah, blah, to what's happening now.
Now, the earlier caller said, you know, mankind has had an influence, maybe number nine, on the list of things that influence the temperature of the air surrounding the planet.
I don't know.
What do you think about that?
Well, when somebody brings up that part of the debate, you can find and you can actually see for yourself evidence that the polar caps on Mars are retreating.
Are we causing that?
Yeah.
Yeah, we are.
The SUVs, the reach.
You don't understand how this does.
When we pollute something, we pollute everything in the neighborhood.
Venus, Mars.
I'm going to jump in my SUV and meet now live for lunch, and I'm going to cause more retreat on the ice cap for the ice caps on Mars.
Casey, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
I'm Roger Hitchcock, Infraus.
Short break, back after this.
Thanks, Rush Limbaugh, for letting me fill in today the first broadcast day of 2007.
Another great year coming up for the United States of America and for all of us who believe in freedom, free markets, free peoples everywhere on this planet.
It has been a wonderful and remarkable day to get a lot of stuff off my chest.
Let me just say this with the stock exchanges up, crude oil about the same as it was a year ago.
All of these crises manufactured by the left to make us believe America's in a decline are all nonsense.
And we've talked about a lot of them today.
I know Rush will continue that as we continue the relentless pursuit of truth.
▲
Export Selection