All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 5, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
February 5, 2007, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 podcast.
That one passes muster.
I assume.
Okay, that one's okay.
All right.
Let's see.
What do we have here?
An hour ago, the wind chill factor in New York City was uh minus two.
In Chicago, an hour ago, the wind chill factor was minus 19.
An hour ago, the wind chill factor in Washington was minus one.
In Philadelphia, an hour ago, the wind chill factor was minus eight.
Make a note, ladies and gentlemen.
Whenever it's hot outside, we get news story after news story about global warming.
Now that it is freezing, record cold.
I mean, it's so cold in Chicago, they delayed the Nielsen's.
It delayed the Nielsen's report on how many Chicagoans watched the Super Bowl last night.
Now that it's cold, record cold out there, we will not see any news stories on the major networks questioning global warming.
There is one in the LA Times today.
Game on a game over on global warming with a question mark after it.
And has some interesting statistics in it, but not one story, not one story will we see about global warming maybe not being real.
In the middle of record cold greetings, ladies and gentlemen, you are tuned to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Here we are on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Three full hours of broadcast excellence straight ahead.
Looking forward to talking to you about whatever's on your mind.
800 282-2882 is the number, the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
Last night, in front of the world.
When handed the Vince Lombardi trophy, Tony Junji, the head coach of the Indianapolis Colts, offered one of the most important and inspiring statements ever made in such a context.
Think about it.
Listen to this.
It was unique.
I'll tell you what.
I'm proud to be representing African American coaches to be the first African American to win this.
That means an awful lot to our country.
But again, more than anything, I said it before, Lovey Smith and I. Not only the first two African Americans, but Christian coaches showing that you can win, doing it the Lord's way.
We're more proud of that.
More proud of that.
One of the things I said last week, the Super Bowl had a lot of firsts in it.
The first two black coaches and so forth, yes.
But the first two confessing, witnessing Christians who were good friends in the Super Bowl...
Said he was proud to be a Christian coach, mentioning the strong faith of not only himself, but uh Lovey Smith, the coach of the Bears.
They won the way the Lord asked them to.
Now, you know, this is uh uh a person, these these remarks uh were I think the mark of a true person of faith.
Uh because for such people, their religious identity transcends their race or their politics or their gender.
Uh every other distinguishing feature clear from the way that Dungey lives his life and the kind of person he is that uh his distinguishing feature is indeed that he's a Christian.
And I've been looking at the drive-by's today to see if there's any reference to this.
I haven't found any reference to this.
I mean, there may be well, have you seen there's a little bit.
Uh it embarrasses the drive-by.
Well, I wish he hadn't said, oh God, I don't know.
Well, we'll focus on a black coach thing.
I got a note from a friend to say how long is it going to take the NFL to apologize to the world for the references to God last night in the uh in the uh in the postgame show.
New York Times.
Folks, I'll tell you, it it's you have to look at this stuff and you can only chuckle at it.
Super Bowl adds of cartoonish violence comma, perhaps reflecting the toll of war.
No commercial that appeared last night during the Super Bowl directly addressed Iraq, writes the New York Times.
Unlike a patriotic spot for Budweiser beer that ran during the game two years ago, but the ongoing war seemed to linger just below the surface of many of this year's commercials.
Seemed to linger just below the surface.
More than a dozen spots celebrated violence in an exaggerated cartoon-like vein that was intended to be humorous, but often came across as cruel or callous.
For instance, in a commercial for Bud Light Beer, one man beat the other at a game of rock, paper, scissors by throwing a rock at his opponent's Head, and this is all because of the war in Iraq.
In another Bud Light spot, a face slapping replaced fist bumping as the cool way for people to show affection for one another.
In a FedEx commercial.
Set on a moon, an astronaut was wiped out by a meteor.
And a sp in a spot for Snickers candy.
Two co-workers sought to prove their masculinity by tearing off patches of chest hair.
There was also a bank robbery, fierce battles among office workers trapped in a jungle, menacing hitchhikers, Bud Light again, and a clash between a monster and a superhero reminiscent of a horror movie.
Now, again, the headline, Super Bowl adds of cartoonist violence, perhaps reflecting the toll of war.
To look at Super Bowl questions or commercials and conclude from what you watch that somehow the war in Iraq has invaded the normally stayed minds of Madison Avenue advertising and creative people is just absurd.
Went out and find a New York Times editorial from February 26, 1960.
By the way, my my uh that was two years before my dad was born.
My dad's birthday was February 26, 1918.
Uh and the New York Times editorial blasted the Democrats in Congress for taking the side of the enemy.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The only thing odd about this is that the New York Times is bashing the Democrats in it.
In an editorial titled Have We an American Congress, the New York Times skewered the Democrats in Congress for taking the side of the enemy, using the enemy's arguments, and tying the hands of the president in his fight to protect the interests of the U.S. Senator Stone knows very well the president's not gonna plunge this nation into the vortex of this world war.
The Democrats in Congress who are hostile to the President have raised the cry for their own purposes.
It may be said with all confidence that Germany has no desire to add the United States to her already formidable array of enemies.
We're not likely to have any more serious trouble with Germany than that which has been brought upon us through the influence of her propagandists and her sympathizers in the American Congress.
In 1916, the New York Times reaming the Democrats for aiding, abetting, and propagandizing the side of the enemy.
By their constitution, the American people created the Congress as a branch of the government of the United States, not as an instrument to serve the purposes of Germany.
Boy, we ought to rewrite this editorial and plug in Al Qaeda or any other entity, Iran, or what have you, because there's no question that the Democrat Party today remains invested totally in our defeat in the uh in the Iraq war and the larger war on terror.
The new budget's out, folks.
President Bush sending Congress a 2.9 trillion.
Inconceivable amount of money to anybody.
Snardley.
Stop screaming at them in there.
I can see your facial expression.
I'm inviting these people.
Do not scream at them.
I don't care if they're as idiotic as the guy last week from wherever he was.
Mike for wherever the minimum wage guy or the uh the cheap bastard guy.
Just be cool.
If they're making you mad, move on to somebody else.
Pardon me on that, folks.
Little discipline here from management down to the troops.
2.9 trillion dollars.
And of course, what we're gonna get is from the Democrats that there will be draconian cuts somewhere in this budget.
Uh there won't be enough money for health care.
There won't be enough money for education.
Uh, there won't be enough money for entitlements.
There won't be enough money for this or that or the other thing.
There'll be too much money for the uh Pentagon.
Two point nine trillion dollars.
I long for the day.
It won't happen, folks.
But I fantasize about it sometimes that a budget presented to the president this large 2.9 trillion, and the president looks at it and says, What the hell?
And starts scratch that, scratch that, scratch that, scratch that, scratch that.
2.9 trillion.
Don't ever let anybody tell you this country is not spending enough on anything.
You can't even conceive of 2.9 trillion dollars.
All right, a brief timeout, lots to do, as always on the program today.
Sit tight.
Rush Linbaugh and the EIB network back after this.
I am a uh Rush Limbaugh, American uh Nobel Peace Prize nominee, and your answer to global warming fears here on the EIB network.
By the way, do you remember last week Drudge had on his homepage a picture of two polar bears?
Uh the that picture is actually a picture go back to 2004.
I did a little research.
I have found that picture has been totally misrepresented.
That picture I told you about those two polar bears on what looks like a melting glacier.
Little ice flow that has split away, and they are supposedly stranded.
That picture was taken back in 2004, and the caption for the original picture talks about how these polar bears, a mother and her cub are playing around on an ice sculpture created by waves.
An ice sculpture created by waves, a phenomenon that occurs when you got real cold water and cold air in the north, like in the Arctic Circle.
Waves.
Now nobody can tell me that waves are part of global warming.
Because waves have been in the ocean ever since there's been the ocean.
So global warming had no impact whatsoever on where those polar bears were.
They chose to be there.
They swam out there, swam up on the ice floor.
They can swim hundreds of miles on top of the water, the surface underneath.
The whole thing was a fraud, and it is a it is a great little microcosm for the entire global warming escapade.
I got a whole global warming stack that we'll get to today again.
And folks, again, uh we've got record cold weather this week, and we don't have any broadcast news stories questioning global warming.
All summer long or in late fall, we can get really hot temperatures and they'll go banshee over the fact that there's global warming.
Now there's this cold front today, this this is gonna be all week.
35 below wind chill in Chicago last night.
Uh and no, no, no news about global warming whatsoever, maybe being questionable.
Also, this $2.9 trillion federal budget.
I want you to think back to last week.
Mrs. Clinton at the Democrat National Committee winter meeting in Washington was just beside herself that Exxon Mobil had earned a record profit of 40 billion.
40 billion is nothing compared, excuse me, to 2.9 trillion.
Exxon earned 40 billion dollars.
The Congress did not earn one dollar last year.
The Congress, the Senate, the United States government didn't earn a dime.
They take every dollar they get from taxation.
They do sell some assets, I guess, now and then, but the vast majority of it comes from you and I and all the other American people.
So they get to spend $2.9 trillion at the same time they get to talk about how it's not enough.
They get to talk about how there are cuts, and we're still not funding health care properly, and we're still not paying for education.
$2.9 trillion.
And they bellyache and moan about, oh, it's not enough.
Exxon Mobil makes $40 billion profit.
And Hillary Clinton said what she said.
I think we've got a new ism, actually.
Forget fascism, socialism, communism.
We ought to come up with a new one like Hillarism.
You know, when Ford Motor announced a loss of $10 billion in their quarter, Hillary didn't say anything about that.
When Exxon Mobil announced a profit of $40 billion, here's what Hillary said in her own words.
I want to take those profits, and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund.
Hillary Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, the woman who would be president, actually told you and me and all of us that she wants to take $40 billion of profits earned by an American company and put that money into whatever she wants to put the money into something like alternative fuels.
More on that, too.
The corn crisis in America is escalating.
There's a fabulous story that I found on this over the weekend that you're going to just enjoy hearing about.
She wants to take $40 billion of profits earned by an American company and put that money into alternative fuels.
And some people say, like Hugo Chavez.
No, it's really not like Chavez.
Chavez wants to seize the companies.
Hillary only wants the profits.
Ford Motor lost $10 billion.
Hillary Clinton said nothing.
ExxonMobil earned $40 billion, and she wants to put that money into alternate energy.
So we could ask her some questions.
Madam Rodham, why don't you take 10 of that 40 billion and put it into Ford?
Help them out.
Or if you take the 40 billion from Exxon, how can we be sure you won't put 10 billion of it into your presidential library?
I mean, Joe Biden can make a gaff.
By the way, he's apologizing again and again and again for it.
George Allen can make a macaca.
John Kerry, who, by the way, the New York Times today has called a pariah.
After John Kerry called the country a pariah, the New York Times today calls him one.
That's coming up as well.
As a John Kerry can flip-flop.
But this is not a slip of the tongue.
This is a window into the mind of Hillary Rodden Clinton.
This is Hillary as socialist.
That's why I'm thinking we need a new term Hillarism.
Now the question is, and some people are asking this, is she really saying anything she believes to these Democrats on the campaign trail?
Is she really saying anything she believes, or is she just saying what she has to say at this point in time where the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party is at this point?
I mean, I you know, I uh some people say, she can't really mean it.
I can we take the chance that uh that she doesn't mean it.
Uh you know, this is this is this is something that has reverberated uh all over the place.
You know, these these 40 billion dollars for the profit, she wouldn't be that that wouldn't happen.
She might try it.
Uh but that's not going to happen.
And if it did, that'd be the end of Exxon.
If ExxonMobil's 40 billion dollar profit every time they earned a profit, Hillary's gonna take it and put it somewhere else to suit her own needs.
Why, by any stretch of the imagination, stay in business.
There wouldn't be any reason to stay in business uh whatsoever.
Got a lot of emails from people on uh Katie Couric's turn at the Super Bowl pregame show yesterday.
She did a feature on Heinz Ward and his Korean heritage, Heinz Ward, number 86 of the Pittsburgh Snailers.
And uh what really irritated people aside from her presence, and if it's a football game, maybe I don't even know it was the football pregame show.
Apparently, and I didn't see, I I saw it, but I didn't have the sound up, and I didn't have the closed captioning on.
She had a bunch of friends over to my big media room.
Uh, you know, with a football game, you don't need closed captioning.
Uh the action speaks for itself.
So I had turned it off uh early in the day, uh pregame show with no closed captioning.
I I I was she, you know, folks, this is on, I really shouldn't say it.
But she looked like she was wearing a mop.
Do you agree?
You didn't see it?
She looked like she's wearing a mop.
Uh I thought maybe the humidity down there is just out of control.
It was more than frizzy.
But anyway, what irritated people was that after her uh after her or before the piece or part of the piece that she did on Heinz Ward, um, she said something about CBS is gonna focus on the good things in America today rather than all the negatives.
And of course, you can guess what the majority of my email was good things in America.
The reason there are bad things in America is because that's all CBS has focused on.
Uh CBS has led the way in blasting America in blasting President Bush in the military, and anything right with this country.
This is the reaction I'm getting in the uh in the email.
And I could before we go to the break here, folks, I gotta get something off my chest.
You know, the game was the game, and the game was was what it was.
But I I can't handle any more press criticism of Rex Grossman.
Writing his name, W-R-E-C-K-S.
Uh they're just worst quarterback ever to play in the in the Super Bowl.
Uh and it's been like this since a Green Bay game, actually since the Arizona game, a little crescendo of it in the Green Bay game, last game of the season for the Bears.
And it's just unreliving.
It's just they're focusing on this guy like they don't focus on anybody.
And I tell you, I know what it is.
The media, the sports media's got social concerns that they are first and foremost interested in, and they're dumping on this guy, Rex Grossman, for one reason, folks, and that's because he is a white quarterback.
All right, folks, we have...
Wait a minute.
What did I just This is not possible?
Oh, there it is.
Okay.
I thought I'd misplaced a global warming stack.
It cannot possibly misplace a stack.
Anyway, I have an urgent global warming update.
Statement as of uh 440 p 445 p.m.
February 4th.
This is uh Hawaii time yesterday afternoon.
Uh record low temperatures set at Kahului.
Uh record low temperature, 54 degrees was set there uh yesterday.
There are record low in Hawaii.
54 degrees.
Do you know they don't have heat over there?
Most of them don't bother to put furnaces or heat in their houses in Hawaii.
54 degrees.
I was over there a couple years ago, and a little cold snap.
It was in fact the day of the Pro Bowl in uh in February, is over there playing golf.
And a cold snap came through, and I showed up on the uh on the first tee, and it was like 65 degrees, and these Hawaiians are bundled up in layers and sweaters and windbreakers.
It's uh it's cloudy and overcast, kind of like it is out there today.
We got about 70 degrees out there today, but and I was just in my shirt sleeves.
But to the so, urgent global warming update, it's 54 degrees yesterday in Hawaii.
Now, Los Angeles Times.
Game over on global warming.
Everybody in the United States could switch from cars to bicycles, the Chinese could close all their factories, Europe could give up electricity and return to the age of the lantern, but all those steps together would not come close to stopping global warming.
A landmark report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released Friday warns that there is so much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that even if concentrations held at current levels, the effects of global warming would continue for centuries.
In fact, if the rest of the world returned to the Stone Age, carbon concentrations would still rise.
Now, this is in a report.
If you look at this report in a summary, you can find all kinds of evidence contradicting the popular theories espoused by the very scientists who put this thing out.
You will not find any science uh to speak of.
But look, if we can all go back to the Stone Age and carbon concentrations would still rise, then what's the point?
Means we can't stop carbon concentrations.
That leads to another theory.
There's a global warming scientist out there from his uh he's uh an Israeli, he's an astrophysicist near Sharif.
One of Israel's top young scientists describes the logic that led him and most everybody else to conclude that SUVs, coal plants, and other things man-made cause global warming.
Step one is that scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.
Step two, as if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.
Step three, no other mechanism explains the warming.
Without another candidate, greenhouse gases necessarily became the cause.
Dr. Sharif, however, a prolific researcher who's made a name for himself assessing the movements of two billion-year-old meteorites no longer accepts any of this logic or even subscribes to these views.
He has recanted.
Quote, like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming.
But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated.
Uh-huh.
My word is complex than the stories sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the drive-by media.
In fact, there is much more than meets the eye.
His digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence, only speculation.
That man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming.
Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN agency that heads the worldwide effort, is bereft of anything inspiring confidence.
In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there's a strong possibility we have been cooling.
Not warming the planet.
Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.
This is so absurd.
The whole concept of man-made global warming is just intellectually and in a common sense way absurd.
And here now more and more scientists are starting to come to this conclusion.
We may actually be cooling the planet.
This guy says our tools are too crude to reveal what our effect has been in the past.
All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, he says, is incriminating circumstantial evidence, which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding evidence of fingerprints.
Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, but without other as suspects.
However, this doctor not only believes that there are other credible suspects, he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.
And what do you think that is?
You have heard me postulate it on I'm not a scientist.
I'm just a common sense, ordinary average Joe, and I look around and I make up these make these judgments based on what appear to me to be common sense.
Solar activity, this physicist says, solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th century global warming.
Particularly because of the evidence that's been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic reflux has on our atmosphere.
So much evidence has by now been amassed.
In fact, it is unlikely that the solar climate link does not exist.
Doesn't that make more sense, folks?
Doesn't it make more sense that the sun would have far more to do with warming and cooling of the planet than all of a sudden man-made gases that are occurring during the improvement of life, enhancing the quality of life?
By the way, these two guys, this polar bear fraud, uh here's that story in the stack now.
Uh, and basically that those polar bears on that ice flow.
That's a water sculpture.
It's a wave sculpture.
It was not a broken off part of a glacier or an ice flow that left these poor bears stranded.
They swam out to it.
The original caption under the picture of 2004 makes this plane.
Mother polar bear and cub on interesting ice sculpture carved by waves.
Copyright Amanda Byrd.
Amanda Byrd took the picture in 2004.
This story, and this is from the real worldview uh blog, uh, talks about how this picture and others are used by the uh environmentalist wacos and the drive-by media to propagandize the whole effort.
One of the uh one of the culprits is a guy named Dan Crosby.
Now, Dan Crosby claims to have taken the picture of the polar bears that was actually taken by somebody else by the name of Amanda Bird.
And there are pictures here of Dan Crosby and a buddy of his that are digging, they've got an auger and they're trying to dig through the ice.
They want to dig a 10-inch diameter hole to study something.
And what was funny about it is they encountered all kinds of difficulty Because the ice was much, much thicker than they thought it would be, based on their own interpretations of global warming.
His buddy, Dan Crosby's buddy, is seen holding a big shotgun.
And if you read their story, do you know why they're holding the shotgun?
To protect them from polar bears.
They were going to shoot polar bears if the polar bears came up and attacked them.
Now, three years later, we get a picture of polar bears stranded on a water sculpture caused by waves, carved by waves, presented as stranded polar bears out in the middle of nowhere, desperate for life, no way to get off.
All because of man-made global warming.
That's how they intend to infuse you with guilt.
And to make you feel sympathetic and sorry, so that you will sit around.
And the next time Hillary Clinton wants to take 40 billion dollars Exxon profits for global warming, you'll let her do it.
Because you'll feel guilty over having caused all this.
In fact, you feel so guilty you'll let them grow the government and raise your taxes and punish you as much as you will take because you feel so guilty about destroying the planet and stranding these poor polar bears.
Meanwhile, ladies and gentlemen, a French-led marine expedition team has discovered what is believed to be thousands of new species of molluscs and crustaceans around a Philippine island, the announcement made by officials and scientists today.
Some 80 scientists, technician, students, volunteers from 19 countries, led by Philippe Boucher of the French National Museum of National History, surveyed waters around Panglao Island, 400 miles southeast of Manila from 2004 to 2005.
150 to 250 of the crustaceans and 1,500 to 2500 of the molluscs are new species.
How can this be?
Because as I listen to these people talk about global warming, ladies and gentlemen, we're destroying species.
How many species a year are being snuffed out because of us?
The whole global warming movement is a croc.
The man-made global warming movement is a total crock.
Wall Street Journal editorializes on this today.
Last week's headlines about the U.N.'s latest report on global warming were typically breathless, predicting doom and human damnation like the most fervent religious evangelical.
Yes, as I so eloquently explained on Friday, it is their religion.
Yet the real news in the fourth assessment from the IPCC may be how far it is backpedaling on some key issues.
Beware claims that the science of global warming is settled.
The document that caused such a stir was only a short policy report, a summary of the full scientific report due in May.
And by the way, the purpose of the summary is to make everybody ignore the full report when it comes out in the drive-by's dutifully reported the doom and gloom aspects of the IPCC summary.
Again, I remind you, we have got record cold in much of the country and in Hawaii, and we'll not see one story today on maybe this global warming thing's hyped.
How can it be global warming?
In fact, what we'll get is global warming is causing it.
Every weather extreme.
These people, they're brilliant little socialists and uh and communists.
They know how to propagandize.
They know how to keep this.
When they came out and said, Well, where's global warming's going to be with us a hundred years?
That means they don't have to anymore predict whether it's going to get bad in 10, 20, or 30 and be wrong hundreds of years from now.
Uh none of us will be alive.
Well, very few of us.
But nevertheless, uh every weather extreme is now said to be caused by global warming.
Even record cold like this.
More pertinent, back to the journal piece here, more pertinent is the underlying scientific report, and according to people have seen that.
It contains startling revisions of previous UN predictions.
For example, the Center for Science and Public Policy has just released an illuminating analysis written by Lord Christopher Moncton, one-time advisor to Margaret Thatcher, who's become a voice of sanity on global warming.
Take rising sea levels.
In his 2001 report, the UN's best high-end estimate of the rise in sea levels by 2100 was three feet.
Lord Moncton notes that the upcoming report's high end best estimate is 17 inches, or half the previous prediction.
The uh the new report also shows that 2001 assessment had overestimated the human influence in climate change since the industrial revolution by at least one third.
Such reversals, and there are more of them in the full report, are remarkable given that the IPC's previous reports in 1990, 95, and 2001 have been steadily more urgent in their scientific claims and political tone.
Uh, the latest thing to look out for is New Orleans, New Orleans, look what Katrina did.
Look at the rising sea levels.
Look at the rising water levels in Katrina.
The not rising.
Uh, New Orleans and the Delta are sinking.
Talk to anybody that lives here, they'll tell you it's sinking.
That makes it appear the you're in a boat, and the boat sinks.
Yeah, the water does look to be getting higher, but it is sh it isn't.
You're just sinking in it, and that's what's happening to New Orleans.
This whole thing is nothing but a perpetual fraud.
We'll be back in just a second.
Stay with us.
Hi, welcome back, El Rushbow.
Nobel Peace Prize nominee.
Doctor of Democracy.
And America's truth detector.
Story from Nairobi.
The world's poor, who are the least responsible for global warming, will suffer the most from climate change, according to the UN Secretary General Bon Kaymoon.
Uh told environmental ministers from around the world on Monday.
This is not Rush parity, folks.
This is news.
This is an actual news story.
The world's poor, the least responsible for global warming, will suffer the most from climate change.
Love the old Sam Kinnison line.
If you live in a desert, move.
Crops don't grow in a desert.
Okay, for those of you still believe this garbage, let me let me give you another way of looking at it, shall we?
The uh uh science community, the uh the propagandist and the pro-global warming side, along with their allies in the drive-by media, tell us that there will be a disastrous, and it's always disastrous.
It's always disaster if you ever noticed the warming will always beastrous.
They never tell us what good would come of it.
But I don't see people getting on airplanes saying, Man, I can't wait to be in Chicago this week.
Anyway, four degrees Celsius increase in temperature, global temperature over the next 50 to 100 years.
Well, we know this.
In 50 years, we're not gonna wake up one day and the temperature is gonna have shot up overnight, four degrees globally.
This is going to happen gradually.
What I would like to see, in addition to this four degrees Celsius increase in temperature over fifty to a hundred years, what's temperature going to be a year from now?
And then ten years from now.
Give us that prediction.
When is this warming going to happen?
When will we have risen two degrees Celsius?
Will that happen in 35 years?
38 years?
What month of these years is these are these temperature increases going to happen?
You can't just sit there and tell me, because I can figure out the ruse.
You can't just sit there and tell me that a hundred years from now, or fifty, whatever it is, it's going to be sweltering all over the globe, four degrees Celsius.
I want to know the gradation increases.
I mean, that's how the rest of the weather's forecast.
You go to the 10-day forecast, they tell you what's going to be.
Uh it's the National Weather Service wild guess, but at least they do it.
They tell us what the fork at the cloud cover, the precipitation probabilities are.
Well, let's put this in the global warming forecast, shall we?
Let's make is this about climate science?
If this is about the weather, then let's see it.
If we've got a span here of 50 years that the temps are going to rise four degrees Celsius, I want to know what it's going to be ten years from now.
Show us the models.
Show us um, and of course, that's an average, so where's it going to get cooler?
Where's it going to go up seven degrees Celsius?
Where's it going to go up three degrees Celsius?
I want to know these things.
You can't just rope me in by saying 50 to 100 years from now, four degrees Celsius increase globally, and cause me panic.
Because I'm not participating in this garbage anymore.
Back here in just a second, ladies and gentlemen.
Arctic blast shuts down schools, trains, roads.
It's a disaster out there, this Arctic blast, a genuine disaster.
We have details coming up, plus lots of other stuff here on the EIB network today.
▲
Export Selection