All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 28, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
February 28, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings to you once again, thrill seekers, music lovers, conversationalists, general all-around good people.
Rush Limboy here behind the Golden EIB microphone with broadcast excellence.
Another two hours.
Great to have you with us.
The telephone number 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Time to move on to the latest in global warming.
We had a phone caller last call of the program yesterday, identifying himself as Roy.
We asked if we could get back to him today.
He's on hold.
We'll be getting to him in here in mere moments.
I just want to introduce him.
His name is Roy Spencer, and he is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
He served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville.
He's the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, principally known.
Reading here from Wikipedia, so if sometimes there are errors there, he can correct this.
Principally known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society Special Award.
He is also a vocal supporter of intelligent design and denies the predominant scientific view that human activity is responsible for global warming.
You are Dr. Spencer.
You should have identified yourself that way.
Welcome to the program, Roy.
Hey, Rush.
Well, nobody calls me Doctor.
Well, I'm honored to call you Doctor.
Wikipedia have it right here?
Yeah.
Yeah, I've always been scared of going to Wikipedia to read about myself because people can put in some bad stuff in there if they don't like you, so I just stay away from it.
Well, everything here is good.
The only thing I notice here is that you've been awarded something from the American Meteorological Society, the special award, and there's a climatologist at the Weather Channel who thinks people like you should be decertified.
Oh, yeah, that's right.
Heidi Cullen.
I guess that's what happens when meteorologists get tied too closely to the media.
Well, here's let us set that.
You called yesterday, and you wanted to say that my instincts on this global warming thing, as you've heard me discuss them, are accurate.
And you started a discussion of the calculations here, these climate models that they do not factor because it's not easy to do, or maybe it's not even possible, to factor in the role of precipitation and clouds.
Could you start there?
And basically, whatever you were going to say yesterday, go ahead and launch.
Well, I feel like, and there's a few of us that are like this, that the Earth has a natural air conditioning process which occurs that is mainly through precipitation systems.
And now people will think, oh, well, you mean when they come by, they cool off the air, and that's not what I'm talking about.
It's about the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, which is mostly water vapor and clouds.
The Earth has a natural greenhouse effect that keeps the surface of the Earth warm.
Isn't it true that the majority of greenhouse gases do come from the sources you just mentioned, not man-made?
Well, yeah, that's true.
Carbon dioxide is a relatively small part of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect.
Now, the party line on this whole thing is that what we're doing is with the increasing carbon dioxide of the atmosphere, we're enhancing the greenhouse effect, and by now it's like about 1%.
And since we're changing what's called the radiative budget of the Earth, you know, like how much sunlight comes in and how much infrared radiation goes back out to space, since we're changing the radiation budget of the Earth, the temperature has to change.
And this is the way you'll hear scientists explain the greenhouse effect.
And it's very, you know, from a simple physics standpoint, it's a very attractive way of looking at climate change.
There's a big problem with it, though.
It makes it sound like the greenhouse effect is what determines the temperature of the earth.
And actually, the truth is it's more the other way around, that given a certain amount of sunlight coming in that is mostly absorbed at the surface of the earth, weather processes happen which create the greenhouse effect because most of the greenhouse effect is from evaporated water, which then turns into clouds.
And of course, water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas.
I dare say I have to interrupt you at this point because most people who only pay attention to the crisis mongers believe that there is no greenhouse effect other than that created by man.
The whole notion of a greenhouse effect has led people to believe that man has totally manufactured this and that it's totally harmful.
And what you're saying is it's a natural thing that helps keep the Earth's temperatures moderate.
Yeah, that's right.
That's right.
And, you know, all the scientists agree with that.
And what you're talking about is the fact that the media distorts things so much that people don't get the right information, you know, if you're using the media to rely on to get the science about this issue.
Yeah, but the media is only relying on the scientists that they want to believe.
And that to me is evidence of the political agenda that's attached to this.
Let me get your reaction to this.
There's a story that ran on the Reuters Wire today.
And I want your reaction as an awarded climate scientist, University of Alabama at Huntsville and NASA, declaring the global warming debate over.
An international team of scientists urged the world's nation on Tuesday to act now to keep climate change from becoming a catastrophe.
A companion story.
Panel of scientists has presented the UN a detailed plan for combating climate change.
The VOA correspondent reports the strategy involves reaching a global agreement on a temperature ceiling.
Now, how in the hell do we do that?
How do we tell the world we're only going to allow it to reach a certain high temperature, and then the global warming debate's over?
What does that do to you as a scientist who doesn't buy into it?
Yeah, well, yeah, that is a problem for people that really worry that, you know, we need to do something now because if we decide that all we're going to do now is policy, then we don't need to support the science anymore.
But what I'd like to emphasize is sort of the bottom line of this whole debate.
And it's sort of what you've talked about, which is it all depends on how fragile you think the climate system is.
I mean, the people that have built the climate models that predict global warming believe they have sufficient physics in those models to predict the future.
And I believe they don't.
I believe that the climate system, the weather as it is today in the real world, shows a stability that they do not yet have in those climate models.
Those climate models have a history of drifting.
It took them a lot of years before they kept them from drifting too warm or too cold over time.
And that tells you it doesn't have the stabilization processes.
And the point I wanted to make about precipitation was that it's precipitation systems that condition the rest of the air on the earth.
All of the air on the earth is being slowly cycled through precipitation systems, which then gives that air its moisture characteristics.
So when you're out on a beautiful sunny day, golfing, not a cloud in the sky, you can thank a precipitation system somewhere for the weather you're having.
In other words, they control the weather everywhere, including the weather over the desert where you don't have any rain.
Precipitation systems control everything.
And I think that they have a stabilizing effect.
I'm not the only one that has this theory.
There's a few other scientists too that have written on it.
And I think that's where the answer is in terms of climate sensitivity and whether we have much of an impact on it at all or not.
Now, if you're right, you know, I look at the 10-day, 15-day forecasts that you get from various weather sites, AccuWeather, the National Weather Service.
They're not going to go much longer than three to five days on precipitation forecasts because they can't.
If your theory is correct, the whole notion of predicting global warming 30 to 50 to even 100 years out cannot possibly be done because predicting precipitation cannot be done on that scale.
Here's where you have to be careful, Rush.
The forecasting of weather is called an initial value problem.
You look at the atmosphere, you measure the atmosphere today, what it's doing, and you sort of extrapolate out in time with equations, of course.
And that's only good out five or ten days.
For global warming forecasting, those models, what you're doing is sort of changing the rules by which the atmosphere operates.
You know, you're changing the greenhouse, one of the minor greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and trying to figure out how it's going to change average weather over a long period of time.
So climate forecasting and weather forecasting are sort of two different things.
Okay, talking with Roy Spencer here from the University of Alabama, Huntsville, a former NASA scientist.
Can you hang on through the break for a couple more questions?
Sure.
Before we go to the break, let me just ask you, is there catastrophic man-made global warming occurring?
Well, I certainly don't believe so.
All right.
We'll take a brief break, discuss that in detail when we come back.
Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama at Huntsville with us.
Stay tuned.
Hi, welcome back, folks.
We're talking with Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama at Huntsville, also senior scientist, former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, and a skeptic on the concept of man-made global warming.
Roy, in trying to learn about you last night, I came across a piece at a blog that I like called The American Thinker written by Jerry Schmidt, who's president of Nanoengineering Corporation, and he has worked in the process, equipment, and instrument engineering industries for 25 years.
And he mentions you and your work on precipitation, your theories on precipitation as it relates to limiting the properties of precipitation systems and how they change with warming and so forth.
Let me just tell you basically what his theory is here, what his point is.
He says that to model the climate of the Earth is so complex as to be practically impossible.
He talks about how the semiconductor manufacturing business works, that they also try to control precipitation in a closed atmosphere within a vessel during the manufacturing process.
And as such, they're very similar to climate models, except that all the variables are controlled because they can be.
It's a much smaller universe.
And the number of variables is way, way smaller.
But even then, these models that use atmospherics to manufacture semiconductors are not reliable because they have so many limits.
And he goes on to describe all of the things, or not nearly all, some of the things, factors that have to be included in a model, computer model of climate change.
And this by no means scratches the surface.
He mentions things like solar flux and gravity and pressure, temperature, density, humidity, the rotation of the Earth, the currents in the ocean like the Gulf Stream, greenhouse gases, CO2 dissolving the oceans.
His basic point is this.
After mentioning you, Quotes you as writing that the role of precipitation is not fully accounted for in global warming models.
And unless we know how greenhouse limiting properties of precipitation systems change with warming, we don't know how much of our current warmth is due to mankind, and we can't estimate how much future warming there will be either.
And of course, it was only back in the 70s that everybody, Time Magazine Newsweek, was warning us about global cooling and the coming of a new ice age.
So people are confused about this, but they're being scared to death.
Kids are being told that they're destroying the animals.
Their parents are not doing enough, and they're having trouble sleeping at night.
I know you look at this on a scientific basis, but how does all this impact you as a human being in addition to being a scientist?
Well, it does bother me that so many people are worried about it.
And I wish more meteorologists, atmospheric science types that really do have major reservations about how serious global warming is going to be, I wish they would speak up.
The trouble is, you know, scientists are human too.
And there's this group think amongst climate scientists that, you know, global warming is, I mean, it's created careers, it brings in money.
That's the key.
Well, that's part of it.
And let me give you an example of the bias.
I mean, scientists have no way to be totally impartial.
And let me give you an example of the bias.
You've probably heard the phrase that the Earth's greenhouse effect keeps the Earth habitably warm.
Have you ever heard that?
Yes.
Okay.
It turns out, and in fact, this is one of the very first things that was figured out about the climate system back in the 1960s, so I'm not making this up.
It turns out that there's actually a more accurate phrase than that related to the greenhouse effect, and that's that weather systems help keep the earth habitably cool because they short-circuit 60% of the greenhouse effect warming that the greenhouse effect is trying to make on the surface of the earth.
If it weren't for the cooling effects of weather, the average surface temperature over the whole earth would be about 140 degrees Fahrenheit.
Wow.
So now, why is it that we only hear about the greenhouse effect and how it keeps the earth habitably warm?
Because the United States is being blamed for this.
The people of the United States are being blamed, so they'll be taxed.
Yeah, but we never hear the fact that's more quantitatively accurate that weather systems actually keep the earth habitably cool.
You know, it's an inherent bias in the way people think, including climate scientists.
About science, Michael Crichton once wrote that anytime you see the word consensus associated with science, that there cannot possibly be science.
And his point is that we have all these UN scientists and others who are getting funding from various nations and institutions to do their work.
And of course, they produce results favorable to that desired by those who are making the grants.
Then you have scientists like yourself who don't buy into it at all, but yet we're told a consensus of the world scientists believe X.
That doesn't make it science, correct?
There is not science here that has confirmed any of this.
Well, that's absolutely true.
I mean, scientific truth isn't determined by a vote.
You're reminding me of two Australian medical researchers who for 10 years had to put up with ridicule over their theory that there was a bacterial basis for stomach ulcers.
And, you know, back then they were known as nitwits, and now they're known as Nobel Prize winners in 2005.
So there's an example.
Let me ask you about this.
Again, this is from Jerry Schmidt's piece in The American Thinker.
And this I didn't know.
You ever heard of somebody named Vannevar Bush?
No.
Well, he writes, Vannevar Bush's seminal 1944 policy paper unleashed the federal government's unprecedented post-war investment in RD in the hard sciences and engineering.
Science was seen as the way to avoid or at least win another catastrophic war.
And apparently, the federal government getting involved in funding science research and development for the purposes of winning and not losing a war led to the whole concept here of governments funding various projects that they like.
And when you mentioned the money of many of these global warming scaremongers, I just wondered if that was not the origin of this.
But since you've not heard of this man, I'll leave that for another time.
Well, from a scientific standpoint, I have to admit that global warming is a legitimate area of study.
I mean, I could be totally wrong.
I don't think I am.
And I understand why some scientists are really concerned.
But like I told you earlier and what you've said before, it comes down to how much faith you have that you know enough about the physics to be able to model it accurately.
Just like you said, the problem with models.
You use the word faith, and it's a religion with these people.
It has replaced a religion to so many people.
We're destroying the planet.
We've got to do something about it.
It's our fault.
The parallels to this belief system and so many others which require faith are incredible.
But I just, the whole thing about this that is disturbing to me, you could be wrong, you say they could be wrong, but they won't admit that they could be wrong.
They have got this knocked down, and they're using 150 years of research, Roy, when we cannot study.
Well, we do know, we do know there have been ice ages without man-made input to global warming.
We know there's been warming and cooling as natural cycles of the earth.
And the idea that the presumptuousness and the arrogance of people today who think that we, human beings in the 21st century, are destroying the planet is something that offends my sensibilities.
The vanity that these people have to think that we have that kind of power over this massively complex creation is one of the things that I just instinctively use to disbelieve them.
Yeah, I can understand that.
All right.
And I know you don't want to talk about it because that's not on the area of science.
But look, look.
There's a lot more faith involved in science than people realize.
I appreciate that.
Look, I really appreciate you letting us get back to you.
This has been a tremendous opportunity for me to talk to you.
I'm glad you called yesterday.
Well, thanks.
Hey, and we also made a special page for you.
I've got a weather website, and if you Google EIB Southern Command Weather, you'll find your weather page.
Thank you.
We'll find it.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome back.
El Rush Bow here on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair, would it be accurate to say the left hates preventive war?
They hate preemptive war, right?
We shouldn't have gone into Iraq.
I mean, Iraq was a preemptive war based on the actions of 9-11.
We weren't going to take any chances anymore that similar things would happen.
We're going to go wherever it might be possible that a future attack could be launched.
And we had the stories of weapons and mass destruction and so forth.
What do you mean, preemptive war?
We don't do preemptive wars here.
We're supposed to wait around until we get attacked and then we go into action.
But isn't the left's attack on global warming preemptive?
As we just heard from Roy Spencer, he is a scientist who does not believe in the whole crisis of man-made global warming.
And there are others like him all over the place.
There is not scientific agreement on this.
So given that, why declare preemptive war on the climate?
I would ask those of you on the left.
You want to go out there and declare preemptive war on the climate.
Global warming hasn't attacked anybody.
Wouldn't it be more consistent of you people to say, let the inspectors, the climate scientists, go out and do their jobs before we go off half-cocked here and start raising everybody's taxes and blaming everybody and scaring the children of the world half to death over the deaths of the polar bears and so forth.
I mean, it seems to me you people out there can't wait to declare preemptive war on the climate.
And what you're actually doing is declaring preemptive war on the American people.
Just a little thought that I wanted to throw out there.
Yes, declaring the global warming debate over an international team of scientists urged the world's nation yesterday to act now to keep climate change from becoming a catastrophe.
John Holdren, professor of environmental policy at Harvard, member of the scientific panel that crafted the report, said, we make the argument that it is essential that we get started now, not next year, not next decade.
But haven't we gotten started?
We have gotten started.
We've been getting started for 20 years.
All of the discussion of alternative fuels and these hybrid automobiles and the carbon offsets.
We are getting started.
By the way, they continue to discover new species that nobody knew existed in various parts of the world.
All the while we're supposed to be wiping them out with global warming.
Another story is that to head off the worst of climate change, governments must pour tens of billions of dollars more than they already are into clean energy research and to enforce sharp rollbacks in fossil fuel emissions.
This from an expert scientific panel reporting to the United Nations on Tuesday.
Of course, raise taxes.
It's like the big magazine in India said yesterday.
If the rest of the world lived the way the United States lives, we would already all be dead because of global warming.
And then this panel of scientists has presented the UN a detailed plan for combating climate change.
The strategy involves reaching a global agreement on a temperature ceiling.
They're going to tell the weather how hot it can get?
How, pray, tell are we going to do this?
A group of 18 scientists, if we can't control it, what are we going to do?
Who are we going to tell?
When you go talk to the Earth's climate, who do you talk to?
A global temperature ceiling?
18 scientists from 11 countries calling on the international community to act quickly to prevent catastrophic climate change.
This is a report requested by the UN, partially paid for by the privately funded UN Foundation.
The panel warns that any delay could lead to a dangerous rise in sea levels, increasingly turbulent weather, droughts, and disease.
Well, you know what?
Sea levels change.
We always have turbulent weather.
We always have droughts.
Go talk to the people in West Texas.
And we always have disease.
I saw the other day, or just yesterday, that maybe this morning I saw it, that a bunch of Hollywood celebrities are at risk for catching hepatitis A because of contaminated food at one of their A-list parties.
There's always disease out there.
People die from them every day.
Get this.
This is the bottom line.
This is a nut paragraph.
The panel's recommendations include a series of steps to cut the rate at which temperatures are rising.
Chief among them are global agreement on an acceptable ceiling for temperature rise and finding ways of adapting to cope with the damage already done.
However, even these measures will achieve very little unless they are accompanied by a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions.
This is John Holdren of Harvard University.
We can go out and we can do all this.
We can tell the temperature, you're going to stop at X. You're not going to get any higher than that.
We're going to go talk to whoever we have to talk to in the world, probably Mahmoud Ahmad Dinejad.
Have a good neighbor's meeting with Ahmadisa.
Mahmoud, the temperature is going to rise no more than X. He'll bring Syria into the discussion along with Iraq.
We'll have, you know, Kumbaya agreement on this, hubba-hubba.
But even after we do all these things, after we've taken every step we can to prevent the rise in temperature, that still won't be enough.
No, These measures will achieve very little unless they are accompanied by a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions.
Well, this is akin to having all these carbon offsets.
And I got the new Al Gore diet, you know, to illustrate these carbon offsets.
I see, I thought the idea from people who believed all this was to reduce your carbon footprint.
But we now have learned that Al Gore spends all this money and uses all this energy at his mansion and his pool house in Nashville.
Fine and daily.
But Al Gore says, oh, no, no, no, no.
I am offsetting my carbon footprint.
I am buying carbon credits from others who are not using their allowable carbon footprint.
So Al Gore is not reducing anything.
He's not reducing his energy use.
Same thing with Schwarzenegger.
Schwarzenegger's going to register his jet, his personal jet, G3, with some carbon registry firm out in California.
And so he's going to go out and make his carbon footprint.
He's not going to fly less.
He's not going to take any fewer or more people on his trip.
He's going to keep doing what he's always been doing.
The carbon registry is going to plant more trees.
This is akin, ladies and gentlemen, to my telling you, I'm going on the Al Gore diet.
And the Al Gore diet is this.
I'm going to eat everything I want.
I'm not going to make one change.
I'm not going to reduce my consumption of anything unless I want to.
But I'm going to have the biggest steak I can find three times a day, baked potatoes, lots of butter.
I'm going to have caviar.
You starve.
That is how I will diet.
That's the same.
That's the best way I can come up to explain the frivolity of these carbon offsets.
Dear Rush, get this.
It's a letter from a subscriber at rushlimbaugh.com.
Rush, I joined your website today.
I became a subscriber today because I have a nine and seven-year-old who think the polar bears are drowning.
I need help teaching them the truth.
I have been a listener since 1988.
Thanks for everything.
Mary Beth, a rush babe.
She's done the right thing.
My website is a veritable encyclopedia refuting all of this nonsense on global warming.
But here it is.
Nine and seven-year-old think the polar bears are drowning.
And this is precisely how these people are using fear.
And like I said, this is a direct parallel to the way kids told us back in the 80s, Laura Dern on the Donahue show, do you know what it's like every day to get up with the possibility of being annihilated because of a nuclear blast?
Do you know what it's like, Phil?
We children are scared.
We're scared.
Right.
Simply recycling the same old technique designed to make everybody feel guilty, pay more taxes, have the government grow, lose liberty, lose freedom.
The government knows best because you people are destroying the planet and you need to be blamed for it and you need to feel guilty and you need to pay the price.
Hello, global carbon tax.
USA Today declaring there is no more time for delay.
An international panel of scientists urged the world's nations on Tuesday to stave off climate change catastrophe by boosting clean energy research, sharply cutting industrial emissions that fuel global warming.
The phrase tipping point is used in this story.
We are near the tipping point for climate.
Yet, ladies and gentlemen, I want to read to you from Time magazine, June 24th, 1974.
As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a glimate upheaval.
However, widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe.
They find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades.
This is Time magazine, June 24th, 1974.
The trend shows no indication of reversing.
Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
The article comes complete with a graphic showing the upper one-third of the United States covered by a glacier.
Right here.
There it is.
Telltale signs are everywhere.
From the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.
Since the 1940s, the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit.
When climatologist George Kukla of Columbia University's Lemong-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the northern hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971.
And the increase has persisted ever since.
Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer.
Now they are covered year around.
And of course, Newsweek did the same thing.
1979, Newsweek ran it five years after time.
Ran a story on the coming threat of global cooling.
What happened?
What went wrong?
Final story, 20 new species of sharks and rays have been discovered in Indonesia in a five-year survey of catches at local fish markets.
The survey by the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization represents the first in-depth look at Indonesia's sharks and rays since Dutch scientist Peter Bleecker described more than 1,100 fish species from 1842 to 1860.
I just want to know how in the world all these species, which we never knew existed, all of a sudden have been found.
Maybe they're brand new.
Who created them?
Where do they come from?
How can this be when we are destroying species, causing them to go extinct with global warming?
Be right back.
Hi, welcome back.
We're at a drive-by question.
How much does jet travel affect global warming?
Nobody knows.
All we can do is guess.
I don't think anything happened.
I'm just going to give you my answer as a common, ordinary, everyday Joe.
How long have we been flying jets, ladies and gentlemen?
How long have we been launching space shuttles and rockets and so forth?
Many, many moons.
And during those years, we've had scientists tell us that we're in the midst of global cooling.
We've got a new ice age coming, now global warming.
And now it's all of the CO2 that's part of the exhaust from jet engines supposedly causing global warming.
And yet, I don't see any of the scaremongers telling us we need to stop flying.
They wouldn't be able to get around to go to their vacations if that were the case.
Nobody's suggesting we stop flying.
That's why the nonsense of the carbon footprint and carbon credits has been brought up.
And that's why the attack on corporate jets, the carbon footprint for four or five people flying on a corporate jet is far, far, far greater than 200 people flying on a commercial jet, you see.
Schwarzenegger says, oh, I agree with that.
So I'm going to register my plane and plant trees every time I fly.
That will take care of the carbon dioxide emissions from my jet.
It's bogus.
It's bogus.
Weymouth, Massachusetts.
Kathy, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hi, Russ.
When this first, the UN study had first come out, right at the beginning, I heard that only of the letters that they'd sent out to scientists, only 18% had been returned.
Now, to me, that means 82% didn't bother.
Now, I'm sure some of them believed in it.
Maybe they didn't look.
I mean, it's from the UN.
Who cares?
So I'm just wondering what we're doing here with 18% of the scientists who bothered to return their letters.
We're supposed to now change the world.
Well, I haven't heard that.
Wouldn't surprise me.
But look at, go back to our little discussion with Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama at Huntsville in the first half hour of this program.
He made it very plain that money in the form of grants and donations is a large factor in the number of scientists who do supposedly support the whole concept of man-made global warming.
You can't always follow the money.
You just can't take the money out of it.
By the way, the brilliance of this, you have to understand these people that are now the big primary advocates of this can never be disproved, not in their lifetimes, because now the window we're looking at is 2100, 2080, 2050.
And so they've brilliantly established the circumstance.
It's going to warm up whatever number of degrees by the next hundred years.
Well, they're not going to be around to be proven right or wrong.
Really brilliant marketing, the way they have set this all up.
They're using every ingredient the left has perfected from the time of Karl Marx, folks.
Every damn one.
Get rid of real religion, create a false, phony religion where the God resides in the earth and in government.
Just scare the hell out of as many young people as you can, impose guilt on as many people, still sit back and take the punishment in the form of brand new taxes, larger government and so forth.
I don't know about only 18% of the scientists responded.
All I know is, and I'm glad Roy confirmed this for me, that science is not subject to a vote.
There is no consensus in science.
This is Art in Shepard, Montana.
Your next sir, nice to have you with us.
Hello, Ross.
NOAA's had a long-term continuing project out at the Monolo Observatory in Hawaii measuring the solar constant.
They've proved that the sun, like all stars, is a variable star.
And in addition, recent astronomical data observing Mars has showed that Mars is rising and warming at the same rate that we are.
So that tells me that that's caused by the sun, not by man.
Another thing is, is that every one of the greenhouse gases, the molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone, all absorb UV.
They emit when they remit energy, infrared, and they reflect infrared back down to the Earth.
Another thing is, is that the sun we're getting is getting warmer.
The atmosphere, like all things, when it's heated, expands, which means that the amount of absorption of the UV is still the same, but the distance at the outer edges of the atmosphere between the molecules is less, so they're radiating.
We're radiating the heat.
That's actually a good point.
And I wish I would have asked him about the sun.
And it's the one thing that these people leave out, the global warming.
Never, ever do they discuss the primary source of heat and all energy on this planet, and that's the sun.
Art, thanks much for the call.
Very, very interesting.
I've heard this point about Mars being made, of course, as well.
Got to go.
Stay with us, folks.
All right, folks, one big broadcast hour remains here on our excellence in broadcasting excursion today.
We'll get right to it.
▲
Export Selection