All Episodes
Previous Next
July 25, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:18
July 25, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
I knew it.
And I knew that I was the reason for it.
I absolutely knew it.
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome.
You've got three hours of broadcast excellence straight ahead here on Hump Day.
The middle of the week.
On the Rush Limbaugh program, of course, I, your highly trained broadcast specialist, Nobel Peace Prize nominee, national treasure, prophet, and general all-around good guy, all combined here, one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
Our telephone number, if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882 and the email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
No, not the Democrat panic.
I'll get to that in a minute.
No, I'm talking about global warming.
You know, I've been traveling around this summer.
I've been up in the Northeast.
It's been cold up there.
Well, every time I've been up there, it's been cold.
And this week, up in New York and Connecticut and so forth, 70 degrees for high temperatures and people going to bed at night wearing long-sleeve jammies and this sort of stuff.
So cold you can't eat outside up there.
And that's the second time this summer that's happened.
And I've also noticed it's not been that hot down here.
It has, everybody, you know, gives me grief for staying in South Florida in the summertime.
How can you possibly do it?
It's great down here.
Sit outside every night, the cool breeze coming off the ocean.
It's just not as warm down here.
And the South Florida Sun Sentinel has got a story here today that makes it official.
What global warming?
West Palm Beach shows few signs of rising temperatures.
Right here it is.
A study of new government climate data finds that temperatures across Florida are on the rise, but some places, such as West Palm Beach and Palm Beach, are experiencing fewer signs of warmer than normal weather.
This, of course, presents a mixed picture.
One of these geologists and oceanographers at Florida State, Jeff Chanton, says, listen to this, moving to West Palm Beach to a condo on the beach may be comfortable from a temperature and lifestyle standpoint, but it may not be your best bet because of sea level rise.
I can't believe it.
And Gaia is urging people not to move down here because of sea level rise.
Now, but here's the thing.
Why is it cooler here in Palm Beach and West Palm Beach than it is anywhere else in South Florida, the rest of the state?
The answer has to be me.
What is it, ladies and gentlemen?
When nature cools the planet, what happens?
It belches out all kinds of pollution from a volcano or something like that.
Or dust from the Sahara Desert interferes with sunlight reaching here.
Well, I have, and I've not discussed this publicly in great detail, but I have a pretty large place down.
I have a large estate.
It's four acres.
And on this estate are five buildings, five houses.
And I have the thermostat in every one of them, even though four of them aren't occupied.
I have the thermostat, every one of them at 68 degrees, 24-7.
I have the lights on in these things frequently for security reasons.
I have my pool cooler.
You know, pool temperature out there, 93 degrees.
I have the heat pump on 24-7, keeping the pool 86 degrees.
I am doing my part.
I'm belching so much carbon.
My footprint is so damn huge that it has to be what's keeping West Palm Beach cooler than the rest of the state.
I have a cigar once in a while.
You have the outside, inside, doesn't matter.
And we're constantly running.
I mean, I got television sets all over the place, TiVos all over the place, DVD players are running constantly.
A popcorn machine going nuts with coconut oil.
You know how bad that is for the environment.
So now There's got to be a reason for this.
There has to be a reason for it, and I will take the full credit for it.
You need it.
You were in Chicago and you needed a jacket.
Yeah, I know.
I absolutely know.
This notion of global warming, it's countered by reality.
Get this from London.
The use of domestic patio heaters accused of contributing to global warming through their carbon dioxide emissions is set to double in Britain in the coming year because it's cold out there.
And people are putting these, you know what a patio heater is, the things up there on the top of the patio that generate heat.
The Energy Savings Trust, an independent organization with the aim of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, said ownership of the heaters would rise from $1.2 million to $2.3 million.
Philip Selwood, the Trust's chief executive, doesn't like this development.
This is not good.
All these patio heaters, he said, why don't people just wear a jumper, meaning put on a sweater or some clothes?
Get lost, pal.
It's none of your damn business what people do on their patios.
And guess what?
You know, they got this smoking ban in Great Britain now, and that's forced people out the pubs, just like happens here.
You know, the smokers, the huddled masses, gather out.
Doesn't matter what the weather is.
They're out there, rain, snow, heat, whatever.
Same thing's happening in Britain.
So the pub owners, in order to serve the smokers that they can't serve inside, put patio heaters outside the entrance.
And all these experts, here we go with the unintended consequences.
All these experts now are terribly, terribly upset.
People are also influencing the larger, more damaging commercial sector with a third of pubgoers choosing pubs where there's a patio heater.
Of course they're going to do that.
Get this from Gary, Indiana.
This is not far from Chicago.
An anger management instructor was charged with domestic battery after his wife accused him of grabbing and beating her during an argument.
I'm not laughing because of what he anger management guy loses his temper.
The Reverend Robert Nichols, 49, has taught anger management classes for defendants in Gary City Court for several years, but his contract was voided while the misdemeanor charge against him is pending.
This according to city court judge Deidre Monroe.
And from Indianapolis, another sad, sad story of animal abuse, ladies and gentlemen.
Neighbors of an Eastside Indianapolis man are sympathizing with him after he was charged with a felony on suspicion of shooting stray cats with a BB gun.
Police and animal care and control officers went to his home July 7th after somebody reported he had shot a stray kitten.
The man admitted he shot the kitten and other stray cats because they'd become a nuisance.
He wanted to lower the neighborhood's stray cat population.
According to police, the kitten died.
Meanwhile, the city of Indianapolis euthanized 4,800 cats last year, but this guy gets a felony.
There goes his NFL career.
Well, if you hang him, whatever.
There goes his NFL career.
This guy, if he has designs.
And how about Elizabeth Edwards?
You heard about this.
Elizabeth Edwards says she's not going to buy tangerines anymore.
She said that it's too big a carbon footprint.
There aren't any tangerines in North Carolina where she lives.
And so if she buys tangerines, her carbon footprint's going up because they have to be shipped in using fossil fuels to get them to the market in North Carolina.
Mrs. Edwards said, we've been moving back to buy local, outlining a trade policy that acknowledges the carbon footprint of transporting fruit.
I live in North Carolina.
I'll probably never eat a tangerine again, she said, speaking of a time when the fruit it reaches the price that it needs to be.
She talked about sacrifice at her meeting, but Elizabeth's suggestion illustrated just how difficult it is to sell the specifics of sacrifice.
Asked about her comment immediately after the event, she avoided the question twice, then said she isn't sure.
Would I add to the price of food?
I'd have to think of who's running for office here.
Which one of these two is running for office?
So she's now, so we're not going to buy tangerines.
But I, folks, does this mean she's not going to drink orange juice anymore?
I don't think there are oranges in North Carolina, are there?
What if her children want orange juice?
What the hell else is she not going to eat because it doesn't grow or buy.
And exactly right, excellent point, Mr. Snerdley.
Where is the toilet paper plant in North Carolina?
Is there one?
We don't know here at the EIB network.
But that is an interesting question.
Yes, welcome back.
Just checking late arriving show prep and emails here at the broadcast complex of the Distinguished Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
As you people know, I constantly try to focus on the wife.
I'm reading something here that Snerdley just put a call up.
On positive aspects of life because we're so inundated daily with the drive-by media, the Democrat Party with pessimism and doom and gloom.
There's a column today.
John Stossel has it, realclearpolitics.com.
Good news, the world gets better.
You know, one of my themes is that we've never had it better as human beings in this country than we have it today.
And every day in America is better than the day before.
And yet, people become obsessed with the opposite, that this pessimism and doom overtakes people for a whole host of reasons.
I think one of the reasons we have, frankly, so much liberalism and so much nanny statism, there's so much time on people's hands because of affluence that they can indulge in activities that in the past human beings never had time for because they were too busy working very hard, dealing with aspects of life in order to earn a living.
Stossel begins this way, in political life today, you are considered compassionate if you demand that government impose your preferences on others.
You are also a liberal if you demand that government impose your preferences on others.
And that's exactly a great short definition of what liberals are.
But what's compassion about?
Compassionate is live and let live, which is the essence of conservatism, ladies and gentlemen.
Go do what you want to do.
Fine with me.
You want to engage in risky behavior destructively?
Go ahead.
You're for life.
I'm not going to sit here and tell you what you have to do.
I'm certainly not going to go to the government and demand that they do something to make you stop it.
Brink Lindsay, author of the new book, The Age of Abundance, How Prosperity Transformed America's Politics and Culture, says that a growing number of Americans actually agree that they are increasingly tolerant of other people while still holding firm values of their own.
Lindsay writes at the Cato Institute website, core commitments to family, work, and country remain strong, but they're tempered by broad-minded tolerance of the country's diversity and a deep humility about telling others how they should live.
I bet that's true.
I think in the true sense of the word, I bet the vast majority of people are optimistic and positive, at least, you know, some of the time.
But they probably are tolerant.
Go ahead and live your life.
It's a small number of liberals, mostly in government, that think tanks and so forth, that drive-by media.
They're telling each and every one of us how we have to live and what we can and can't do and what we should and shouldn't do and so forth.
But because their beliefs are also shared by those in the drive-by media, it gets amplified.
Brink Lindsay, whose book is getting favorable attention in the New York Times, The Economist, the L.A. Times, Times of London, a National Review, not the first to point this out, but he emphasizes that the live-and-let-live ethic arose only when material security could be taken for granted.
As people worried less about where their next meal would come from, they had time to contemplate and develop more enlightened attitudes.
Amen.
American capitalism is derided for its superficial banality, yet it has unleashed profound convulsive social change, he writes.
Relative freedom and the astounding prosperity it yielded have created one of the most humane societies in history, the opposite of what the opponents of economic freedom predicted.
This affluence also isn't just for the rich.
As Lindsay recently told John Stossel, ordinary Americans, not just those at the top, enjoy a standard of living unmatched anywhere else on the earth or at any other time.
Amen.
I always love having my instincts and my knowledge confirmed.
And here is another example.
But many Americans don't believe it is the next paragraph from Stossel.
The New York Times suggests that politicians win votes by taking more and more, or talking more and more about the anemic growth in American wages and the negative effects of trade and globalized economy on American jobs.
Senator Hillary Clinton, whom the leading London betting site has as a remarkable one-to-one favorite, mourns the rising inequality of rising pessimism.
No wonder so many of us think life is getting worse, but that's nonsense.
Average wages are up.
Last month alone, America created 132,000 new jobs.
In the last four years, America created 8.2 million jobs.
Much of the world is desperate to immigrate to America.
The personal pursuit of happiness is a good thing, particularly when it makes everyone better off too.
Now, I had a story in yesterday's stack, actually a column by David Brooks, and there are some statistics in his column that back up the assertions made here in Stossel's column.
Brooks' piece is entitled A Reality-Based Economy.
Let me summarize this for you.
Between 1991 and 2005, the bottom fifth quintile of wage earners increased their wages and their earnings by 80%.
The top quintile, the rich, increased by 50%.
For those of you in Rio Linda, let me explain this quintile business.
I understand it can be confusing.
For the purposes of statistics, the government and economists divide wages and income in this country into five quintiles, five areas.
And the bottom quintile is the poor.
The highest quintile is the rich.
And people move in and out of these quintiles all the time.
You make a lot of money one year, next year you get fired, you don't make any money, blah, blah, blah.
Even people in poverty are not born to it, stay to it.
It's not a constant thing for some.
They move in and out.
But the point is, the bottom quintile, the bottom fifth increased their earnings by 80% between 1991 and 2005.
The rich at the meantime increased theirs by 50%.
Inequality rises as businesses reward more productive workers.
And those who earn more also work more.
Now, what would John Edwards say about this?
This is simple mathematics and it's simple common sense.
The inequality does not result from bias or discrimination or the rich taking care of each other.
Inequality rises as businesses reward more productive workers.
They pay them more.
And those who earn more also work more.
So it's a cycle that keeps repeating.
And those who don't, well, they don't move up.
But it's not the fault of capitalism.
It's not the fault of the basic inequities Of the design.
It's simply the way human nature works.
And he goes on to point out here that this economy is going great, guns.
And if you want to take your stab at your piece of the American dream, it's out there and waiting for you.
Along the same lines, this is a Pew survey.
Only about half of Americans, 49%, now say that they think that maintaining military strength is the best way to ensure peace.
That's the lowest percentage in the 20-year history of Pew values surveys, down sharply from the 62% who said so in the summer of 2002.
That's less than a year after the 9-11 attacks.
So less than 50% of us think that the best way to ensure peace is through military strength.
In other words, the majority do not think that military strength is the way to ensure peace.
Now, while the partisan divide on this principle is large, it is not much bigger than it was four years ago.
The percentage of Republicans subscribing to the view has fluctuated modestly.
Right now, 72% of Republicans agree with the notion that military strength is the best way to ensure peace.
That's unchanged the last four or five years.
By contrast, only 40% of Democrats believe that military strength best ensures peace.
Now, what does all this take?
You can look at the total number at 49% and say, okay, Americans are losing it, but are they?
Or is it Democrats?
Is it a surprise to you that 40% of Democrats do not think that military strength is the best way to ensure peace?
Doesn't surprise me at all because it's true.
And you look at the Democrat Party, look at their leaders and how they are trying to secure defeat in Iraq, secure defeat in the war on terror.
They, by the way, they are out of their gourds over the president's speech yesterday in which he said that al-Qaeda in Iraq is al-Qaeda from Pakistan.
And the president said this because one of the people we captured, the Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader, says so.
Yeah, this is just a front organization.
We're being run from Pakistan.
We're being run by bin Laden Zawahiri.
We're here just to make it look like there's an Iraq al-Qaeda that sprung up after the U.S. got here so that we can present the false facade that there's a civil war going on here.
But so the president simply makes this statement yesterday.
John Kerry slipped it just out of his gourd.
So did the members of the drive-by media last night.
Harry Reid is out of his gourd because this undercuts everything they have been trying to tell people, that there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq.
And of course, Al-Qaeda was everywhere in the world, but a rough.
They were in Florida.
They were in Minneapolis.
They were in Phoenix, but they were never in Iraq, according to the Democrats.
They just can't get it through their heads.
And so the president comes out and says this, and they're flipping their wigs.
We have audio soundbites to illustrate this.
As the program unfolds, before your very eyes and ears, we'll be also getting to your phone calls rather soon.
So sit tight.
It's all straight ahead of us here.
Oh, yeah.
We are having more fun than human beings should be allowed to have here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
We had a drive-by caller named Tom a trucker on the road in California said Elizabeth Edwards will depress the tangerine market.
There'll be less shipping of tangerines.
Truckers and growers will eventually go into poverty.
Nope, that's not what's going to happen.
What's going to happen is somebody's going to start buying up tangerines left and right, and it's going to the tangerine offset market.
It's just absurd, folks.
It's patently absurd.
Elizabeth, and I don't even, I really do wonder who is pulling the strings in that campaign and who's actually running.
Because there are more policy positions and statements coming out of her mouth than her mouth.
Meaning, well, that was a faux pas that's right on the money.
Okay, ladies and gentlemen, get serious here about something for just a second because there's a news story involving Arlen Specter today that is just outrageous to me.
But before we get to that, there's some other things.
You know, Russ Feingold went on meet the press over the weekend and demanded that they say, we're going to censure the president.
We're going to censure the president.
I think the president ought to censure Feingold.
I think it's time to take the gloves off here.
Congress cannot censure a president under the Constitution.
That is not constitutional.
So if Feingold and Congress censure George Bush, then he ought to do it right back.
I am not kidding.
He can issue censures too.
He won't do it because he considered it beneath the office, but he ought to.
He could issue, he could do this.
He could issue an executive order censuring Congress or any member of Congress.
Feingold's opened the door.
So if Feingold's going to go through with this, Bush can do it himself.
Now, the Specter story.
The headline here, Specter to probe Supreme Court decisions.
Get this.
Senator Arlen Specter plans to review the Senate testimony of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to determine if their reversal of several long-standing opinions conflicts with promises they made to senators to win confirmation.
He's going to go, but what's he going to do?
He's going to go back and review their testimony, and he's going to see if they lied to him and the committee.
And then after that, what's he going to do?
What about this business?
We shouldn't have litmus tests on judges.
What about free will?
What about the ability of jurists to change their mind on any given issue when given evidence?
I'm going to tell you something.
Congress is out of control here.
We keep hearing that Bush is out of control and usurping powers, spying on Americans, all that rot gut that's not true.
It is Congress who is out of control here.
They talk about the president, but it's not even close.
Specter has no authority whatsoever to do this.
Why is it that when a liberal like Specter makes a direct threat against the court, which is what this is, because of a justice's actual rulings, not his potential rulings, here is Specter thinking he doesn't like some of these rulings, some of these precedents that have been overturned.
So he is going to examine their testimony.
Why is there no hue and cry about these threats against the independence of the judiciary?
But let the Shaivo case come up and the left goes absolutely bonkers.
Let any criticism of a liberal jurist come up.
The left goes bonkers.
You're intimidating the judiciary.
You can't do that.
And then they start talking about the threats that might be made against judges and they blame it all this.
But the liberals can do this.
I don't care if they're Republican liberals or Democrat liberals.
They can run around and try to intimidate the judiciary all they want.
And the reason they do is because the judiciary has been set up by the left, has been infiltrated to be independent of election results.
I think these people up on Capitol Hill are totally out of control.
Congress is now threatening to censure the president, which is unconstitutional.
It tried to intimidate Alito and Roberts here.
It's interfering with the president's unqualified power to fire his own employees like U.S. attorneys.
There was no crime, and yet they are issuing contempt citations today.
They have done it.
They are interfering with the commander-in-chief's power under the Constitution to conduct the war on terror, the war in Iraq.
It is Congress that's off the charts here.
It's Congress that is out of control, not the other way around.
And as further evidence to this, the House Judiciary Committee has approved a contempt citation against the White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolton and former presidential legal counsel Harriet Myers for refusing to come up and talk about the U.S. attorneys and their firing.
And now Spectre has called for an independent counsel look into Alberto Gonzalez.
The do-nothing good Congress.
I don't care what side of the aisle they're on.
They're getting nothing done.
They're simply harassing.
It's a massive, massive attempt to consolidate power.
These battles happen, by the way, in this country frequently.
There's constantly, there have been tests of will and battles for power between the executive and legislative branch.
That's not new.
But the idea here that it's George W. Bush who's out of control, spying on Americans, doing all this torture.
Frankly, folks, it's the U.S. Congress that is out of control and dangerously so and engaging in activity that is not constitutional.
Censures, trying to usurp the authority to run the war.
They don't have it in the Constitution.
Now this attempt by Spectre to intimidate Roberts and Alito by publicly saying he's going to review their testimony to see if they lied in order to win Senate confirmation.
Jim in Wilmington, North Carolina, we go to you first on the phones today.
It's nice to have you with us.
Thank you, Rush.
I just wanted you to know I live in North Carolina, and tonight I am instructing my wife to begin purchasing tangerine.
Add away.
Add away.
I love to hear that because we don't want the tangerine market to plummet.
We want it to prosper.
We want the truckers that deliver them to burn lots of fossil fuel, getting the tangerines to the market in North Carolina.
Add away.
Is your wife going to follow your instructions if you have that kind of marriage?
No, I really don't know if I have that kind of power, but I thought it would sound good on the radio.
Oh, is she listening?
No, but I'll play it for her tonight on the computer.
Does she listen to the program herself?
Sometimes she does.
Sometimes she does, yeah.
Sometimes she doesn't.
Sometimes she doesn't.
She might be listening.
I don't know.
I do think the liberals are going after big tangerine for something, some reason.
And this is like an economic offset.
It's not about big tangerine.
There is no big tangerine.
There's big citrus.
She's just trying to...
This is pandering.
This is pure pandering to the doomkoffs in the Democrat Party that think this is meaningful.
Where are the hurricanes, by the way?
Oh, have you seen this?
The hurricane.
Before I go here, Jim, if she refuses, you go buy the tangerines.
Rush.
Yeah.
Last year, I called you about the hurricanes because you had predicted we were going to get a hurricane here in North Carolina.
Yeah.
And I was worried because you're never wrong.
Right.
And we didn't get a big one last year.
Nobody did.
So your percentage kind of went down, I think.
Yeah, but I got it back during the rest of the year because the latest opinion auditing has shown that I've gained a tenth of a point in my accuracy.
Okay, Touche.
Jim, if your wife refuses to go buy the tangerines, you go buy them.
Well, I'm sitting across from a grocery store right now.
I might go in and get one for you.
Right.
All right.
Yeah, best way to do it.
Go do it yourself.
Take them home.
Say, honey, I was going to ask you to do this, but I was just right across the street and I thought I'd do it myself.
All right.
Thanks, Rush.
It's thrilled to talk to you.
Thank you so much.
I appreciate it.
Pandering to women.
You think what I just did was pandering to women?
Well, just know it's common sense.
She could say, you're right across the street from a grocery store, honey.
Why are you telling me to go get them?
No, I can't say that to this day and age.
You can't because you're the wife.
I mean, you can, but it ain't going to get you anywhere.
No, they've revised downward the hurricane predictions.
You look, we're in a flat line.
We haven't had one storm.
My friend Roy Spencer has a website where he, it's a little bar graph, color bar graph that he tracks the worst hurricane seasons, 1931, I think it is, 2000, what was Katrina, 2006?
No, 2005 was Katrina.
I think 2002.
Those are the three years.
I don't have it right in front of me.
And then he's got 2007.
You know, this has to track the hurricanes as they happen.
And so you can see by this time in the horrible seasons, there had already been a bunch of tropical storms.
Some had become hurricanes.
We're flat line.
Zilch, zero, nada.
We got this one subtropical thing, but it doesn't count.
The thing came out shortly after hurricanes.
Subtropical named subtropical storms don't count.
Subtropical ain't tropical.
It ain't a depression.
It's not a tropical storm or any of that.
So we're flat line.
So they've reduced the forecast.
They were talking 17 big mamas or 17 name storms, six big mamas, six, six major and three, well, six and three, three big mamas is what they're forecasting now down from.
I have to get the story.
They haven't revised it downward much, but the reason now, damn it, the sea level temperatures, the sea surface temperatures are cooler than everybody thought they were going to be.
They just, damn it, they just haven't warmed up from the spring.
And that's, that's, plus is the moderate El Niño effect in there, this story says, I'm not sure about that because I thought that had dissipated after being in effect last year.
But of course, if you listen, everybody, after Hurricane Katrina, sea level temperatures were on the rise because of global warming.
They're cooler than normal this time of year in the formation areas this time of year for hurricanes.
How can this be?
Ladies and gentlemen, it's just a sad, sad day for the drive-bys and the panic industry when the forecast reduces the number of hurricanes.
This happened last year, too.
There must have been four forecast revisions downward.
As hurricanes didn't happen, well, we're revising our forecast here.
We predicted 17.
We're now going to predict 10.
And then a couple days later, we are going to revise this forecast from 10 to 8.
We had three, if I recall last year, and I'm going to be sure all of them became hurricanes.
Be right back.
Don't go away, folks.
Yeah, here are the details.
Last year, annual hurricane season ends on November 30th.
There have been nine named storms.
This story from last November in 06.
There were nine named storms last year, the lowest number since 1997.
This is the year after Katrina.
Five of those storms developed at hurricanes, two of which were considered major, but none of them made landfall in the U.S. in 2006.
Zilch, zero, nada.
And here's the story, it is in Reuters.
The 2007 hurricane season may be less severe than forecast due to cooler than expected.
Experts once again, stunned and shocked, surprised, perhaps disappointed.
Water temperatures in the tropical Atlantic, said private forecaster WSI Corp on Tuesday.
So now, the original forecast was the original forecast.
Well, all right, the season now will bring 14 named storms, of which six will become hurricanes, three will become major.
They had previously expected 15 storms, of which eight would become hurricanes, and four would become major hurricanes.
I understand they got their models, and I understand they got their statistical histories and so forth.
This is nothing more than a wild guess.
We feel the general threat to the Western Gulf is slightly reduced now with our new forecast with a corresponding increase in the threat to the central eastern Gulf in Florida.
That's a wild guess.
Chuck in Portland, Oregon.
Glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Rush, mega ditto.
Thank you, sir.
I just love your show.
You're the man.
I appreciate that.
Hey, I just called because I heard at the top of the show you're talking about the weather cooling off in Florida, and it's just amazing that you say this on a day that research comes out by Dr. James O'Brien from the University of Florida State University at Tallahassee.
His research shows, and he took 50 years' worth of records from National Weather Service stations in the southeast United States where you live, all over that area.
And guess what?
In the rural areas, it's cooling off.
It's not warming.
The only areas that the temperature has warmed were in areas where there was urban growth.
Phoenix was one of the places where they said the temperature had gone up in his research, and we know the reason for that.
It's the urban heat island effect.
It has nothing to do with carbon dioxide.
Of course, I saw a story the other day that some of the National Weather Service's official temperature monitoring stations have their thermometers.
Next air conditioning exhaust unit, the outside compressors and so forth.
Yes.
I mean, it's safe to say that the accuracy of daily temperatures is also in question.
When we're talking tenths and five-tenths of a degree warming over, I mean, you've got to be, your measurements have to be pretty accurate if you're going to get that detailed about the degree to which the climate is warming up.
And it's just, I don't know, it's all, I think, founded in everybody's tendency to just think that doom and gloom is around the corner.
Well, you're right about the carbon dioxide theory, too.
It's a farce.
It's a government farce to get tax money from us.
And here's something else for your listeners to consider, if I may.
If you take a look at what everybody agrees has happened in the last hundred years, everybody says, well, the temperature has gone up about one degree.
Okay, let's say we agree to that.
And recently, research has shown that global precipitation has increased about 7% in the last 100 years at the same time.
And this goes right into what Roy Spencer has been saying.
He's dead on the money with this, too.
If you consider the amount of energy that has to be lost from the Earth's surface to accomplish the 7% increase in precipitation and the one degree rise in temperature, that's almost 10 watts per square meter of energy lost from the surface.
Now, if CO2 was causing the warming, theoretically, if you double CO2, you can only get 3 watts per square meter, but we haven't even gotten that far.
We've only increased it by 30%.
So the back radiation from CO2 could only be one watt versus the 10 we've lost.
So this doesn't add up.
It doesn't make any sense.
And carbon dioxide cannot be the cause of the warming or the global increase in precipitation.
There's not enough of it in the atmosphere.
But people don't understand that because of Al Gore's movie and all the news the last 20 years, about all the carbon that we're belching with the pictures of smokestacks and so forth.
There's not enough carbon in the atmosphere, despite what they say to bring all that about anyway.
You're absolutely right with that.
And furthermore, the carbon dioxide, you know, the radiation that it absorbs gets saturated at 20 parts per million.
So if you go over that, it really doesn't make it.
I thought it was 12 parts per million.
Excuse me, you're right.
12 parts per million saturates.
So if you go over that, you're not increasing the back radiation from it very much at all.
And it's very minute compared to all the other things going on that actually dominate and change the climate.
And water vapor is the main constituent that controls the amount of radiation that's given.
That's exactly.
You're a meteorologist, it sounds like.
Yeah, I've been a meteorologist for 30 years.
I listen to the show every day, and I love Roy Spencer.
I love your guests on that you have to talk about this because they're the ones that are correct about this.
The climate models cannot do what these people say that they can do.
They're very crude, gross estimates of things that they are a political tool, just like the charts on the great war on poverty.
Chuck, I got to run because of the constraints of time.
Thanks so much.
Be right back.
Ladies and gentlemen, despite our affluence and prosperity, we face a near crisis, a dangerous shortage of an important item.
▲
Export Selection