All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 26, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:28
November 26, 2007, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, I know just later late arriving showers.
Be patient.
Everything's under control here.
It always is.
Twentieth year.
People still lack confidence that I know what I'm doing.
Just you know it's a good thing.
I have a thick skin.
I just greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I am your host, the highly trained broadcast specialist, a national treasure, a living legend, a general, all-round good guy, and harmless, lovable little Fuzboa, actually very sweet.
Was told that gazillions of times the past five days over the Thanksgiving weekend telephone number if you want to be on the program.
I asked him not to pass that on.
800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
Let me let me let me get more specific about this business about Iraq and the uh uh what kind of an issue it's gonna be uh in the presidential campaign next year, because I've I don't know how long ago it was.
Has to be a couple months now.
But I told you it w it it it's not gonna be a front and center issue, the Iraq war in the presidential race of 2008.
The Democrats simply are not going to be advocating defeat when running for the presidency.
They're not going to be advocating that.
Regardless what their Kook French left is is going to do.
That's that's something that you know they're not that off the wall yet.
Now they've been trying to secure defeat uh for Bush and hang it around his neck, but they're not gonna do it as they seek the White House.
And they're just going to ignore it, and I guarantee you the future of the country, what's going to look like given the two candidates, the Republican and Democrat, will be the primary issue of the race.
Now that it's not that the Democrats are going to just totally forget it.
Um one possible spin that they might try is this.
Look at the trillions we wasted in Iraq.
Could have gone to our kids, could have gone to health care, could have gone, who knows wherever else.
Now, the way to deal with that is if you follow the uh the ill logic.
They will say the money that we couldn't afford to spend on a rock can now be spent.
And that has been their point.
The money we we didn't have it.
We we can't we can we can't we we we wasted all this money.
We couldn't afford it.
And they've already started laying the groundwork for this, by the way, by you know how much the the weekly cost in Iraq could buy X number of meals for kids in school or what have you.
So, I mean, it's not that they're not gonna forget it.
They'll just put it up when the in the incompetence uh side of things.
But in terms of talking about how Iraq is lost and we're losing it, and we gotta get out of there.
They're not going to be saying that during the presidential campaign.
Mark my words.
It's update time, ladies and gentlemen.
Global warming update time.
Says Al Gore.
you As portrayed by Shanklin.
That is the white comedian Paul Shanklin, and the vocal portrayal there of uh former Vice President Al Gore.
And a takeoff on Louis Armstrong's great song, What a Wonderful World.
All right, this this global warming stack is just it's just it's just too good.
But first off, in the Miami Herald today, hurricane predictions miss the mark.
Two years ago, way under, last year way over, this year still not right.
It's been a stormy few years for William Gray, Philip Klotzbeck, and other scientists who predict total hurricane activity before each season begins, which raises fundamental questions as the 2000 season draws to an end on Friday.
Why do they bother?
And given the mistakes, the errors, which can undermine faith in the entire hurricane warning system, are these full season forecasts doing more harm than good?
Max Mayfield, the former director of the National Hurricane Center, says that the seasonal hurricane forecasters certainly have a lot of explaining to do.
The last couple of years have humbled the seasonal hurricane forecasters and pointed out we have a lot more to learn before we can do accurate seasonal forecasts.
The numbers provide abundant support for Mayfield statements.
Just before this season started on June 1st, the nationally prominent Gray Clotzbach team at Colorado State predicted 17 named storms to grow into nine hurricanes, five of which would be particularly intense with winds above 110 miles an hour.
A different team at NOAA predicted 13 to 17 name storms, seven to ten hurricanes, and three to five intense hurricanes.
The actual results for this season, fourteen name storms, five hurricanes, two intense hurricanes, both of them hit the Yucatan.
None of them hit here.
That turned a season predicted to be extremely active into one that was about average in number of storms and well below average in total intensity.
Now, what is not addressed here in this story, of course, is the global warming aspect, because and not to get to exempt Gray, I mean, Gray Gray does not believe it global warming has anything to do with hurricanes or either frequency or intensity, but the environmentalist wackos do, and after Katrina, they were making all these predictions are going to get worse and worse and worse, and it was a seminal f uh uh central point in Gore's movie.
Uh and so you can ask the question look, if they have no clue about the seasonal forecast of hurricanes.
Now, you know, we're not talking about the the daily weather forecast here, uh, because that that that differs a little bit from climate considerations, which are part of these long-term uh models and the death knell for the planet and so forth.
But when you're talking about seasonal hurricane forecasts, you're getting a little bit closer to what they're trying to do with global warming forecasts.
And if they're this wrong, and if they have no clue, and they don't, they really have no clue.
If they can't tell us in March how many hurricanes we're gonna have between June 1st and November 30th in a single year, then the question must be asked, since they believe hurricanes are part of the global warming aspect of carbon emissions and greenhouse gases.
Then why in the world are we to accept any prediction they make for fifty years out, thirty years out, or ten years out, particularly when those forecasts involve man-made activities.
I saw this headline over the weekend, and I I literally could not believe it.
It is a story from the UK telegraph, and the headline mankind is shortening the universe's life.
Mankind shortening the universe's life.
Mankind is shortening the life of everything.
The universe is such, my friends, that the human brain cannot conceive it.
Its size, its scope, we just can't.
Listen to this.
Forget about the threat that mankind opposes to the Earth.
Our activities may be shortening the life of the universe, too.
This startling claim is made by a pair of American cosmologists investigating the consequences for the cosmos of quantum theory, which is the most successful theory we have.
Over the past few years, cosmologists have taken this powerful theory of what happens at the level of subatomic particles and tried to extend it to understand the universe since it began in the subatomic realm during the big bang, they think.
But there is an odd feature of the theory that philosophers and scientists still argue about.
In a nutshell, the theory suggests that we change things simply by looking at them.
And theorists have puzzled over the implications for years.
They often illustrate their concerns about what the theory means with boggling mind experiments, notably Schrodinger's cat, in which, thanks to a fancy experimental setup, the Moggy is both alive and dead until someone decides to look when it either carries on living or it dies.
That is, by one interpretation, um, by another, the universe splits into two, one with a live cat, one with a dead one.
New scientist reports a worrying new variant, as the cosmologists claim that astronomers may have accidentally nudged the universe closer to death by observing dark energy, a mysterious anti-gravity force, which is thought to be speeding up the expansion of the cosmos.
The damaging allegations are made by Professors Lawrence Krause of Case Western Reserve University Cleveland and James Dent of Vanderbilt, Nashville, who suggested by making this observation in 1998, we may have caused the cosmos to revert to an earlier state when it was more likely to end.
Incredible as it seems, our detection of the dark energy may have reduced the life expectancy of the universe, Professor Krauss tells new scientists.
Now, folks, I'm gonna admit here without any shame that I do not understand quantum theory.
I tried to read Stephen Hawking's book.
I did read Stephen Hawking's book, and at some point I got lost.
Quantum theory is for minds far greater than mine.
And yet my mind ain't bad.
It's a pretty good mind.
Most people would like to have it.
And the idea that we have observed dark energy, starting in 1998, means that we, by looking at it, are shortening the universe.
I'm sorry the lifespan of the universe.
This just doesn't compete.
I can't, it's like I'm looking at Snerdley right now.
Does this mean I have shortened his life?
By noticing him.
Oops, Sterdley just died.
He just keeled over and died.
Uh it look it.
These guys may have a plausible scientific uh explanation for this.
My my problem with this is that we are so insignificant.
We couldn't cause global warming.
We couldn't cause global cooling.
We can't change the we can't do diddly squat.
We're just inhabitants here.
We happen to be the smartest and the most advanced inhabitants of this planet.
But the idea that we, by looking at it, can destroy or shorten the universe's life is just when are we going to stop beating up on ourselves?
God creates the universe.
We can see it every night out back when there are no clouds, we can see the stars or see the moon.
We're not supposed to look at it, and we discovered dark energy, and that's the end of the universe.
Uh we we it's not possible that we have the slightest idea how long it's gonna last or where it came from, how it started, all we have are theories that we cannot prove and now to put ourselves in this equation as in a way that we're going to damage it by looking at I'm sorry.
It just doesn't compute.
There may be something to it scientifically that I'm unable to understand, but the the the notion that humanity has an impact on the life of the universe is just offensive to me.
I'm getting sick and tired of all of this bashing of humanity as the central problem of the universe now, not just the planet Earth.
All right, we're back, ladies and gentlemen.
Still, we got some phone calls coming up on this uh quantum theory uh theory about uh looking at a universe shortening its lifespan.
I knew that happened because I know smartest people in the country listen to this program.
You want a climatologist, we got one.
You want a physicist, you want a master's or a doctoral candidate in physics, we got them.
But first, one final story in a global warming stack, and it dovetails with what I found wrong and offensive with the previous story that we by looking at it are destroying the universe.
Also from over the weekend, the UK Daily Mail, a story, and it is long about all the women who refuse to have babies in order to reduce their carbon footprint.
Had Tony Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gaming up at her with unconditional love while throwing up on her, to feel a little hand slipping into hers and a voice calling her mommy.
But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.
Because when Tony terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.
Incredibly.
So determined was she that the terrible mistake of pregnancy should never happen again.
She begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilize her at the same time.
He refused, but Tony, who works for an environmental charity, relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.
Eight years ago, she got her way.
At the age of twenty-seven, this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilized to quote protect the planet.
Unquote.
Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend and now husband presented her with a congratulations card after she sterilized herself.
While some might think it's strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Tony relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.
Having children is selfish.
It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet, says Tony, who is now 35.
Every person who is born uses more food, uses more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees, produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of overpopulation, quote unquote.
While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Tony seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future and the planet.
It's an extreme stance, which one might imagine is born from an unhappy childhood or an upbringing among parents who share similar strong beliefs, but nothing in Tony's safe middle class upbringing gave any clues as to the views which would shape her adult life.
The eldest of three daughters, she enjoyed a loving, close-knit family life.
But she she was grabbed hold of by the environmentalist wacko movement.
And this this is a as I printed this out, this is a four-page story with the stories of a number of women who have gone out and had themselves sterilized so as to stop global warming.
And once again, it is who's who is polluting their minds with this stuff.
It's the militant left, the environmentalist wackos, who have made these poor women think that humanity is the cause.
They really Well, I've always told you everybody wants to matter.
Everybody wants to make a difference.
Everybody wants to have meaning in their lives.
How empty and meaningless must you think your life is to go to this extent to save a planet that is not imperil.
That is not threatened.
This is evidence of this being a religion.
But in every dark cloud, there is a speck of sunshine.
And even in this, there is happiness.
Because American and British liberals are literally wiping themselves out.
They are aborting themselves into electoral majorities faster than we can figure out policies to cream them at the ballot box.
And they love doing it.
They're committing their own political genocide here and they're happy about it.
It gives their lives meaning.
All we got to do is sit back and watch them destroy.
No need to think about it, ladies and gentlemen, unless you want to.
We do that for you here at the EIB Network, and as a bonus, give you commentary about it as well.
All right, let's um.
That's good, Ed.
You can turn down the bump music now.
Good.
Uh Woodland Park, Colorado.
Bill, welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Uh, thank you, Russ.
Honored to talk to you.
Same here, sir.
Um, I thought maybe I could clarify a little bit what's meant by um disturbing systems when you observe them and why that probably is nonsensical when applied to the universe.
Um, the way we look at things, the way we observe anything is by throwing stuff at it.
So, like we throw light, we throw photons, and they bounce off of things.
And we observe those.
Okay.
And that normally is just insignificant.
If you're talking about a house and you're throwing some photons off of it, it doesn't disturb the house.
But when you get down to a very, very, very small level, you're talking about atoms and electrons.
Then the photons you're throwing at it, or maybe other electrons you're throwing at it in order to find out what's happening, disturb the system.
They disturb it so that you really don't have a great idea of what the system is doing because you're disturbing it.
So you apply this to dark matter in the universe.
When you explain, for all of us lay people, you you have a master's in physics, it says here.
Right.
Would you explain in lay terms dark matter?
It's pretty simple.
It's just matter that is unseen that is not emitting um any radiation that we can detect.
And so it's dark in the sense that it's not emitting any light.
And so the way we find out about dark matter in the universe is by its effects on other things.
And the mass that it has by virtue of being there.
We can't actually see it.
Yeah, we can't see we can't see it, but we know it's there.
Right.
Sort of like Bill knows Hillary's there even when she's not.
I don't think it's quite the same.
Well, I'm a lay person here.
I'm just trying to understand this in my world.
Well but I don't think you'd ever apply dark matter to Hillary.
Oh.
Well, well, in in some sense, maybe.
In some sense, maybe.
Okay, so dark matter's out there, and we it's scientifically established that it's there, we know it.
Sure.
This is not a theory, it's there.
Well, it it's all a theory.
I mean, uh it it it all the all that we do in science is a theory.
Um and it's okay, you know, it's a it's a good theory.
Yeah, but you test it as we know.
You come up with your hypothesis, you test it and do all these other things to try to get close to it.
All right.
So dark matter, now we throw things at it like what?
Well, see, I'm I haven't read the article, so I'm not exactly sure what they're talking about.
Um if they if they're talking about disturbing it, then okay, basically they're making observations of what the dark matter has done to other things.
I i I'm I without reading the article, I don't know exactly what their observations were.
Um, it's a long article, and I I I you know it's it it gets pretty technical the longer it goes, but let me it it almost sounds to me like these guys are being whimsical.
And you know, scientists do have a sense of humor, believe it or not.
Um and i it's almost like, well, this is kind of a fun little diversion, just like you mentioned Schrdinger's cat.
Um it's a fun little thought experiment, but in terms of, you know, is anybody actually gonna try this?
No.
Um it's just kind of a fun thing to think about.
And I think that might be what's behind what they're doing.
Maybe so.
But you know, I I look at news, you know, in a in a in a way that uh uh is different than you might look at this.
You you you'd look at this from the scientific standpoint.
I look at the headline.
Uh I'm thinking of the British people.
We or we we had a story about how women are sterilizing themselves, so they won't destroy the planet.
Now who's putting that poison into their minds is the British and American left, the worldwide left, that humanity is destroying the planet.
This story was uh in in not in the same paper, but it occurred in the same day or within a couple days in Great Britain, and the headline, Mankind Shortening the Universe's life.
So people are gonna see this, and they're i uh they're really gonna think we're evil.
My natural existence is evil and destructive.
Oh, I I have no doubt that that's the way a lot of people are taking it, and that might be very well, you know, why why the article is even in the paper.
Um you know, I'm I'm right with you on all that in in terms of uh I mean people can be just really ridiculous.
Well, I'll tell you what, I'm gonna post this.
We're gonna link to it at Rush Limbaugh.com later this afternoon we update the uh site to reflect the contents of today's show, and it'll be there.
There but it's written by a guy named Roger Highfield, who is the science editor of uh the UK telegraph.
Uh here's that might be your problem right there.
Well, I know you got a reporter involved.
Exactly.
Uh but here's let me just read two paragraphs to you.
I don't want to get too technical, but the damaging allegations of looking at dark matter and shortening the universe are made by these two professors.
And they said, incredible as it seems, our detection of the dark energy may have reduced the life expectancy of the universe.
They came to this depressing conclusion by calculating how the energy state of our universe, a kind of summation of all its particles and all their energies has evolved since the big bang of creation thirteen point seven billion years ago.
Some mathematical theories suggest in the very beginning there was a void that possessed energy but was devoid of substance.
Then the void changed, converting energy into the hot matter of the big bang.
But the Team suggests that the void did not convert as much energy to matter as it could, retaining some in the form of what we now call dark energy, which now accelerates the expansion of the cosmos.
And like the decay of a radioactive atom, such shifts in energy state happen at random, and it's possible this could trigger a new big bang.
You know, let me explain my perspective on a lot of this.
And that is I um I write books for um teachers to help them understand basic science.
And one of the things that I It's not working, by the way.
What?
I hate to interrupt you.
Well, give me some time.
But you know, I always say that all of science is made up.
And we've got to we've got to realize that, you know, the the whole theory of the big bang, um, all of this, especially in in cosmology.
If you're off by a factor of ten or a hundred or a thousand, that's good enough for them because there's so many variables that come into play.
It's so difficult to get this information.
And that applies to, you know, like you were talking earlier about the uh climate models.
And the hundreds and hundreds of variables that go into these things.
And it's so easy to tweak it one way or another to to just extract you know, and we don't even put all the factors from that.
We don't even put all the factors in those models because we don't know what all the factors are, and yet hubris the hubris and the arrogance, the vanity of humanity, leading us to such conclusions, destructive evil conclusions about ourselves.
Uh this this self-hatred, this self-loathing that so many people seem to have for the human race in general, uh, is uh it angers me.
It it it it does.
So far, it's not hurting conservatives because the only people damaging themselves and aborting themselves and so forth are liberals.
Uh but it's it's as I say, there's a ray of sunshine every dark cloud every dark day.
But still, you know, this stuff is just getting out of hand.
These people get wackier and wackier and wackier, and yet these theories are are never reacted to with the uh proper uh in the proper way.
This is patently absurd.
Uh and the idea that we have I'm starting to sound like a broken record on this.
Look, I want I'll I need to run here.
Uh Bill, I'm glad you called.
Thanks much.
This is uh Joel and St. Louis, you're next on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Howdy, sir.
I believe that your mind is just fine for the realm of cosmology.
It's just that you are a radio specialist and have not the time.
Thank you, sir.
I appreciate that.
Uh I I was going to make a similar point to what uh the the previous caller made, except I don't believe this is necessarily best solved with the cosmology itself.
I think this is I'm positive actually, this is a philosophical problem created a long time ago by a gentleman named Emmanuel Kant and another guy named Hegel.
Uh this idea that our observation influences the universe.
It is unproven, and had these gentlemen been in uh the science circles uh let's say two hundred years ago, we would not have electricity.
Uh there they wouldn't know objectivity if that is an excellent point.
You know what this reminds me of?
Uh I don't know if you were listening the day this happened, but there was a story that we had some some uh some scientists suggested that what we needed to do was shred up a bunch of tires into really tiny granules and have it just tons and tons of the stuff dropped into a particular quadrant of a major hurricane, and this would cause some sort of reaction in there where they would steer the hurricane away from us and steer it to them.
Uh and and of course then they wanted to go out and do studies on this.
And uh my my official climatologist sent me a note that said this is this is this is impossible because A, you don't know if it's gonna work, and B, without having dropped the granules, you do not know what the hurricane would have done in the first place.
If you take action to try to change the direction of a hurricane and it changes, you still don't know if what you did made the change or not.
And this is sort of what this sounds like to me in a in a different way.
We're being told when we observe something, it changes, but how do we know because we're looking at it if how how we know what happens if we don't look at it?
It allows me.
Well, that's the that's the question that's been lost.
The study of epistemology, which is asking the question, how do we know what we claim to know is a science that hasn't been taught for many, many years.
Uh I was I was I felt robbed of it after I left college and done some reading of Ayn Rand uh after I done my my term in college.
Oh, yeah, the study of objectivism.
Uh I I I disagree with on a few things, but objectivity is necessary.
It's what it's the it's it's Aristotle and then re reiterated by Jesus, uh, in whom I firmly believe.
But uh it's been lost.
Objectivity is how rare are you?
I mean, you I know you're a cosmology student.
How rare are you a cosmology student who believes in Jesus?
Pretty pretty rare.
And the fact is the fact is this.
I I've done significant reading on cosmology.
Uh, my favorite is uh Dr. Francis Collins uh Collins, uh which is kind of for the layperson, but I'm primarily a student of political philosophy.
Oh, I see.
Okay.
So you're gonna you you don't you just have an adjunct interest in the cosmology stuff.
Yeah, it it comes into play when after.
All right, well, let me ask you another question.
I mean, you're a scientist, you're a budding scientist.
Um Einstein's theory of relativity.
Among among many things, it says that the faster you travel, the slower time goes for you.
You know that, right?
Yes, sir.
That's a theory.
Okay, so uh I happen to travel by jet quite a bit.
Now I know I don't approach speed of light.
And that's what you have to do.
I mean, you when you once you get to the speed of light, the theory theory of relativity says time stops for you.
But I don't get that fast.
But since I travel by jet so much, am I aging more slowly than people who only travel by car?
Using Einstein's theory.
If if you want an if you want an expert opinion from somebody that studies in my field, I'd have to say uh who cares.
It's not going to be more than a millisecond.
It's not going to age.
I do not gonna it's not gonna not age you.
Uh yeah, you've got because the theory of relativity and the amount of speed you travel, you you've got you've got maybe uh point, you know, point zero zero one hundredth of a second missing from your life.
I'll take him.
I'll take it every one hundredth of a second counts.
We'll be back after this, folks.
Don't go.
Hey, a couple political stories here.
The uh Zogby guy, uh John Zogabe's new poll out.
Ladies and gentlemen, Hillary Clinton would lose now to all major Republican White House candidates, according to a hypothetical election matchup uh poll on uh on Monday, reversing her months of dominance over potential 2008 challengers.
In the new survey, Clinton trailed McCain 42 to 38, Giuliani 43 to 40, Mitt Romney 43 to 40.
She also lagged behind Mike Huckabee, 44 to 39, and former Senator Fred Thompson, 44 to 40, in a uh hypothetical general election matchup.
Uh Ron Paul does not get mentioned in the uh in the Zogby poll.
In July, Clinton held a five-point lead in the uh same poll over Giuliani.
She edged out McCain by two points, had a clear lead over all the others.
Uh Rasmussen Paul last week had Clinton also falling behind Giuliani in a hypothetical matchup of the 08 general election, narrowly beaten by McCain.
Time magazine, Mark Halperin, used to be the political director at ABC.
Now over there at Time.
It's incestuous.
They just change buildings that do the same stuff.
Why Oprah won't help Obama?
Why do you think that's your theory of thinking here, Mr. Snerd?
It's very simple answer.
Why do you think Oprah will not help Obama, according to Mark Halperin?
Hollywood celebrities don't influence political outcomes.
Oh, I think Oprah's beyond Hollywood.
It's exactly my reaction.
Winfrey's endorsement helps bring the following four things: campaign cash, celebrity excitement, and big crowds.
Uh a more important event for his chances of winning might actually be taking place on Tuesday of this week when he appears in New Hampshire with some of his uh foreign policy advisors for a forum with uh with local uh uh residents.
Uh so that uh you know Halpern says he's skeptical.
Uh because he doesn't think Hollywood celebrities influence things.
Election, but but the Oprah.
The Oprah's beyond Hollywood.
The Oprah's.
You can't insult the Oprah by saying she's Hollywood.
I mean, the Oprah is far bigger than a little speck of California.
I mean, you understand Oprah's world and and her influence uh in the political realm.
You have to be a cosmologist to be able to test all the theories.
Joe in uh in Smyrna, Tennessee.
Welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rosh.
It's an honor to speak to you today.
Thank you very much, sir.
I owe you a huge grudge of gratitude.
My uh wife and I for many years have suffered from affluenza, and and it was just a terrible burden.
But about six months ago, we started tuning into your show and and listening, and and we recognize the signs, and and recently we've we've come to be cured of this disease thanks to you.
Uh well that makes I can't tell you how happy that makes me.
You had you had affluenza.
Yes, we did.
We were we we found ourselves hiding our assets from our friends and and telling people we didn't have money and and things like that, and and it just wasn't true.
Right, because you were you were obsessed with guilt.
Exactly.
Because you felt it was unfair you should have so much while poor and women and minorities had so little.
But you learn not to you learn not to feel guilty about it because you earned it.
Exactly.
And I still do.
And I'm on my way right now to go earn it some more.
Really?
Well, man, I hope you pull it off.
And I hope you continue to earn it, and I hope you keep earning because you're gonna need to earn more and more of the Hillary wins with taxes and so forth.
So thank you very much, right?
You're more than welcome.
Craig, Kansas City, Missouri.
I've got 35 seconds I wanted to get to you.
Can you do it?
I'll give it my best shot.
Isn't the uh the reason the article came out in England regarding uh how mankind can affect the universe really to help make it much more palatable that mankind can affect climate change?
If we can affect the end of the universe, possibly, doesn't it make it very possible that mankind could very easily change climate change?
That's a good point.
If we can affect and speed up the end of the universe, destroying the earth, which is invisible from most places in the universe, should be a snap.
Shouldn't be very easy.
Good thinking out there, Craig.
A brief timeout, we'll come back and wrap it up right after this.
And one more little uh tidbit for the global warming stack, ladies and gentlemen, San Francisco.
Seriously considering banning fireplaces because of the pollution emitted from your chimbley would increase your carbon footprint and global warming.
How did anybody take any of these people seriously from Al Gore on down?
Twenty-one hour breakup next.
See you shortly, folks.
▲
Export Selection