All Episodes
Previous Next
March 6, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:34
March 6, 2008, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Now that's odd.
You don't see that every day.
Al Franken has stuck his tongue to a pole and he's frozen there.
That's very, very odd.
Right out of a Christmas story, the Democrat Senate candidate up here and paying back 25 grand to the New York workers' comp board because he well didn't pay it before.
Anyway, welcome back, everybody.
Third hour now up and running on the Rush Limbaugh program.
I am Jason Lewis, glad he could join us on this frigid March day, unless you are, of course, in the beautiful sunny south, out in the southwest, down in beautiful Austin or Phoenix or Melbourne, it doesn't matter.
You're enjoying spring.
The rest of the Northern Hemisphere is stuck in the coldest winter in years and years and years.
You know, you gotta wonder what these global warming types think.
I mean, are we really this stupid?
Could we just disabuse ourselves of this notion that there is a climate crisis?
Do you think it's a coincidence that all of these solutions for global warming turned out to be the very same solutions liberals have been peddling for fifty years?
Got to rain in suburban sprawl, gotta raise the gas tax, raise taxes on the automobile, gotta have energy conservation.
It's as though they finally found the question for their answer.
They've had the answer for half century.
We have got to destroy capitalism.
We've got to go after private property with a vengeance.
Western civilization has got to be done in.
But we can't convince people oh, I know.
Here's here's the question for our answer.
Our answer is to all these rules and regulations, all these taxes on energy.
What's the question?
The question is, how do you stop global warming?
We found it.
It's always been an answer in search of a question, and global warming was just, well, dare we say too convenient?
A question.
A few years ago, when hurricane researcher, in fact, I believe he was working at NASA, Chris Lancy, resigned from the U.N.'s intergovernmental panel on climate change.
He said, quote, it's beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming, close quote.
There is all of this media adjutrop.
Obviously the environmentalists are using global warming to fill their coffers.
They need a crisis, a manufactured crisis.
But what's happening here, and if you saw the the conference of over 100 uh climate scientists who happen to be skeptics of the global warming crisis in New York this week that resulted in the Manhattan Declaration, I mean you had some very esteemed PhDs in this group, peer-reviewed types.
And you're seeing the growing number of climate scientists now challenging the prevailing orthodoxy.
And they're not on the government's payroll.
They're not even on big oil's payroll.
The people who are using this for profit are the global warming, I don't know, the global warming scaremongers, those who engage in the activism, the hyperbole about global warming.
Do you think you're going to get another government grant if you say everything is fine?
Do you think James Hansen at NASA doesn't gain tangibly and intangibly from being the Galileo of global warming?
These people are the ones lining their pockets in so many ways, political and otherwise.
You don't think the Sierra Club coffers, environmental defense, the Natural Resources Defense Council?
You don't think their contributions have gone up because people like a nation of sheep have been have been lulled into believing this nonsense?
And yet their hypocrisy of their own carbon footprints, buying them off with carbon credits while the rest of us poor souls wallow in sin.
That goes unreported.
Think about this for a moment.
I mean, what we're witnessing, one of the coldest winters we've had.
There is now data coming from Professor uh Bob Carter, a geologist at uh, where is it, down in Australia?
What's the university?
James Cook University, I believe.
Astrophysicist David White House in the United Kingdom.
They are now saying that they think temperatures have not only leveled off since 1998, they think an impending cooling is before us, which is going to be much more calamitous to mankind than warming.
But if you just considered the sheer absurdity of politicizing fluctuating climate patterns.
This is bizarre.
This is a little bit like some liberal saying, you know, I think i if the sun comes up in the morning, that's going to be living proof we need a tax hike.
Well, sure enough, the sun came up.
Wow, how about that?
And it's going to keep coming up and coming up almost like clockwork.
We got to keep those taxes rolling in.
Well, if you can politicize changes in the weather, you've got it made.
It's like the old Groucho Marx line.
Sincerity, if you fake if you can fake that, you've got it made.
Of course the weather changes.
And attaching some political meaning to it is a beautiful catch-22.
The earth warms, see the medieval warming period, then it cools, see the little ice age, and then it warms again, and then you get the picture after a while.
Remember the scientific consensus in 1975?
After 30 years of global cooling, even though carbon dioxide emissions were going up in a dramatic fashion in the post-World War II growth period, we had 30 years of global cooling.
Really since 1940.
So in 1975, Newsweek magazine put out an issue saying there is now a scientific consensus that we are entering a new ice age.
Ice Age.
You know, their models are wrong, too.
And that's a big problem with all this.
In a pure vacuum, if you throw in greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, you should get a rise in temperature.
Which by the way, have you ever heard of global warming activists say, well, you know, these these cold winters, that's evidence of global warming too.
So if it goes, you know, if it gets warmer, it's evidence.
It gets cooler, it gets it's evidence.
It rains, it snows, the sun shines, it's evidence.
Perfect catch 22.
But the model only shows warming.
So they can't explain away the cold in the last year and in the last, frankly, ten years in some ways.
But now if you take away or if you correct for the non-greenhouse gas influences such as El Nino, volcanic eruptions, things like that, there frankly has been very little global warming since about 1979, according to the geologist Bob Carter at James Cook University in Australia.
And the reason, the reason the models are wrong is they don't allow for negative feedback.
They don't account for El Nino, they don't account for volcanic eruptions, they don't account for water vapor, ocean currents, aerosols, solar radiation or lack thereof.
So all things being equal in a laboratory, they can say their model's perfect.
All things are never equal.
And we're finding that out.
I mean, the hockey stick graph has been debunked thoroughly.
Polar bear populations have actually gone up and now might be, quote, near historic highs, close quote, according to a U.S. geological survey.
China enduring its coldest winter in a hundred years, snowfalling in Baghdad, record-long cold spells from Vietnam to the United Kingdom.
I think Rush mentioned this the other day.
The UK's Hadley Climate Research Unit just reported that global temperatures have dropped so precipitously in the last year, it has nearly wiped out a century's worth of global warming when you just take a look at the rise.
And here's another aspect to all of this I want to remind you about.
Because the fact of the matter is global cooling is much more deleterious to a.6 degree Celsius rise in the temperature in a century.
And if we've had this rise over the last century, you know, 0.6 degrees Celsius rise, the 20th century was pretty good for longevity, pretty good for the standard of living.
Pretty good for mankind.
It's not a crisis.
Even if you believe believe it, it's not a crisis.
But global cooling is many more people die from the effects of cold than heat.
You know, I bet you're surprised to hear that.
It is absolutely unassailable.
And yet nobody ever reports that.
Yeah, I wonder why.
It's almost as if we're we've got a bunch of eco-journalists out there.
So now we get what?
Australia speaking of down under, they've had their coolest summer in fifty years.
It goes on and on and on.
I'm telling you, the cost of this is what people need to consider.
And nobody's considering the costs.
On my local show up here in the Twin Cities the other day, I had on an economist from the American Council for Capital Formation.
And she said that if you implement Kyoto, the Kyoto Accord, which the Clinton administration could have done, and wisely did not, proving once again that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then.
If you implement the Kyoto Accord, it will cost the American economy, just the American economy anywhere from five hundred to seven hundred billion dollars.
Because the only way to implement these things is through carbon taxes, is through restraints on energy use, renewable fuel mandates.
We've been talking about the way ethanol is driving up the price of groceries.
Telling utilities they've got to use wind power and solar power is going to elicit a massive increase in your electricity bill.
All of that coupled together is going to take off of the United States national income five hundred to seven hundred billion dollars, according to this economist from the American Council for capital formation.
For what?
Even if all the signatories agreed on Kyoto, we might lower the temperature point zero five.
This is the greatest con, as the founder of the Weather Channel said, the greatest con ever being perpetrated.
And folks, it's by the usual suspects.
They want to control your lifestyle.
They want to control your energy use, they want to control the way you live, where you live, and how you travel.
This is the fallacy of green conservatism.
If you want to be a greenie, go ahead.
But you cannot be a conservative and latch onto this environmental psychobabble.
And the next time you hear a pseudo republican tell you they can walk away with your wallet while you can.
17 after the hour, I'm Jason Lewis.
We'll get to the phone calls at 1800-282-2882 as the Rush Limbaugh program continues on the Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
All right, gotta do my best rush.
Are you ready?
Alright, here we go.
Hi.
How are you?
How's that sound, guys?
Sound pretty good?
1 800 282 2882.
Cold enough for you out there, gang.
If you're above the Mason Dixon line, you are freezing.
If you're in Baghdad, it's been snowing.
And yet, and yet the egg on Al Gore's face keeps piling up.
We're gonna have a buffet in Nashville pretty soon.
1 800 282 2882 to the phones we go this third hour on the Rush Limbaugh program in St. Petersburg, Florida.
John, you're on the EIB with me, Jason Lewis.
Hi.
Hi, Jason.
I'm sorry you're feeling bad.
I know this bug's been going around uh here too.
Now I'm not above the Mason Dixon line.
Uh I'm in Florida where we don't even have climate change.
No, it's just hot all the time.
So tell me how how does the flu navigate in a beautiful climate like uh the the Gulf side of Florida when windows are open in the winter, you don't have all this compressed you know what schools are in in the north, don't you?
They're germ incubators.
That's all they are.
Well, let me tell you, uh I'm actually uh a senior at St. Petersburg Highway have down here, and it's no different.
I mean, there's days I don't even go to school because I know the bugs are just blowing around.
So that's everywhere.
Um anyways I wanted to I was uh I was listening to your show earlier today, and you made a comment about how uh you know, we're getting record winter.
Then yes, that is true.
Um now I'm not a scientist, I don't claim to be, like I said.
High school senior, not a genius, got plenty of learned, but uh it's been my understanding that um these this cold air, especially in places like New York and on that coast, um what's going on is the heat and the the sunlight is melting, as you know, the glaciers and whatnot.
I'm sure that's something that's been switched around all over the place.
But um that cold water is stopping uh I think it's the uh it's it's not the Gulf Stream.
There's a current that runs up through um Europe and North America.
Yeah, there's an ocean current up there they've been attributed to, right.
Right.
And that cold water, this is just from my understanding, is uh it's limiting the height or the um or the latitude that that warm current reaches.
So uh and that's like I said, that's just what I'm saying.
I've I've And the effects and the effects are.
Well, the effects are that it's not that warm that warm water is not reaching places like New York.
It's not reaching as far north as it used to reach.
Um that war I'm sorry.
So but see here here is the problem.
And by the way, did your teacher uh enlighten you on this?
Um no, I'm a National Geographic and uh, you know, I I flow a I try to keep this cool stuff separate.
This this gets to the point of what I was saying earlier about what scientists call negative feedback.
In fact, Dr. John Christie of the University of Alabama Huntsville uh pointed out in a book a couple of years ago that our atmosphere has so many variables that mitigate or reverse the effect of greenhouse gases, just looking at those and downplaying the negative feedback, the negative feedback would be something that mitigates the effect of global warming, as most of these models do, ocean currents being a part, that what are we supposed to believe?
We're supposed to literally take off trillions of dollars off the world economy for a theory that's going to warm the earth, that is, unless ocean currents change.
Well, then everything's different.
All right.
Um I hear that.
But let's just not let ourselves believe, since it's getting colder, that there's no way the earth is still warming.
I mean, I certainly uh I like I said before, not a scientist, don't want to confuse anyone.
Um, but as you said, uh that it's a very complicated system, you know.
The active ocean currents, it's I mean, which is why which is why putting people out of work, raising massive amounts of taxes, your utility bills are going up is a silly thing to do for a system that frankly is very complicated and not very well understood.
I mean, let me just give you an example.
How is it possible that CO2, greenhouse uh greenhouse gases have been going up since World War II, and yet we endured thirty years of cooling immediately after that?
How is it possible now that we had some warming since nineteen seventy-nine to nineteen ninety-eight, but now we may be cooling again?
Where is the where you're confusing causation with correlation here?
That's true.
No, you're absolutely right.
Um as a student of stats two, I definitely hear where you're coming from where it's tough to say, well, since it's getting since it's getting cooler, there's not global warming since it's getting warmer, there's global warming.
That's you know at that point, it's tough to do.
And John, what would happen if in fact you looked at the data anew, as some climatologists are now, and they're finding that the rise in greenhouse gases may in fact be following the temperature rise, not causing the temperature rise.
That's true.
You know, there's uh you know, there's there's especially now we have so many people in this field, and even if we can't definitively say global warming is happening, a cooling's happening, mini ice age, whatever it is.
I mean, ten years ago, this kind of stuff wasn't on talk radio.
So if nothing else, I'm glad that you know, this is now I mean, it's a public.
But you've got to understand there are I I would be glad in a perfect world too that we all become, you know, viewers of of better television, we consume these great uh these great studies, we become brainier, we become more erudite because we're we are now all renaissance renaissance men and women focusing on these weighty things.
The problem is this is a political movement, not a scientific movement.
There are those why do you think it's a coincidence that the same groups who have espoused liberal command and control economies for decades are the ones who have latched on to global warming.
You're right.
There are plenty of ties that are unfortunately skewing science in both directions.
I'm not gonna argue with that.
I I gotta go.
I would just urge you to remember that the most the most influential aspect on our climate is undoubtedly the sun.
And if the sun decides to emit fewer solar flares or there's less solar radiation, I don't care how much greenhouse gas you get.
We're gonna get cooler.
And if we get cooler, people die.
Go back and study what happened during the little ice age.
Uh there was not a good time for mankind or womankind for that matter.
So I I I just get very, very skeptical of a movement that wants to take away my liberty, tell me what kind of light bulb I can use in my house, have the government control my thermostat remotely on the basis of something that may or may not be true.
That scares the bejeebers out of me.
And I think it it's really transparent.
When Al Gore is leading the charge, when a liberal news media is leading the charge, we need to wake up and realize what the ulterior motive is here.
You know, I upset a lot of people up here in the uh twin cities in the upper Midwest on my rants on ethanol.
But folks, you know, this is what's driving the cost of gasoline, because ethanol is very hard to refine, certainly very hard to ship, because uh there's there's and by the way, it consumes tons of water to make ethanol, not to mention all of the the fertilizer to grow the corn.
It is not an efficient fuel source.
And two studies uh recently in science, one from the University of Minnesota, no less, said that ethanol, the production therein actually emits more GHG, greenhouse gas emissions, not that I care that much about that, uh, than standard unleaded fuel in many cases.
There's the bottom line.
And right now you've got a bunch of these governors, these Republicans that have thrown the towel in on real energy policy, and you know who they are, and figure out the governor of your state that well has a corn population, and they're saying now we want a twenty percent mandate of ethanol, not just a ten percent mandate, as it exists for instance in Minnesota already.
We want every gas pump in the country to have to pump twenty percent ethanol.
Forget about your gaskets and forget about some of the rubber that gets eaten away by this stuff.
Forget about the refineries that have to take oil offline and now you know develop a fuel for seventeen different formulas around the country from May to September, and then you get a fire at a refinery or a pipeline shuts down, and you can't replace one with another because of all these requirements for oxygenated fuels.
It is just not sound policy.
It is a farm policy.
It is the same reason we had a $286 billion farm bill when commodity prices are at all time highs.
I know I'm traumatizing the farm bureau here, but sooner or later we've got to speak the truth.
And we are subsidizing people whose incomes in many cases are higher than yours.
We're subsidizing big agribusiness.
Why is that okay, but we've got to tax big oil.
Dr. David Pimental of Cornell University suggests that it takes actually more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the ethanol produces itself when it's done.
Is that a wise policy?
Now, in the process, because we've taken so much corn out of food production for ethanol, uh, we've got a shortage in corn syrup.
We've got shortages to make food, and that's driving up the cost of everything from tortillas to meat.
Livestock farmers are livid now because the cost of grain has gone up so much.
Corn's at five dollars a bushel.
This is a policy designed to appease a voting block in the upper Midwest to the detriment of the rest of us.
We were going through the oil figures earlier in the program.
We got more oil than we know what to do with.
And they'll say, well, it's an it's an energy independence issue.
We get most of our oil in America from Canada and Mexico and South America.
That's where we're getting the bulk of our oil.
It's not an energy independence issue.
If it were an energy independence independence issue, this ridiculous move towards solar and windmills and biomass, we'd be going after oil in the Arctic Sea, offshore.
But Charlie Christ won't allow that in Florida.
Tim Pelani doesn't want to do that in Minnesota.
He wants more ethanol subsidies, more ethanol mandates.
I'll just let me just tell you, it's as plain as the nose on your face.
If ethanol or biomass were as efficient as they think it is, and now they're saying there are new switchblade grass or there are new uh processes to make ethanol more efficient.
Well, we'll see.
But if it were efficient, you wouldn't have to mandate it and you wouldn't have to subsidize it.
If it were a more efficient, cheaper fuel, it would be brought to market.
The fact the government has to subsidize wind and solar and biomass and biodiesel and ethanol tells any economist one thing that in a free market, nobody'd be dumb enough to invest in it.
To the phones we go, once again, one eight hundred, two eight two eight eight two, Al in Indianapolis, Indiana, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Whoops, let's try John in Indiana.
You're up next.
Al, we'll get to you when we can.
Little technical glitch there.
John, fire away.
Yeah, hi, Jason.
You're doing a good job for Rush.
Thank you.
My big thing is I just want to hear one politician.
I don't care who it is.
You know, uh President Kennedy stated we could put a man on the moon in ten years.
Why can't we build at least eight canon new refineries in all the time zone, drill for oil wherever we want, Pacific Atlantic, up in Alaska, down on the Gulf.
We can't touch this oil.
We can't we don't even uncapp the oil wells that we care back in the eighties of Oklahoma to Texas.
I mean, this is ridiculous.
We need energy.
Because there isn't now.
There isn't a politician alive who is willing to take on the environmental lobby.
Why not?
Because they're cowards.
They are political cowards.
I tell you what, if you show me one politician that would adopt that policy, you know, to uh build new refineries and get oil wherever we can, you are fine, most of the American people will back that politician.
Look, if you want to know, in addition to, as I said earlier, the easy money policy coming out of the Fed, but if you want to know why gasoline is going to be four dollars a gallon, if you want to know uh why grocery prices are spiking, commodity prices are spiking, you take a look at the deliberate policy of the United States government perpetrated by, of course, liberal Democrats, but also with with the uh with the help of these these Republicans who have gone south on the environment.
They're more interested in getting the endorsement, John from the Sierra Club than they are fighting for private property.
They're more interested in bashing big oil to score political points than they are providing abundant energy.
But the thing is, if you would adopt a policy to get more energy, you would create more jobs, you were lower more taxes, everybody would be happy, the economy will just go gangbusters.
I mean, this is totally backward.
This makes no sense at all.
Well, you're right.
And there is no peak oil crisis, as I mentioned earlier.
I mean, you let me let me quote the former head of the reservoir management uh uh division of Saudi Aramico article, I believe was in the Wall Street Journal the other day.
He thinks there are twelve trillion unproven reserves of oil.
Now, what do we consume a day, eighty-five million in the U.S., I think?
I'm not quite certain on that.
But nevertheless, we've we've got more oil than we can shake a stick at.
We've got more natural gas offshore than we can s shake a stick at.
And yet, you can't you can't set up an oil rigdy to two hundred miles offshore Florida because of the environmental policy adopted by a lot of these Republican governors, who, by the way, are being mentioned as John McCain, John McCain's vice president nominee.
You're right.
I think this is the elephant in the GOP's living room.
I think the McCain's in trouble from teaming up with Lieberman on a cap and trade system, which would be devastating to the economy.
A cap and trade system would tell every utility out there if you're using traditional fossil fuels, if you're using coal, uh cheap, efficient coal to provide electricity, you're gonna pay a tax that is then going to go to the result of the monies are going to go to a windmill farm.
That's the cab and trade system, in effect.
Is that gonna produce cheaper energy?
No, of course not.
They'll pass through the cost.
It is a policy of a deliberate, deliberate crisis in energy.
And it has a lot to do with the downturn in the economy right now.
You're right about that.
Ken and St. Cloud, that's St. Cloud, Minnesota for the uninitiated.
You're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Hi, Jason, talking the past, you're doing a great job.
Uh if Senator McCain wanted to give support of conservative Republicans, what he should do is announce that he's rethinking his position on global warming and Anwar based on all of this current evidence.
That's exactly what he should do.
It really is exactly what he should do.
He's voted against drilling an Anwar, where what's the latest figure in Anwar?
There are 16 billion barrels.
And by the way, it's 19 million acres.
We could drill there with the new technologies on a 2,000 acre footprint.
And if if he doesn't do this and if Hillary gets the nomination, I wouldn't put it past her to pull a switch.
She's pretty sharp politician.
She just might pull the switch and and come out and forth these things.
I I I think you and the last caller are really on to something.
A lot of the conservative angst over the the portside uh attitude or the drift leftward of the Republican Party and the incumbents is over energy in the environment.
You're smart enough to realize oil companies employ Americans.
They provide cheap, clean, efficient fuel.
there's not a crisis in global warming.
And yet the Republicans who are reading the New York Times and the Washington Post and the Sierra Club press releases are totally disconnected from this.
And of course the Republicans in the Midwest, as you well know, are more concerned about making certain the farm lobbies happy.
But even that's not working.
The livestock farmers are upset because the cost of grain's gone up.
So you know, Ken, you you bring up a great point.
And I do think that has a lot to do with conservative angst over John McCain.
Unfortunately, you know, when it comes to vice presidential uh maybe that's why the governor of Alaska might be worth a look.
She's certainly not going to be anti uh oil in Alaska.
I'm Jason Lewis, In for Rush today on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
All right, wrapping things up on the Rush Limbaugh program for this Thursday.
I'll be back tomorrow for open line Friday, filling in for the gray one as he takes a couple of well deserved days off.
Ah, yeah, somebody emailed me already.
You butchered the rush impersonation.
It's hi, how you.
I need to admit that.
I'm wrong every every leap here, and they're right on that one.
Uh we will uh get back to the phones in just a moment.
Windmill farms are sharing up everywhere.
Again, they would not be possible without subsidies.
According to the International Energy Agency in Paris, a wind farm or wind turbine farm cost between four and fourteen cents to generate a kilowatt hour.
A clean, coal-fired, good old-fashioned power plant?
About two and a half to five cents.
You've got to understand something, folks.
If you want to be green, that's fine.
But you're going to lower your standard of living...
Your kids are going to inherit less prosperity, we're going to have less business growth, less economic growth.
Now, I don't think I don't think it's worth sacrificing our economic growth and your standard of living for theories that have yet to be proven.
I don't think it's worth sacrificing this for some sort of one world utopian vision by a bunch of uh collectivists who think they've found the question to their answer of total control.
In Stanton, Virginia, Alex, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Yeah, I am so wanting to reiterate and amen those last two callers.
I I got uh John McCain's got a year to woo me and or almost a year, but uh the one thing that's gonna keep me from voting for John McCain, and I'll sit home, is this global warming uh shtick, this thing with Lieberman.
Because, you know, all we can be all great on national security, but that thing is gonna destroy us from within.
And it is insanity.
You hit the nail on the head, this is all about political buying off the boats with the corn, and at 106 dollars a barrel, there we can't produce enough corn to buy it away from the fuel use with the subsidy.
And uh it's gonna destroy us.
The the McCain is gonna destroy the Republican Party if he gets into office and goes forward with the cap and trade thing.
That's why the Alaskan governor, I'm I'm you know, you're right.
I'm telling you, and I've been saying this for months, that that the elephant in the GOP's living room that they all want to ignore.
It's not a problem, is the party going green.
You know, again, without traumatizing Newt Gingrich, th green conservatism is an oxymoron.
You can't have it.
You can be one or the other.
Yep, and and you're right, it would be a brilliant political maneuver for McCain to reunite the base, but we all know the McCain's instinct, the most strong instinct he has is to throw us under the bus on things like this.
Well, or or to, in fact, take the advice from the New York Times with greater import than the advice from the grassroots.
I mean, he's already I mean he's already got a problem with McCain Fine Gold campaign finance, McCain Kennedy immigration with the estate tax, his his waffling on the Bush tax cuts, which he now says he supports with a gang of fourteen and judges, and I think you're right.
The McCain Lieberman cap and trade massive this is no different than Al Gore's 1993 gas tax increase that Republicans fought against.
And I could hold my nose and I could make the effort and swallow those huge, nasty pills of campaign finance and the rest of it if he was rational on on energy and global warming, and he's not.
He's voted against Anwar, which is insanity.
I mean, they're only going to drill in the winter time.
They're gonna use ice roads in the s when the spring time.
Yeah, it's dark fifty-six days out of the year up there.
You're right.
I gotta go, but you're you're you're a hundred percent right, and you're right on an overarching philosophy there, too.
It doesn't do us any good to preserve the sanctity of life, to fight the bad guys overseas the terrorists, if in fact we're not fighting to uphold freedom, but we're fighting to form some sort of green uh uh, you know, green ver a vision of America that's gonna take away our liberties.
Uh you've got to have the whole picture here.
Anyway, Alex, great point.
I'm glad you made it.
Let's go to Tom in Troy, North Carolina.
You're up next on the program.
Hi, Tom, how are you, sir?
I'm fine.
How are you doing, Jason?
Good.
Uh say megadidd is uh from a EIB listener and student for the past ten years now.
Good deal.
I'm I'm sure Rush is proud.
Just wanted to bring up another point that proves the inefficiency of this ethanol.
I've been a petroleum carrier for a long time.
Um ethanol being an alcohol, uh most petroleum products are pushed with uh in a pipeline with water product.
Right.
And alcohol cannot be pushed with water.
It'll mix with water.
So the only way to move ethanol is with the fossil fuels.
Move it by rail or by truck.
So it's basically a wash.
Anything you say, you've wasted it moving it somewhere.
Yeah, very difficult to ship.
Yep, it sure is.
It is, you know, again, if ethanol is the next coming, why do we have to have these massive subsidies for it?
Why is it that the federal government you know the oil companies paid eighty-one billion dollars in two thousand and six?
The top twenty-seven oil pr oil companies, eighty-one billion dollars in income taxes in two thousand and six.
Meanwhile, ethanol and big agribusiness, but ethanol enjoys what?
A fifty-one cent per gallon tax credit.
They get five hundred million dollars in new direct payments to ethanol producers.
The center the Senate Energy Bill gave them.
States like Minnesota and other states are pouring millions into this.
Well, why do you need to do that if it's such a wonderful product?
It should come to the market on its own, shouldn't it?
The only way these things can be sustained is with a government intervention.
I thought the Republican Party was the party of markets, not command and control economies.
I'm Jason Lewis, in for rush, back after this.
What?
My thanks as always to uh kid and Mike uh controlling the board, controlling the show, producing the show.
Excellence as always.
I'm Jason Lewis.
Great pleasure to fill in for Rush.
I'll be back tomorrow for open line Friday, the big guy back on Monday in Arlington, Virginia.
Brian, you're next on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Be brief, please.
Hi, Jason, you're doing a great job today.
Thank you.
Uh I only hope that John McCain is listening and adopts uh what you're trying to to uh educate the people about.
My point specifically is trying to clarify this idea of greenhouse gas as a specific as it involves carbon dioxide.
And uh high school chemistry they teach them that carbon dioxide is a non-toxic gas and carbon monoxide will kill you.
Uh we're not talking about carbon monoxide.
When human beings breathe, they breathe in the oxygen because they need it to live, but they breathe out carbon dioxides, that's CO2.
The carbon dioxide is taken in by vegetation, plants, flowers, trees.
They need that to live.
And what do they do?
They keep the carbon and breathe out the oxygen.
Which we had more if we had more carbon dioxide, we'd have the greening of the planet.
You'd have more more agricultural produce.
You would have in some in some ways a better Earth.
Why can't we get more people to understand that?
Well, because this is not about science, Brian.
This is about political science.
It's never it's not about energy, it's about a political policy, not an energy policy.
That's what's so difficult for those of us that still believe in freedom and that believe that markets should rule for the most case in the United States of America.
I'll see you tomorrow, folks, back here on the Rush Limbaugh program.
▲
Export Selection