All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 30, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:26
November 30, 2009, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, yes, Snerdley, there is other news today.
It's just as devastating as this, and we're gonna get to it, but I'm still not finished.
Because the global warming hoax stack keeps expanding.
It's expanding faster than I can go through it.
Rush Limbaugh back at you by a wide margin.
Most Americans regard me as the conservative movement leader in this country.
CBS and Vanity Fair magazine poll, 800 two eight two two eight eight two.
Email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
We need to remember something about about these um climatic research unit emails at East Anglia University.
These are only a tiny fraction of what there must be, folks.
I mean, this this group has been in operation for 30 years.
Only about a thousand emails and a couple of documents here.
This operation has been in business for 30 years.
We're just seeing a very tiny part of what they were up to.
And it's clear that what we have seen were not cherry-picked by somebody.
There's nothing out of context here.
In fact, if you read these emails in real language, the way people really talk to each other, let me tell you what these emails all say.
If this gets out, we're screwed.
That's what these emails say.
I got a long story here.
I'm not even going to try to read it to you.
I know it's brilliant.
Somebody has discovered in the what's been released, what's available, the source code to their computer modeling, and found it to be as fraudulent as as anything.
Something the media ought to be doing.
Just an average journalist down, the average average computer guy going through it has found the source code for their computer modeling.
I'll tell you what it is because I want the website to link to it here in uh in just a second.
I already put that section of the stack at the bottom of the stack, so I gotta go to the bottom of the stack where it is and uh and find it.
Now, let's talk a little bit about this um the the expert, the the head honcho of the intergovernmental panel on climate change at the UN, Mr. Rajenda Pachari, who says, hey, a couple of rogue emails, eh, no big deal.
Um he's in fact here's what he said the processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias, it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report, he said.
Now, either this guy is clueless about the real process or he is lying.
I think he's lying, because this man is not a climate scientist, he's an economist.
I'll share with you his resume in mere moments.
It is well known throughout the scientific community that any and all submitted comments critical of the IPCC report are brushed off.
It is also known that the summary for policymakers portion of the report is finished first.
The summary for policymakers portion, that's what gets released, the summary, and so nobody ever looks at the internals.
The scientific details in the body of the report are then modified so they do not contradict the conclusions the politicians want.
The IPC IPCC reports are pure bias.
That's the whole point.
They are codified by us.
They are pure the whole global warming movement, which by the way, when the Earth started warming, they noted the change to climate change.
You notice that?
I mean that that's clear evidence political.
Climate change.
And that's why Bill Clinton go out there and say, well, uh, earth's gonna get colder.
Here, we got grab audio soundbite number eight.
Audio soundbite number eight.
This is undated.
Bill Clinton in Canada.
The global warming is occurring at a pace roughly twice as fast as it's been previously thought.
So I believe we don't change things by the end of this century, instead of going up four degrees, the Earth temperature will go up now.
And if that happens, you're in trouble here.
8% of the whole Earth's fresh water is on top of rain.
As it begins to melt, if it must faster, it can change the composition of the North Atlantic and interrupt the normal flow of currents.
And ironically, global warming can make some places colder.
Global warming can make some places colder.
Now, it's up to these people to prove this, and of course, they can't.
I wanted to look at the education of the head honcho of the international intergovernmental panel on climate change.
Because remember, Ed Begley told us last week to uh listen to climate scientists.
So I would assume that uh Rajendra Pachari is a climate scientist.
So I looked.
He was educated uh at La Martinere College in Lucknow and at the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering in Jamalpur Bihar.
H. E. C. Paris appointed Pachari Professor Honoris causa in October 2009.
He served as an assistant professor and visiting faculty member in the Department of Economics and Business at North Carolina State.
Pachari was awarded an MS degree in industrial engineering from North Carolina State University, Raleigh, 1972, as well as a joint PhD in industrial engineering and economics in 1974.
He is not a climate scientist.
He is an economist.
And this is all about economics.
Health care is all about economics, redistribution of wealth.
That's all this is about.
As I have instinctively known since I first heard about this.
Now there's another story that is much too long, but I want to for me to even uh reference here, but I'm going to give the link.
I already gave a link to Coco.
I want Coco to post this on the website, Rushlimbaugh.com.
It's from the Canada Free Press, the scientists involved in deliberately deceiving the world on climate.
The public and mainstream media still don't grasp the implications.
What this has and what this story needs is faces.
And names, the names of the hoaxers and their faces, and pictures of them in meetings.
It prints out to, I think, eight pages, or six pages.
These pictures go all the way back to the mid-1980s.
These people getting together.
And it's it's interesting reading as well.
But more importantly, it names names, it places pictures.
Phil Jones, Michael Mann, all of these people are here.
And there's a there's a uh an unsung hero here, a guy who doesn't get mentioned much.
His name is Wigley.
And he is part of the triumvirate, along with uh Michael Mann and Phil Jones at the East Anglia University that are running this hoax.
Now, the piece, let me I'll tell you what, I don't think I'm gonna find it before we get to the let me take the break.
Take the break, and I come back and I want to find the story where the guy found the source code because I want to post that at Rushlimbaugh.com as well, so you can see that.
And then we'll come back and get to other exciting news items and your phone calls at 800 282-2882.
Sit tight, we'll be right back.
I found it.
It is uh from the American thinker via newsbusters.org.
Novel Shepherd on uh November 25th, Climate Gate Smoking Gun Found, American Thinker Does the Media's Job, and the uh the guy, uh Mark Shepherd at the American Thinker, uh examined the computer program source code available in what was hacked from the climate research unit and discovered that the scandal is everything, that the global warming obsessed media fear.
And it's it's highly technical, and I'm not even going to attempt to read it.
But the conclusion by uh Mark Shepard.
And now irrefutable evidence that alarmists have indeed been cooking the data for at least a decade may just be the most important strike in human history.
Now, this is the computer source code for computer modeling and so forth, and it it just it it it it illustrates how bogus all of this is Mark Shepherd is a software designer, a consultant, and a business owner who discovered this in his spare time.
Where are America's leading science periodicals or key journalists in this debate?
Where are America's science editors on this?
They are nowhere to be found.
In the press consider this, in the past two years, we have seen ignore, uh we've seen the press ignore important facts about a presidential candidate in order to get him elected.
We have seen the press ignore or gloss over important facts about a president's appointees to get them approved by Congress.
We have seen the press ignore important facts about President Czars.
And we have seen the press ignore important facts about a major community organizing group, Acorn.
And now the press is ignoring the uncovering of the largest hoax in the history of science.
This is even bigger than a cold fusion hoax.
This is bigger than the uh than the uh the flat earthers.
Oh, by the way, uh folks, you might want to know the decidedly not green economies of China and India never had a recession to speak of, and they're now growing like gangbusters.
Indian economy grows 7.9% shatters forecasts.
India reported its best growth figures in 18 months today as government spending and record low interest rates helped Asia's third largest economy rebound from the global financial crisis.
They never had a recession.
They had a little slowdown.
The countries that are not beating themselves up, the countries that are doing everything they can to grow, are indeed growing.
We all know how to do it.
The fact that it's not happening here is personal.
Grab audio soundbite number 20 very quickly.
White House press briefing today.
You had less kin solving, ask the question.
Now, they always leave the uh the the these kind of questions to kin solving.
Uh the press court thinks he's crazy, they like to portray him as crazy.
The press secretary likes to portray him as crazy.
He's a uh a radio host at uh WCBM in Baltimore.
He asked Gibbs, are you aware of the published list of 31,000 scientists who oppose this idea of man-made global warming, and 26,000 of them are PhDs?
I don't doubt that uh uh that there's such a list.
Uh Lester, I I think there's no real scientific basis for the dispute of this.
The universe of lies.
The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs.
I think there's no real scientific basis for the dispute of this.
Mr. Gibbs, there's no scientific basis for the theory of man-made global warming.
The people who um do not believe it do not have to disprove it.
The warmers have to prove the theory, and they can't.
Their emails admit essentially, we'll hide the data, we'll destroy the data rather than let it get out, because if it gets out, we're screwed.
On to other news, ladies and gentlemen, Senator Kent Conrad suggests that people who don't believe in civilian trials for terrorists should just leave America and go someplace else.
This from last Wednesday.
Senator Kent Conrad told Cybercast News Service that civilian courts are well suited to prosecute Al-Qaeda terrorists, and that if people don't believe in our system, maybe they ought to go somewhere else.
So here you have a political hack.
And by the way, a friend of Angelo at Countrywide, who has never done anything in his life except hold public office, thinks we should all leave America if we don't understand how important it is to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court in New York City.
He obviously knows so much more about both radical Islam and American history than any of us.
Doofus Democrat.
Here is the Sheikh, by the way, on tape.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
New York, New York, Conrad says, You can just leave the country if you don't like being being tried in a civilian court in New York.
Did you hear uh over the uh Thanksgiving weekend uh Eric Holder said that of course the government can fund acorn.
Despite Congress, the Justice Department has concluded that the Obama administration can lawfully pay the community group Acorn for services provided under contract signed before Congress enacted a law banning the government from providing funds to the group.
So, Congress, to hell with you.
Doesn't matter what you say.
Eric Holder, who is Obama, says that Acorn can be funded.
Of course, Holder and Obama will fund acorn.
Anyone who is shocked by this decision doesn't understand Obama's ace up his sleeve for every election going forward.
He's got Democrats walking the plank for him, voting for things he wants done.
He's got Democrats walking the plank committing suicide, political suicide, voting for his agenda.
Of course they're gonna fund Acorn.
It's the only way these clowns can get re-elected is with vote fraud, which is what Acorn does.
Acorn is Obama.
Obama is acorn.
To defund acorn is to defund Obama.
Obama will be funded until a court stops it.
The administration is playing by Venezuelan rules.
Oh ho!
Speaking of Venezuelan rules, uh, let's see.
Try this: Iran vows to expand its nuclear program.
This is from the Washington Post today.
Ten uranium enrichment sites announced after international rebuke.
Less than one year after Obama engaged Iran, the efforts have revealed little.
And yielded little in the understatement of the year.
Instead, there is a, they even call it this, a growing hostility towards the West.
A growing hostage do you Obama voters hear this?
In the Washington, D.C. Obama House organ.
Less than a year after Obama engaged Iran, the efforts have yielded little.
They're ramping up their nuclear program, a growing hostility towards the West.
In a Reuters story out of Tehran, Iran sees little point in staying in the non-proliferation treaty, a senior official said on Monday.
A day after Iran announced plans to build ten more nuclear sites in a swipe at growing pressure to rein in economic activity.
Well, of course, Iran sees little point in staying in the nonproliferation treaty because the United States of America is now run by a wimpy little man child who has no spine, not to and he has no interest.
And Hugo Chavez threatens to nationalize Venezuelan banks.
I've always told you keep an eye on Venezuela.
The Obama textbook on how to ruin America is being written in Venezuela.
If you whine you want to find what Obama's next moves are gonna be, just keep a sharp eye on Hugo Chavez.
We'll be right back.
And we are back, El Rushbo, serving humanity simply by showing up.
New York Times Obama's speech on Afghanistan to envision exit.
Not victory, not success.
And don't call it a surge, especially if it works.
And uh just like in Iraq, we aren't leaving anytime soon.
Nine to ten years is what he says.
The most important thing about this speech is where it's taking place.
He's going up to West Point to the U.S. Military Academy to make this speech on Afghanistan.
I'll tell you why he's doing it, is because he has no credibility on this.
He needs that backdrop to give him credibility.
Richard Allen, a former national security advisor in the Reagan years has commented on this.
And he says, this is not presidential.
The president makes announcements like this from the Oval Office.
There is a place for this.
The President of the United States is using the United States Military Academy as a prop to give himself gravitas that he does not have on the in the area of national Defense or Foreign Policy or the United States military.
I said the other stack.
Exciting news.
Listen to this.
This is from CNN Money.com, Obama to push banks on mortgages.
What is this?
Version 2.1A administration plan aims to address emerging problem.
Only a handful of homeowners are receiving permanent loan modifications.
I thought we had fixed this.
I thought this was all part of the stimulus package.
We're going to make sure these people can stay in their homes.
We're going to let them go to a website, figure out how to get modifications on their mortgages and lower their payments and da da da.
And then we had the story last week that only a few people are actually addressing this.
Only a handful are receiving permanent loan modifications.
So now the thug from Chicago is going to strong arm the banks.
I thought this was fixed a year ago, folks.
As foreclosure casualties mount, the Obama administration is expected to announce additional steps on Monday to get long-term help for troubled borrowers.
The government will provide more resources for borrowers and will partner with organizations to offer homeowners assistance.
The administration's move is its latest attempt to jumpstart its 75 billion dollar loan modification plan, which many fear will fall short of its goal to help up to four million delinquent homeowners.
Not designed to do that at all.
It's designed to uh present an image, put forth an image.
There is no way this can be done.
This is no way the government can do this.
It's a pipe dream.
There's no free lunch.
Obama is trying to sell one.
From the Associated Press, Denver, thousands of drivers on the nation's roads do not carry auto insurance, despite laws in all but two states requiring it.
Critics of Obama's health overhaul plan ask what are the chances Scofflaws will treat a requirement to carry health insurance any differently.
And the instances of fraud and deceit in this health care plan with the debate, by the way, starting today in the Senate.
Um ripe.
To the phones we go.
People have been waiting patiently, and I've uh I've had this large amount of data to get through.
Let's go to Great Falls, Montana.
Doug, I really appreciate you holding on as long as you have.
Thanks much.
You bet Rush.
Diddle's from the world of reality.
And in that vein, I wish you'd refer to him as the disassociated press.
But anyway, uh when you broke this last week, I called both my senators, uh, the illustrious Max Bacchus and John Tester's office to they're both on defense on cap and tax, and I thought I'd try to push them, you know, and let them know that this should play into their opinion.
And both staffers, when I I brought it up, dead silence.
No reaction, and then what are you talking about?
What is that?
I tried to break it down for them a little bit, you know, using your your expertise to help me a little bit, and both of them gave me the pat line.
I'll pass it on to the senator when I get out of eighth grade.
You know, that's basically what I got.
Well, Mike, you have the latest soundbite from Major Garrett asking a question of Gibbs.
I I put I had it here.
I don't know the number, but it's the last one that came.
Yeah, soundbite number twenty.
I want you to listen to this, Doug, because it's it's this is what we're running into.
Major Garrett uh asks Gibbs at the White House briefing.
Uh, you have any uh uh uh evaluation or comment on the controversy of hacked emails that suggest some of the underlying science uh may be an error or may have been altered in some way.
I think Carol Brown addressed that last week.
Uh on the order of several thousand scientists have come uh to the conclusion that uh climate change is happening.
Uh I don't think that's uh anything that is quite frankly among most people in dispute anymore.
So the universe of lies is being led by the president of the United States and all who work for him.
So if you think you're gonna get something different out of two Democrat Congress people, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Oh, I didn't expect it, but I thought I'd pump them in the ribs anyway.
Well, I appreciate it.
Uh it's it's it's this is it is absolutely Hilarious to watch this.
Two distinctly different universes.
The universe of lies and the universe of reality.
And the office of the president of the United States, POTUS, is joined at the hip with a hoax.
I think Carol Browner had it out last week.
2500 scientists believe it.
They can't prove it.
They cannot prove it, and for it to be science, it must be proved.
Here is uh Tim in Mount Holly, New Jersey.
Glad you waited, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
How are you doing?
Good.
Uh uh you're you read any basic uh geology text, and you can see we've been going for two and a half million years of glacial and interglacial periods.
During the most recent glacial period, the Wisconsin period, uh, glaciers cover 30% of the Earth's land surface.
Uh and sea level during the Wisconsin period, 18,000 years ago, during the peak of it, was 200 feet lower than it is now.
We're currently in an interglacial period, sea levels are rising, and uh I I took a look at the barrier island systems in New Jersey because the sea level rises, the barrier islands continue to move landward.
Um and I did calculations, and there's indication that sea level can continue to rise another 15 feet before we come back to sea levels that occurred during the last interglacial period 11,000 years ago.
Uh the the lower part of the Garden State Parkway, 16 miles of it, is actually built on a relic barrier ion system.
The current barrier island system, which uh the cities of uh Wildwood and Avalon are on are 3.7 miles, uh 75 miles seaward of this relic barrier island, and it'll take sea level to rise 15 more feet just to reach uh where the the relic barrier islands were back a hundred and ten thousand years ago.
So sea level is can continue to rise.
It's been rising for 11,000 years.
Um, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
I knew if I hung in there long enough I'd get to the nut.
And the nut is that sea levels are been rising in the interglacial period here for 11,000 years, and that's uh much longer than they've been accusing us of warming up the planet with our exhalations.
That's correct.
That's correct.
Uh and well, this is look at the the climate, geology, all of this is so, so so complex.
It's so complex we can't possibly understand it.
We can study it, we can watch it, but to try to predict it and so forth is and a claim that we're somehow intimately involved in shaping it is ridiculous.
We don't have the power, we don't have the ability.
That's true, and the reason the energy secretary wants to paint everything white, what happens as as the glaciers are more extensive on the land surface, it increases the albedo of the earth, the earth, which reflects more light and energy from the sun.
As the glaciers melt, the ground's gonna heat up more.
That's why he wants to paint everything white again.
So the glaciers in themselves melting, and they've been melting for 11,000 years.
Uh, we're not getting as much of the uh Earth's uh the sun's energy reflecting back into space.
So we're getting some warming, but it's just occurring because the glaciers are getting smaller.
Um it's really and it's been going on for 11,000 years.
Again, these interglacial periods and glacial periods have been going on for two and a half million years.
So this is nothing new, and again, the industrial revolution hasn't caused us.
Uh of course.
Well, and here here, by the way, here's a scientist.
Uh you are a geologist.
Yes.
Here's a scientist who does not agree with the uh IPCC.
So you are among those who have just been swatted away like a gnat by Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman.
There's no serious disagreement with this theory.
Uh, energy secretary uh had this the other day.
2500 scientists.
I don't think there's any dispute of this.
Thanks for the call, sir.
We'll be back after this.
Try this story.
This is uh let's see, New York Times.
Food food stamp use is soaring, and That's good news because there's no stigma attached to it.
Remember, we had this last week.
It's now spreading, other people picking up on it.
Good news, food stamp use is sorry.
Stigma's gone.
People are out there.
It's wonderful.
Poverty is wonderful.
Unemployment and a recession is a wonderful because food stamp use is up and there's no stigma to it.
It all just comes from Obama's dash.
Obama.
Obama has it.
To the phones, Knoxville, Tennessee, another geologist, Betsy, you're on the EIB network.
Hello.
Good morning.
No, good afternoon, Rush.
Yes.
Yes.
Uh you're at home.
You bet.
A great day for geologists on your show.
Add to it.
Yes.
I just wanted to talk to you a little bit about uh scientific method and how it works and how it is that in science hypotheses are formulated based on data, advanced and tested, and nothing is ever proven in science.
Things are ruled out.
Science operates by ruling possibilities out.
And that which has not been ruled out by experiment remains possible.
This is something that these guys have never bothered to do.
They have never bothered to formulate any hypothesis at all and test it with a view toward ruling it out.
And that's what they need to do.
And that is one of the basic reasons why what they're trying to do is not scientific.
Pure politics.
In other words, what you're saying is we know that warming and cooling cycles happen.
That's correct.
We have to first find out which are natural.
And then by finding those that out, then we might be able to find out if we're contributing to it in addition to whatever is natural, right?
Well, we might be able to find out whether we're not contributing to it.
Or yeah, either way.
No, well, it's not the same thing.
Um look the my favorite example of what it is I'm driving at was advanced by the historian and philosopher of science, Carl Popper, some number of years ago, and he formulated a thought experiment which he described as the white swan hypothesis.
And what you do is you look around and you see a lot of white swans everywhere and you come up with the notion that all swans are white.
Now, how do you go about testing this hypothesis?
You don't go around counting white swans, because no matter how many white swans you count, there may be somewhere lurking a black swan that you didn't encounter.
And so what you have to do is mount a search for the single black swan and try to disprove your hypothesis based upon evidence.
And so these guys are not doing that at all.
They're not No.
No, they've come up with the idea that CO2 clause is global warming, and you can read the press releases and you can read the news stories, and they go around counting, well, look, CO2 predicts this and CO two predicts that and CO2 predicts this other over there, and so it must be true.
And so what they're doing is mounting a search for white swans.
They're not trying to rule their own hypothesis out, and that's the only way science ever advances.
Well, at this point, I think these emails indicate they know their hypothesis has already been ruled out because they're making things.
Exactly.
A absolutely, and I've been saying that for some time, ever since the data began to come in and we began to see that the last decade has shown cooling.
Every hypothesis they have ever advanced has been ruled out by that finding.
Right.
And and of course the sun has nothing to do with it.
They also do not factor the sun at all.
And they don't factor ground cover.
They don't factor precipitation.
No, and there are glacial uh cycles, milenkovinch cycles, there are lots of other possibilities, none of which they have ever attempted to address and and try to rule out, which is what they have to do in order for it to be called science.
Well, here we have another scientist, a scientist in the opinion of Robert Gibbs and the White House, you're nothing more than a macaque.
Well, we have words for him too.
So how about that consensus as scientists uh am I right when I say there can be no science if all you have is a consensus of scientific.
Well, m I I actually I have to take a little bit of issue with that uh with you over that.
No, no, uh science is it's true, science is not about consensus, and we don't take a vote to figure out what what is correct.
Okay, it's the Actual natural world is right, and we have to go to a break.
However, what we do have in many different areas of science is a consensus of science scientists that is based upon elimination of all known competing hypotheses.
For example, the theory of relativity.
Now we know that there we we don't regard it as proven, but we know that there is no longer a serious competitor which has not been ruled out by evidence.
So to that extent, we can have a consensus in science.
Now that doesn't mean it's not open to challenge, and that doesn't mean that it's final.
But there are agreements among scientists, which uh for example, another example is the theory of go global plate tectonics.
Now, you won't find a great deal of serious disagreement amongst reputable geologists that that is the mechanism by which we see continents form and seabed disappearance and so forth.
But that's not because we regard that hypothesis as proven.
We have ruled out the competition.
This has been enlightening.
I can't tell you how glad I am you called Betsy.
I'm out of time.
I wish I had I had a couple more segments, but I don't.
Um Snurdley.
See if she will give us her phone number that we may consult her in the future, should we have need to.
We'll be back after this, my friend.
Don't go away.
Well, that's it, folks.
Uh a just a stunning return to action here after the uh for the Thanksgiving holiday.
Again, uh by a wide margin, the uh man most Americans view as the leader of American conservatism dwarfing the uh nearest competitor by almost twice.
And that's nothing against the nearest competitor.
I'm happy to be on the team, folks.
▲
Export Selection