All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 7, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:44
December 7, 2009, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 Podcast.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
You are not going to sucker me into talking about it.
I'm not going to be the one to do it.
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome back, Rush Linbaugh.
Documented to me, almost always right, 99.5% of the time here is serving humanity while meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
I'm not going to talk about it.
I know everybody, every talking head, every pundit, every sports writer wants, wants to talk about it, but they don't have the guts to talk about it.
And they're waiting on me to bring it up so they can then rip me for talking about it while they then get their opinion.
I'm not talking about it.
I'm I'm not it's it uh uh the only thing I'm gonna say is I find it hilarious that the first identified mistress of Tiger Woods is fuming that he had others.
She wasn't upset that he was married, but he's upset that she that he has all these other mistresses.
But I'm not talking about the other.
Uh what was Wilt Chamberlain's Wilt Chamberlain's record is 20,000?
Well, that tiger might break that by the end of the year.
The question is, has he broken it?
We just have yet to learn it.
That's that's what we don't know.
But they seem to be crawling out of the woodwork here.
I mean, from all four corners of the earth.
Well, that's what I'm not gonna talk about.
I'm not gonna talk about because ever you know that every sports writer and every pundit wants to talk about that, but they don't have the guts to, and they're waiting for me to, because they think I'll wait right into it, and then they can rip me for bringing it up while they offer their opinions on it.
And I am not going there.
I am not gonna talk about it.
The AP already went there, but have you heard anybody else talking about it?
You know, you have it.
They're all waiting on me.
I guarantee him to you.
They're waiting they've been waiting since noon today, noon Eastern if they're pens and their computers and everything, they've been waiting for me to get into this.
And uh, you know, it's I'm not I'm not I'm not gonna go there.
I'll I'll I'll tell you what, we'll link to the AP story at Rush Limbaugh.com.
People can read it if they haven't if they ever run across it.
It's hilarious.
It's hilarious, and it shows just you want to talk progress?
Huh.
Okay, Al Gore.
If we move on here, well, ladies and gentlemen, to uh the global warming stack.
This is from uh Vanity Fair Online.
In his almost 30 years of crusading, no, I'm not teasing, I'm not gonna talk about it.
In his almost 30 years of crusading against global warming, Al Gore has worn a variety of hats.
In roughly chronological order.
These include Congressman, Senator, author, vice president, traveling evangelist, filmmaker, investment advisor, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and Dunce.
But now with the publication of his new book, Our Choice, Al Gore has unveiled a fresh and most unexpected talent, and they're serious here.
The book's opening chapter concludes with a poem, he wrote, 21 lines of verse that are equal parts beautiful, evocative, and disturbing.
Here is how the poem begins.
One thin September soon, a floating continent disappears in midnight sun.
Vapors rise as fever settles on an acid sea.
That's how it begins.
And they're praising this.
It's odd that none of the reviewers of Gore's book have mentioned the poem.
Even my old friend, Bill McKibben, by the way, uh Mark Herzgard is the author here.
Bill McKibben, the dean of America's climate journalist, didn't see fit to mention it, though Bill himself wrote a column a couple of years ago pleading for poets, musicians, and other artists to bring their talents to bear in the climate fight.
And he's the dean of America's climate journal.
He's a fraud, too.
They are all frauds as well.
There's even one of the emails, the AP science writer is a guy named Seth Borinstein.
He writes the guys at Hadley.
He writes uh these guys at the climate research unit and says Mark Morano is going nuts on some scientific paper here.
Uh, How do I deal with this guys?
The AP was asking the hoaxers at the climate research unit how to handle an opposition paper.
I'll read it to you here in a minute.
I got a lot.
Lots of stuff in this uh in this.
I'm not going to talk about that, and you can stop trying to bait me.
You can say you can stop trying to debate me.
I'm not going to talk about it.
I'm not going to let that sidetrack me, even though even though you know you want to get into all this salacious stuff.
I want to I want to illustrate the idiot that Al Gore is on this.
And how journalists have been corrupted.
And so I I just want to continue with this.
Here the result is a surprisingly accomplished, nuanced piece of poetry.
Mr. Hertzgaard, I have to tell you you are embarrassing yourself by writing this.
The images that Gore conjures in his untitled poem turn a neat trick.
They are visually specific and emotionally arresting, even as they are scientifically accurate.
Ta!
Nothing is accurate.
In this, Mr. Hertzgard, that's a word of you.
What was this stupid thing?
This is published December 4th.
Plenty of time for this guy to have learned about the emails at the climate research unit.
Okay, here's more of the Al Gore poem.
Snow glides from the mountain.
Ice fathers, floods for a season, a hard rain comes quickly, then dirt is parched.
Kindling is placed in the forest for the lightning's celebration.
Uh says here, it's usually a mistake to read too much literal meaning into poetry, but the final lines of Al Gore's poem certainly apply to the governments that will gather in Copenhagen for what is regarded as humanity's last chance to avert absolutely catastrophic.
I you know, I really do I I continue, these are supposedly smart people.
This might Vanity Ferry is a smart supposedly there are more stupid smart people in our country and they seem to be in journalism.
Humanity's last chance?
Would somebody explain to me what's wrong with it getting warmer?
I don't think it is.
I think it's getting colder, and that's disaster.
If it's getting warmer, we're gonna have less uh energy costs to keep warm, we're gonna have longer growing seasons, we're gonna have more food.
What the hell?
But Rush, but Rush, the sea levels are going to destroy Cuba and Florida.
No, they're not.
That's bogus.
Let me ask you this.
Let's say that instead of global warming happening right now, let's say that there was conclusive proof that we are headed to a little ice age.
Do you think these people would be urging us to run around and drive our SUVs?
More emissions, pollute the skies, what they say is pollution, get to smokestacks, Rev and burn coal to heat it up.
You think they would be telling us that?
You don't?
Why?
We have to they would be because they wouldn't, that's not why they wouldn't be saying.
They would not be saying it.
They would they would they would not urge us to go do what they claim we're doing that's warming the planet if it were conclusively proven that it's uh it's in the process of chilling.
They because that would be freedom, that's liberty, that's driving what you want.
You know, I I think we all ought to go out, we don't know in a summertime lower your thermostat to 55, in the summertime, the wintertime raise it to 80, run out there and you know, go you if if you participate in a cash or clunker program, you're driving out a little soapbox, go out and buy a Ford 150, or go out and buy some big honker truck or SUV.
That's how to react to this, because it doesn't make any difference.
Humanity's last chance.
So hey, here's here's um here's how the poem ends.
Well, I don't know if it ends.
They don't actually publish the whole poem.
They just do three verses at a time here.
The shepherd cries, the hour of choosing has arrived.
Here are your tools.
And then Mr. Herzgard says, is Gore himself that shepherd?
No matter.
What counts is that the hour of choosing has indeed arrived, and as documented in our choice, we do have the tools to survive if we choose to employ them.
This is hilarious.
It is absolutely absurdly hilarious.
If it weren't so dangerous, it is a total man made hoax.
Obama's going over there, he knows it's a hoax, they know they're gonna try to act like it's not because it's not about saving the planet.
It's not about health care is not about health care.
This is not about saving the planet.
We can't.
I'm getting blue in the face talking about this.
Saudi Arabia's call for an independent investigation into Climate Gate.
They did so today.
Warning the scandal over stolen emails threatened to undermine the global warming negotiations beginning in Copenhagen.
Saudi Arabia negotiator at Copenhagen said we believe this scandal, or what has been referred to as the Climate Gate scandal.
We think this is definitely going to affect the nature of what could be trusted in our deliberations.
Now, you gotta understand the uh Saudis.
I mean, oil's about to be outlawed if these people ever get their way.
And that's the uh only income source the Saudis have to run around and pretend they're Tiger Woods.
Now Snerdley.
You know, you you can you can continue to try to bait me with these questions into discussing what I am not going to discuss.
You can go ahead and try.
You will learn of my steely resolve.
You will learn of my unwavering commitment.
You will learn that I cannot be taken off track.
You may interrupt me, but you will not get me.
You will not sucker me into providing satisfaction for the entire sports writer community and the entire left-wing punditocracy.
If they want to discuss it, they want to bring it up.
Oprah wants to talk about it, go right ahead.
Uh I don't.
I'm not gonna bring it up.
Okay, let's see.
I let me let me take a break here, uh, my friends.
We do have sound bites coming up, and uh there's an interesting theory going around that it's the Russians who hacked the computer at the climate research unit because they too export oil, and they don't want their business shut down, and they're trying to sabotage this thing.
Uh I mean the plot is thickening.
And we're back, Rush Limboa and the excellence in broadcasting network at Copenhagen.
At this uh at this uh last chance, utterly last chance to save ourselves and our planet, some 40,000 tons of carbon emissions will be spewed, getting this crowd together and keeping them there in comfort.
That is the daily amount of carbon dioxide produced by 30 of the world's smaller countries, according to UN statistics.
I mean, the whole the the hypocrisy here is is uh is is it's just blatant for everybody to see.
Pudge in Parkersburg, West Virginia.
Welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Mega, mega dudos, Rush.
Uh I was just listening to you on the radio, and I just want to know if the major news story about Tiger Woods is the collar of his mistresses.
Uh if the what major news story?
Well, uh, Tiger Woods, the collar of his mistresses being uh non-African American.
I haven't seen that story.
Well, I'm just wondering if that's uh that's the news story that needs to uh come up and oh you're wondering if that's you're actually you're asking me if that's what I won't talk about.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yes.
Okay.
I I've been a fan of yours since 1982 when I first was able to uh vote for uh Ronald Reagan.
And uh I I just sent here and I just had to call, and I'm so glad I was able to get in and uh glad you got through.
In 1982, um I was working for the Kansas City Royals.
As nice to know you were a big fan back then.
I was in charge of ceremonial first pitches and national anthem singers.
Uh that was my public role with the Kansas City Royal.
This is the first call I've ever had from somebody who told me they were a fan of me uh for doing that.
Now, Snerdley, you gotta keep trying this.
You're gonna keep doing this.
you have to go out and find somebody been listening to me since 1982, when he first voted for Reagan to get this up.
Aaron, in uh in Durham, Connecticut, welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
How are you doing, Russ?
Megan Diddles.
Thank you very much, sir.
I just want to tell you, too, I was told to tell you I'm a rush baby, so I um I want to tell you that today in class, and I also Wednesday I go to Southern Connecticut State University, and I'm in a health class right now for educators for the school, and uh today we had a guest speaker, and on Wednesday we had a guest speaker who was the teacher's husband, who's a scientist.
And he came in and he told us all about how global warming is destroying the whole world.
You had a guest speaker who was the teacher's husband.
Yep, she's the teacher's husband.
Well, what's the teacher's husband do?
He that he's a scientist.
He's a health teacher, and he's a uh quote unquote scientist.
That means he's a fraud.
Exactly.
That's what we're all saying.
But he he comes in and he's showing us all these homemade charts that it looks like he drew himself.
And he's he's like showing up on a projectors telling us how there's people who you listen to the radio on the way to school on the way to school today, he told us, and there's actual people out there who don't believe in global warming.
And it's not a question if it's out there, it does exist.
He says there's more evidence than you can believe, and if you don't believe it, you might as well tell me you're standing on a flat earth.
And we're we're sitting in class, we're looking at this guy like and he still he believes what he's telling us, and he doesn't think anyone else knows what happened with uh Saudi Arabians finding out about climate gay and the Russians, and he doesn't want to even believe any of it.
So what did you do?
What was your reaction?
We're we're for most of us, we're trying to keep our powder dry and just get to the end of the sea end of the year, knock to the failing grade by telling the teacher her husband's a fraud.
Yeah, I this you guys are being propagandized.
Yeah, he's and you're being you're being you're being maleducated.
Yeah, I believe it's all my generation.
We're how we're getting taught in school by the baby boomers, it's all the educators and the liberals who are taking I've I'm 20 years old, so I've been in high school, I live in Connecticut, so I'm with liberals all around me.
There's hardly any conservatives.
I'm surrounded by liberals, my friends are all liberal, everyone's liberal.
And you have to deal with uh hearing FDR and the new deal is great, and now the new thing is climate and climate change.
Aaron, how old are you out there?
I'm 20 years old.
Twenty years old.
God bless you.
God love you.
Have the guts to at least know you're being lied to.
I uh well, I've I've had good teachers.
I've had you to listen to my whole life.
I have my father's diehard fan of yours, and he's gotten me into you, and I I've become addicted to uh conservative talk and conservative thought and everything.
Well, here's the thing.
Here's the thing, and if you uh if if this ever happens again, I'm sure it will, because this is one of the most propagandized subjects in uh in school.
I have never said the earth isn't warming or cooling, because I think it's always changing.
I always the thing I disagree with is that we're causing either.
We don't have the power.
We simply just do not have the power.
And furthermore, Aaron, progress is what they are blaming for causing all this disaster.
Progress progress.
Progress.
We have a bunch of demented people who think stop and think of this for a second.
Here is their vanity.
And I I'll give them for this argument, I'll give them props uh and I'll I'll cons I'll just concede the notion that they actually do believe this, that they're not part of the uh ideological kabalb uh cabal that that's trying to propagandize this.
Some people duped and truly truly believed this.
If they do, look at their vanity.
Whatever length of time human beings have been on this earth, our time on it can be measured smaller than a grain of sand.
Smaller than a grain of I mean, microscopically smaller to greatest.
That's how insignificant the world's population At any one time is.
Or you can narrow it even further.
That's how insignificant in the complexity of the universe, including this planet and its climate, that the population of the United States is.
And yet these people in their vanity believe somehow that the environment as it is now, when they happen to be roaming the planet, is pristine and perfect.
And that it must not change.
The environment must not change.
This is pristine.
Now, how absurd, how silly, how how utterly vain to believe that.
And how utterly stupid to believe that something as complex as simple day-to-day weather, which changes, and that we have no say-so over.
How can they believe that something far more complex than just the day's weather, the entire climate, is constant and should never change.
And if it is change, it's a crisis, it's changing it's a crisis.
And then blame it on us.
I mean, you've got you got so many people in this in this hoax.
You've got some who really believe, I mean, it's almost religious like that God is the environment.
We better not mess with it.
We better not tamper with it.
It must not change.
Then you've got the ideological hoaxers who are responsible for creating the kind of people your teacher and your so and her husband, the scientist are.
And I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, Aaron.
They could just as well be uh intellectually aware of what's going on here that they're participating in a hoax because they're just liberal hacks.
But not everybody believes in this is an ideological liberal hack.
Some people really do think the polar bears are going.
They're really scared to death over this.
Is what's, I think one of the near criminal things about this is the I mean, this is terrorism.
This is jihadism, environmental jihadism that is being perpetrated on the people around the world for a political belief.
A quick timeout, we'll be back and continue in mere moments.
From the files of the climate research unit at East Anglia University of East Anglia, it is an email from Seth Borinstein, the associated press science writer.
Hey, Kevin, Mike, and uh Gavin.
It's Seth here again, attached as a paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research today that Mark Morano is hyping wildly.
It's in a legit journal.
What you think?
Seth.
So the AP is calling these guys, emailing them.
Hey, how do I deal with this?
It's in a legitimate journal.
How do I deal with this?
The fight over global warming science is about to cross the Atlantic.
A U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA.
Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said that NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data, going as far back as the 1930s.
I assume that what is there is highly damaging, Horner said.
These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this.
The numbers matter under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states.
NASA later changed the data again.
Now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first with 1934, slightly cooler.
So everybody's making it up.
Everybody's making it up all over the place.
They're just making it up.
And it's it's it's this is pure ideology.
It is nothing other than ideology that's behind this.
It is just so hard to make people understand that.
People want to continue to look at this in the realm of science, because that's how it's been presented.
For example, people want to say, well, how do they explain the fact that it got warmer and it got cooler long before the industrial revolution?
They do that with the medieval warming period and the hockey stick, and they say that there was no medieval war, and they're making it up.
They're making up to say it didn't happen.
That the previous conclusion, and they found one tree, one tree ring with rings in the Siberian Peninsula to prove it.
I mean, that there's there's nothing ever anything like this, folks, in its scope of fraud and And pure hoax.
And it's not even, it's not even about the science.
Even one of these emails from Phil Jones, look at I'm not a politician.
I'm not an ideologue.
I'm a scientist.
I just want this to work out because I want the theory to be true.
Well, I don't believe that he's not an ideologue.
I don't believe he's not a leftist hack.
But what he's doing isn't science.
I just I just want it to work out because I want the theory to be true.
Well, yeah, I'd like to be able to fly on my own.
There's a lot of things I would like to work out that are physically not possible.
And this is one of them.
What these people are saying they have been all discredited.
And yet they're circling the wagons and they're headed off to Copenhagen, and they are going to.
I mean, there are stories I have in the stack today, 200 limousines, 140 private jets flying in.
The food the hypocrisy is all over the place.
But you see, if you bring this up to these people, they well, uh, we are the uh really esteemed learned scientists attempting to save the world.
Yeah, you're trying to save the world from the damage caused by your trip there.
Well, we are entitled.
Um we have purchased uh carbon offsets uh to handle the carbon uh footprint that we have made here.
We're uh investing in a company owned by Al Gore to plant trees.
And still, to illustrate my four corners of deceit, how science, the academy, education, government, and media have been corrupted and are part of the four corners of deceit.
The mainstream media knows everything about this.
They're just not reporting it.
It doesn't fit the template.
It doesn't fit the storyline.
They're running around saying, hey, 62% of the American people still believe in man-made global warming.
Yeah, they do probably do, although Het Rasmussen says it's not quite that high.
Okay, to the audio sound bites, I've been putting this off long enough, but there really are some good ones here.
Harry Reid, Sunday, had a press conference, said this about Republicans regarding health care.
They are in a different universe, talking about this bill being for illegal immigrants, this bill running up the deficit, which is absolutely false.
This bill running up premiums, absolutely false.
Republicans are being destructive.
They want this to be, as one senator said, President Obama's Waterloo, and it's not going to be.
Let me tell you something.
Senator Reid, you just lied through your teeth there.
You are living in a universe different than ours.
Yours is the universe of lies.
This bill is for illegal immigrants.
I mean, there's no question it's for illegal immigrants.
This bill will run up the deficit.
Everything government does runs up the deficit.
It will run up the price of premiums.
There's no question it will do that.
President Obama's Waterloo is if this passes.
Not if it fails.
If this passes, well, actually that's not correct.
It's America's Waterloo.
If this passes.
Now this number, listen to this.
This sounds absurd to me.
Yesterday, Friday, 14,000 people lost their health insurance in America.
Today, Saturday.
Another 14,000 people will lose their health insurance.
And Sunday and Monday and Tuesday and on and on.
American people don't get weekends off this injustice.
Bankruptcy doesn't keep bankers ours.
They don't go away just because it's Sunday or Saturday.
The pain's still there.
And so our work continues this weekend.
And it'll continue until we give this nation's citizens a health insurance system that works for them.
14,000 people every day lose their health insurance.
Now, where's that number come from?
Snatched out of thin air.
I don't even want to accept the premise.
Some people say, well, how many people get health care insurance?
I don't even accept the premise.
He can't prove the number.
14,000.
How in the world does anybody know this?
It's not possible to know.
I'll tell you something else.
His health care bill does not insure the uninsured, even after 10 to 15 years.
It doesn't happen.
Now let's go back, shall we?
January 31st, 2008, in Los Angeles, during a Democrat debate between Hillary Clinton and Obama.
Obama made this promise.
That's what I will do in bringing all parties together.
And not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together and uh broadcasting those negotiations on C SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are.
Because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process.
Yesterday, President Obama met with Democrats only in a private meeting.
It was not on C-SPAN.
There is no transparency in this administration.
Let's move on now to uh some interesting sound bites uh over the timeline withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Let's go back last Tuesday night in West Point.
Did you realize, by the way, that the cadets were required to be in their seats for three hours before Obama's speech began for security reasons?
Three hours.
They had to sit there before his remarks on Afghanistan began.
At any rate.
Here's what he said about getting out in 2011.
These additional American and international troops will allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.
Sunday morning, various Sunday morning shows.
We have a montage.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates denying that Obama set an exit strategy for Afghanistan.
We're not talking about an exit strategy or a drop-dead deadline.
We're not talking about an abrupt withdrawal.
I don't want to put a deadline on it.
Okay.
Yes, we don't have an open-ended combat commitment.
We will have a hundred thousand troops there.
And some handful or some small number will begin to withdraw.
We think we have a strategy that is a good integrated approach.
I don't consider this an exit strategy.
A firm deadline.
There isn't a deadline.
What we have is a specific date.
It's not an arbitrary time.
Let's be clear.
The date in July 2011 to begin thinning our troops and bringing them home is firm.
It's very hard for any of us to be armchair generals.
Okay.
Uh July 2011 is not a deadline.
It's not an exit strategy.
Let's go back and play Obama again.
Soundbite number four.
You've heard this montage.
No, 2011 doesn't mean anything.
No, it's not an exit.
No, no, no.
We're going to start thinning the hermit.
All right, so what's the story?
Well, let's go to Anriya Mitchell, NBC News in Washington.
She was on MSNBC this morning, and she was talking to Scarborough.
She said this about the White House and their exit strategy for Afghanistan.
They don't want to communicate.
The real decision.
The decision is there's an exit strategy.
They don't want to say that.
There is a clear glide path out.
How do you know that?
From talking to people very high up.
So you've you've talked to people at the White House, and they're saying we understand we put out our two hawks this weekend, but don't listen to anything they say.
Once they put it out there, it's clear that there's an exit strategy.
So there's Andrew Mitchell saying that people of the White House saying, don't listen to Hillary and don't listen to Gates.
I mean, there is an exit strategy.
That's what she's being told by people at the White House.
And then there was this over on Stephanopoulos' show.
He had Gates on there, the Secretary of Defense.
When was the last time we had any good intelligence on where bin Laden is?
I think it's been years.
Years?
I think so.
So these reports that came out just this week about a detainee saying you might have seen him in Afghanistan earlier this year.
No.
We can't confirm that, no.
No intel in years on...
I guess that's because we don't have any gravediggers out there looking for the body.
That's what I that's just me.
By the way, Mike, stand by on audio soundbite number 18.
Harry Reed, ladies and gentlemen, has compared Republicans who oppose health care as being no different than people who supported slavery.
It happened today.
Senate Majority Leader Dingy Harry took his GOP blasting rhetoric to a new level today, comparing Republicans who oppose health care reform to lawmakers who clung to the institution of slavery more Than a century ago.
The Nevada Democrat and a sweeping set of accusations on the Senate floor.
Also compared health care foes to those who opposed women's suffrage and the civil rights movement, which largely were Democrats in his party.
Even though it was Senator Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat who unsuccessfully tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957, it was Republicans who led the charge against slavery.
Senate Republicans on Republicans Monday called Reed's comments offensive and unbelievable.
But Reed argued that Republicans are using the same stalling tactics employed in the pre-Civil War area era.
I don't understand why somebody up there just doesn't blast him.
The Republicans can't stop anything.
He doesn't have his 60 votes yet.
That's his problem.
He needs some Republicans to change their side of the aisle to get his 60 votes because he doesn't have them.
And I frankly, I with all the arguments they're having over abortion, illegal immigration, and a public option, unless they're really going to give these Democrats that are wavering a billion or two billion a year to buy them off.
I I I don't know how they're going to compromise on this by Christmas.
I really don't.
I in fact, there's now a saying, uh, ladies and gentlemen, the uh the media and observers that the tone is changing, and they expect the bill to pass.
Really, the tone is changing.
Harry Reed's out there comparing Republicans to the same kind of people that opposed uh the supported slavery.
The tones changing.
You start throwing around accusations like that.
I mean, I you you're not you're not firing on all cylinders from a position of confidence and strength, are you?
It doesn't seem to me.
Somebody needs to get in his face and say, look, it was your party that stonewalled the Civil Rights Acts of 57 and 64, it was your party that stonewalled getting anything done about slavery.
Your party's all those Democrats in the South that wanted to preserve it.
All those Democrats in the South, why do these Republicans speak up for crying out loud?
Because this is something half the country believes.
Erroneously so.
I detest these people some days.
I genuinely detest them.
There's not one syllable of honesty that's coming out of any Democrat on either of these two major pieces of legislation all year long.
The whys, every day you get up to another set of lies.
Global warming of this, it's all a fraud, it's all a hoax.
Manufactured crises.
Lear, listen to this.
Thomas Friedman, who, by the way, with the New York Times, columnist, uh, foreign affairs columnist.
He is a columnist on foreign policy.
Do you know that he showed up at the jobs summit?
He was in one of the work groups of the job summit, and Obama sat right next to him and talked to him for a long time.
So last Thursday night, he's on Campbell Brown on CNN.
And she said, give me your take on this uh email scandal at global warming, uh, if we can call it that.
What what has it done to the credibility of the environmental movement overall?
Now listen to the now.
Remember now, to set this sound bite up.
There was a consensus of scientists.
There was no doubt.
In fact, we're almost to the point of no return.
No doubt, we are destroying the climate.
We are heaving this planet up to the point that it's our last chance.
A consensus.
Now listen to his answer.
I found some of those emails disappointing, right?
In the kind of way in which it seemed that they were trying to keep certain research out, you know, of the discussion.
But here's my take on it.
Maybe it isn't 90%, like some of the skeptics say.
Maybe it's only 80%.
Maybe it's 50%.
But you know what that means?
There's a 50% chance.
See, when you put that CO2 in the atmosphere, it stays there for about 3,000 years.
So if we keep putting it there, and it stays there for 3,000 years, and it does start raising temperatures, it's gonna be hot here, Campbell, for a long, long time.
Bottom line is that the risk is still there.
What if they said it's just a 10% chance?
What if I told you there's a 10% chance if you keep smoking, you're gonna die of cancer?
Still reason enough to be able to do that.
That's exactly right.
Why look at how more far we have tumbled.
From a consensus to hell, even if it's only 10%, we can't afford not to act.
That's a risk of a risk.
I mean, here we maybe it's it.
Maybe the skeptics are right.
Maybe it's only 90%.
Maybe the science only 80% sure.
Maybe it's only 50% sure.
Maybe it's only 10% sure.
That can we risk that 10%.
Now he just threw his own scientist under the bus here and has resorted now to a new argument.
A new argument based on a wild guess predicated on fear.
And this is exactly how I heard it in 1984.
This scientist named Oppenheimer, Oppenheimer, I forget which, on this week with Brinkley.
We can't prove it yet, David.
Well, we've only got 20 years to find out.
Can we take the chance?
What if we're right?
That's what they've been reduced to now.
I mean, it's just.
People have no shame.
They should be im Friedman ought to be embarrassed to show up at the next golf course member guest golf tournament he goes to.
And by the way, for Thomas Friedman, it is simply impossible scientifically for CO2 to stick around in the atmosphere 3,000 years.
You know why?
Nature gobbles up 50% of all the CO2 we produce every year, no matter how much.
When we produce five times as much, nature will gobble up five times as much.
And you know why?
Because life on Earth loves CO2.
All plant life depends on it, as do we, for them to convert it back to oxygen so that we can freaking live.
▲
Export Selection