All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 24, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:41
December 24, 2009, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Now look at me.
In the real world, in the real world, a media existing in the real universe would be tracking down Al Gore wherever he is and be demanding an interview.
They would be demanding to ask him about the rigged science, the phony science, and the hoax that he has built his post-political career on.
Actually, it's not post-political, it is purely political.
His post-elective career on.
The media would be hammering him or should be, were they operating in the universe of reality.
He should be hounded until he grants interviews.
When he refuses to grant interviews, the media in the real world will be telling their audiences, their readers and their viewers, that they have tracked Al Gore down, they know where he is.
They would also say, now we know why Al Gore never lets the media in to one of his lectures or the showing of his movie or his slideshow or whatever it is, he never lets the media in, and he doesn't take questions, and he doesn't do interviews.
Unless it's at the Academy Awards or on Saturday Night Live.
A comedy show.
Is this going to happen?
No.
Nowhere near the truth will the media get.
They rely entirely on their existence in the universe of lies.
James Dellingpole, UK Telegraph, if you own any shares.
In alternative energy companies, I should start dumping them now.
The conspiracy behind the anthropogenic global warming myth has been suddenly brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia's climate research unit, aka the Hadley CRU, and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet.
When you read some of those files, you realize just why the Boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential.
As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be the greatest in modern science.
These alleged emails, supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing man-made global warming, suggest conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims, and much more.
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L. Daly, one of the first climate change skeptics and founder of the still waiting for greenhouse site, commenting, in an odd way, this is cheering the news of his death.
But perhaps the most damaging revelations, the scientific equivalent of the telegraph's MP's expenses scandal, are those concerning the way warmest scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
And they give samples of the emails.
Uh which we'll link to this story at Rushlinbaugh.com.
I don't want to read all these emails.
Some of it does contain scientific data, it would be boring to hear.
Just read them for yourselves and you will see exactly what's being discussed here.
The Wall Street Journal, Global Warming with the Lidoff.
The two Ms have been after the CRU station data for years.
If they ever hear there's a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send it to anybody.
We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.
So wrote Phil Jones, director of the Hadley Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, and one of the world's leading climate scientists in a 2005 email to Mike.
Judging by the email thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Penn State Earth Science uh Earth System Science Center.
We found this nugget among the more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week after the CRU's servers were hacked, and messages among some of the world's most influential climatologists were published on the Internet.
The two MMs are most certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKittrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and the codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact checking the published conclusions.
That's a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and scientific service.
Mr. Jones did not return request for comment, and the university said it could not confirm that all the emails were authentic, though it acknowledged its servers were hacked.
Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating.
The uh the journal goes on to provide more information and excerpts from the emails.
They conclude thus, for the record, when we've asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing viewers, he has said he won't dignify that question with a response.
Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way, but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions for the record, too.
Our purpose isn't to gainsay the probity of Mr. Mann's work, much less his right to remain silent.
However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics.
In the Department of Inconvenient Truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress, and other investigative bodies.
It sure as hell does.
And the media ought to be trying to find Al Gore this minute and to have him explain this.
That would be happening.
If all of that could four corners of deceit, Snerdly, they're all corrupt now.
Media, academia, science, government, the four corners of deceit.
The thing is, as I said yesterday, this doesn't surprise me.
Because I know who liberals are.
I know that liberalism is a lie.
I know liberals have to lie about who they are, what they believe, and what their agenda is.
They have to look at what other movement needs a wordsmith to tell them how to say things which are not true to make people believe them, as in George Lackoff rhymes with who the hell has people like that?
Who needs a wordsmith to tell people how to put together statements and write legislation that essentially has yes meaning no?
Who needs that?
Frauds need that.
People filled with deceit.
People who are trying to fool us every day need help in doing it.
From professionals.
Honesty is the last resort, and it is seldom used by anybody on the left.
Go to the audio sound bites.
Now we go over to the universe of lies.
This afternoon, President Obama press conference with the Indian Prime Minister.
Here's a portion of Obama's opening remarks.
We've made progress in confronting climate change.
I commended the Prime Minister for India's leadership in areas like green buildings and energy efficiency, and we agreed to a series of important new efforts.
A clean energy initiative that will create jobs and improve people's access to cleaner, more affordable energy, a green partnership to reduce poverty through sustainable and equitable development, and a historic effort to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels.
With just two weeks until the beginning of Copenhagen, it's also essential that all countries do what is necessary to reach a strong operational agreement that will confront the threat of climate change while serving as a stepping stone to a legally binding treaty.
The President of the United States has just said in an internationally televised press conference that he is going to continue seeking a resolution to a problem that doesn't exist.
There is no man-made global warming, but it doesn't matter because he exists in the universe of lies.
And man-made global warming is only a means to an end to him.
It is simply a way to once again chip away at the size of this country And the wealth of this country, and to make sure that he is able to enact legislation that will allow him to raise everyone's taxes so that he can begin even more redistribution of wealth.
It's just a mechanism, like all liberal ideas are.
They are dressed up in flowery compassionate language to hide the deceit, the insidiousness of their real intentions.
This is mind-boggling.
Mind boggling.
It's a hoax.
It has been totally made up.
It's been known since Thursday.
This is Tuesday.
The President of the United States, in an internationally televised press conference, says we got to move further and we gotta get closer to Copenhagen with a working agreement.
We gotta confront climate change.
There isn't any.
The whole concept of climate change is a fraud.
Because climate changes constantly.
And we're not responsible for it.
We don't have that kind of power.
We can't do it.
If somebody says make it warmer tomorrow, you can't.
Somebody says make it colder tomorrow.
You can't.
Somebody says make it rain tomorrow.
You can't, and yet to listen to these people, we're doing all of that, and you're doing it so fast that we are going to destroy our climate.
It's a hoax.
It's a fraud.
There is no climate change.
There is no global warming.
There never has been any man-made global warming.
How else can it be said?
And now he continued another portion of his opening remarks at the presser today.
To that end, Prime Minister Singh and I made important progress today.
We reaffirmed that an agreement in Copenhagen should be comprehensive and cover all the issues under negotiation.
We resolved to take significant national mitigation actions that will strengthen the world's ability to combat climate change.
We agreed to stand by these commitments with full transparency through appropriate processes as to their implementation.
All this builds on the progress that we made in Beijing, and it takes us one step closer to a successful outcome in Copenhagen.
What?
Progress in Beijing?
What progress?
We didn't accomplish anything.
All that happened was he bowed down to the Chinese prime minister and let the Chicoms run the show over there and basically tell him and told him to take your Copenhagen thing and stick it where the sun don't shine.
Because we're a developing nation and we're not going to penalize ourselves.
Go ahead and penalize yourselves if you want.
Leave us alone.
By the way, you owe us 1.6 trillion just for this year.
Don't forget that.
That's what he was told.
Progress in Beijing.
We reaffirmed agreement in Copenhagen should be comprehensive.
We resolve to take significant national mitigation actions that will strengthen the world's ability to combat climate change.
There is no climate change.
Folks, this is as easy to understand as members of Congress writing checks for money they don't have in the House Bank scandal.
It's a scientific hoax.
It exposes the fraud and deceit that exists throughout the left around the world.
How about some job creation?
I have a job creation idea.
Practically every textbook used in American education is filled now with lies about global warming.
Those textbooks are going to have to be destroyed and rewritten with the truth.
Think there might be some jobs available there?
Everything about this issue in your kids' textbooks, from wherever it starts at grade school all the way up to the university level is a lie.
That your kids are being taught and for which you're paying tremendous thousands of dollars every year and semester.
All these textbooks are filled with lies.
All these movies are now known to be based on a fraud and a lie.
Al Gore's books, his movies, his photoshopped pictures of the earth.
All lies.
Not real.
Based on a hoax.
And they did not get scammed.
Everybody involved knows it's a hoax.
They are knowingly perpetrating it.
Gore knows it.
Phil Jones knows it.
Michael Mann knows it.
Anybody involved in this knows they are perpetrating a hoax.
Nobody got fooled here.
None of the leaders, anyway.
You might have some rogue, naive little scientists out there who got confused about it, but real scientists.
Real scientists, the ones who should be respected, are the ones who questioned this.
That's what real scientists used to do.
But we have political scientists masquerading as science scientists, advancing an agenda that they know is a lie.
Just like the people behind this health care bill know that everything they're saying about it is not true.
It will not lower costs.
It will not improve access.
It will not improve quality.
It will raise taxes.
It will force you to give up freedom and put you in jail if you resist.
Nothing is real about health care.
Nothing is real in the cap and trade legislation.
Nothing is real about the stimulus package.
Nothing is real about the TARP bailout.
All of it is fraudulent.
It's all a hoax perpetrated by the left, knowing full well it's a hoax.
Dressed up as something compassionate and emergency required to save something, either jobs, or the entire financial system of the world, or whatever other threat will wipe us all out tomorrow if we don't act tonight.
It's all a hoax.
Everything the Democrat Party is behind today is a fraud and a lie aimed at separating you from two things your freedom, your property, and your money.
Now, Obama's press conference today had nothing to do with Afghanistan.
Yet here's the first question from CBS Radio's White House correspondent Mark Noller.
Mr. President, I suspect you don't want my colleagues and I to rely on leaks until next week.
So I'd like to ask you about why why stop now?
Well, perhaps you'd like to help us set a new uh stage in our relationship by telling us where you stand on your decision on Afghanistan.
You had what we were told was your final meeting last evening.
Can you tell us how many more troops you'll be sending to Afghanistan, how you'll be paying for them, and whether you'll be announcing a uh timetable and or exit strategy for them.
And here's Obama's answer.
I will be making an uh an announcement to the American people about uh how we intend to move forward.
Uh I will be doing so shortly after eight years.
Uh some of those years in which we did not have, I think, either the resources or the strategy to get the job done.
Uh it is my intention to finish the job.
Uh and uh I feel very confident that when the American people uh hear a clear rationale for what we're doing there and how we intend to uh achieve our goals, uh, that they will be supportive.
This man is really small, really tiny.
Once again, after eight years, some of those years in which we did not have, I think, either the resources or the strategy to get the job done.
It is my intention to finish the job.
This is a small man, folks.
This is a small and petty, spoiled little man.
Dick Cheney.
Grab audio soundbite number four.
Dick Cheney was on the radio out in Fargo, North Dakota.
Question, it's been over a month.
You spoke of Obama putting politics over security.
Now, late November.
Has this move from dithering to dereliction?
I. So Cheney hammering back.
Actually, that was, and that's I think that's why Obama had to get in his dig today, because Cheney was this was uh this was yesterday in uh in Fargo, North Dakota.
But this is a tiny man.
This is this is a small cold, petulant little man.
Oh, yeah, this country is all screwed up till I got here.
Eight years, Bush Cheney screwed up the world.
I gotta go in there, and I have to be finished the jobs.
My intention.
He has no clue what he's doing.
In matters uh like this.
But he's the president, and this is what we have to deal with.
I wouldn't be surprised if he calls uh like a national address to the nation to announce how he is going to finish the job.
All right, brief time out.
Phone calls when we come back from the break, I promise you.
All right, I have another question, and then this question is gonna irritate some people, which is why I am asking it.
Have you ever remembered a big White House state dinner during Thanksgiving week?
A uniquely American holiday.
You remember do you ever if any president ever tried a hijack Thanksgiving week with a state dinner two days before Thanksgiving?
I'm I'm surprised he didn't do it on Wednesday night.
Or Thursday night.
Indian Prime Minister must have to get back home and deal with the nukes in Pakistan.
By the way, we know how many troops Obama's gonna send.
His administration's leaked the number, 34,000.
What did McCristol want?
Sixty?
Sixty at least forty, forty or sixty or whatever.
Whatever.
He didn't get as many as he asked for.
It's a compromise.
It's compromise.
And the story I have here is from McClatchy.
President Obama met last night with his national security team to finalize a plan to dispatch some 34,000 additional U.S. troops over the next year to what he's called a war of necessity in Afghanistan.
U.S. officials told Bucklache.
Obama's expected to announce his long-awaited decision on December first, followed by meetings on Capitol Hill aimed at winning congressional support amid opposition by some Democrats who are worried about the strain on the U.S. Treasury and whether Afghanistan has become a quagmire.
The U.S. officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the issue publicly, and because one official said the White House is incensed by leaks on its Afghan policy that didn't originate in the White House.
Well, where the hell did this one come from?
They leaked it.
They leaked it and then they get all upset about leaks.
Speech on December 1st, nationally televised uh address to the nation.
It is uh is being rumored.
All right, to the phones as promised, we start in Sacramento.
Hi, John, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Gulf War One veteran uh dittoes to you, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
I'm so glad you talked about Afghanistan because I'm gonna use that to support my two points that I want to make about climate change.
But as I was on hold, I was also thinking about I don't want to make points just to make points and to be, you know, offended and to feel righteous.
So I want to tie that in with an umbrella summary at the end and tie it into conservatism.
Okay.
All right.
The first point is about the media coverage of this whole situation with climate change.
As you said, and as we've seen, they're saying, you know, shame on those people for for you know doing something illegal and hacking in and or supposedly legal hacking in and finding the truth.
You know, that that's the spin.
Those people were bad, bad, bad, right?
Forget about the truth that was that's on display that there's this massive, you know, fraud going on.
It's the people that there wasn't any fraud because all this stuff is subject to freedom of information requests, which they were denying.
Excellent.
So, but that's the spin, and they're gonna try to push that.
You know, you're criminal for doing that, but that ties into um, you know, uh my point was that also ties into uh health care.
Shame on uh us for digging so deep to find out the truth about health care, and then about Afghanistan, which I wanted to get to.
Shame they they're saying shame on the crystal for being a whistleblower and going Behind the president's back when he did that, looking at the human toll in good conscience and said, I have to say something.
Okay.
But the spin is shame on the crystal for for for whistleblowing and coming out with the case.
Right, shame on the crystal for undermining our wonderful young president.
So there's this theme.
You apply it to the health care bill, you apply it to Afghanistan, you apply it to to uh climate change, which brings me to my second point.
You had said earlier that this is the biggest thing to come down the pipe and you know pike in a year.
I believe that it is tantamount or equal to um the exposing uh the fact that the world was not in fact flat.
It is round.
There was such a uh movement to to uh uh discourage people to discover the fact that the world was round because everybody knew it was flat.
I think it's equal to that.
I agree with you.
I I I think it it's it's as big.
I don't know if the flat earthers uh were running a political scam back then.
Well, the money was tied to the shipping and it was tied to the to the to the you know to the uh the currency of the time, you know, trade and whatnot in their little chunk of the world, so it had to have been in part political.
I think you had you had to get favor from from royalty to get finances to go to be able to afford to take a ship and go somewhere.
That's true, that's true.
That's uh it's an excellent point.
Well, we have th John, thanks much for the uh for the call.
We have uh a a late dispatch here from nature.com, storm clouds gather over leaked climate emails.
The online publication of sensitive emails and documents from a British climate center is brewing into one of the scientific controversies of the year, causing dismay among affected institutes.
The tone and content of some of the disclosed correspondents are raising concerns that the leak is damaging the credibility of climate science on the eve of the UN climate summit in Copenhagen.
Many scientists contacted by nature, doubt the leak will have a lasting impact.
But climate skeptic bloggers and mainstream media have been poring over the posted material and discussing its contents.
Most consist of routine email exchanges.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Many scientists contacted by Nature, the magazine, doubt that the leak will have a lasting impact.
They're just gonna circle the wagons and wait for time to blow over, and they're gonna count on the mainstream media to not report it.
They are gonna hope to contain it in the new media, which they will then say has no credit.
The new new media is a bunch of extremists, bloggers in their pajamas and stuff.
The new media, that these people are just extremists.
That's where you're gonna hope to keep the story contained, and so far they're doing a good job of it.
The UK, it's out in the mainstream media more so than it is here, but it's not in the mainstream media here at all.
In any way, shape, manner, or form.
And in Brooklyn, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Good afternoon, Roger.
Thank you for taking my call.
Yes, sir.
Um, the way I see it, Rush, uh, this is an administration that lives in a world where perception is always reality, that the facts aren't relevant, it's the perception of everything, and the way that they have so much of the media in their pocket, it just helps them complete that flight of hand.
Right.
Well, uh they're part of the four corners of deceit.
When you say perception is reality, it means create an illusion.
And let the illusion be perceived or or presented as reality.
It's it's whatever it is.
They are a bunch of frauds.
And by the way, this there this this uh started last week.
This uh gotta look at the cost there or going into Afghanistan, you know, we gotta really be worried here about the budget deficit.
Uh sending too many troops over there, why it could cost us fifty billion dollars.
Uh I don't know uh if we can afford that.
Fifty billion dollars after this administration and the Democrat Party have run up a deficit this year alone of one point four trillion, and they now say all of a sudden, oh no, we can't go to Afghanistan.
Uh costs are too high.
Uh we have to be more prudent in our spending.
It's not gonna work out there.
We can't We can't do it that way.
And David Obi.
David Obi yesterday proposed a tax on the American people to pay for any new troops that go to Afghanistan.
I saw this.
He's calling it the Share the Sacrifice Act.
It's a six-page bill.
It exempts anyone who's ever served in Iraq or Afghanistan since the 9-11 terrorist attacks, as well as families who have lost an immediate relative in fighting.
But, but the Obi Bill, middle class households earning between 30,000 and 150,000 a year would ask or we be required to pay 1% on top of their tax liability today.
A more sweeping approach than many Democrats have been willing to embrace.
A 1% tax on everybody from 30,000 to 150.
Now he's not exempting the rich.
They're going to pay too.
What he's doing is including the middle class.
And I thought, well, you know, rather than feeling sick to my stomach, I almost got a wave of optimism.
I was out there saying, thank you, Lord, for our enemies.
A Democrat plan, a public Democrat plan to push an additional tax on people making as little as $30,000 a year to fight Obama's war of necessity.
Because it's irresponsible spending.
And if we're going to spend it, then the American people have better be prepared to pay for it.
Let that news circulate far and wide.
Let the concept of tax increases for people making 30 grand a year get tied with Velcro to the Democrat Party.
Be right back after this.
Folks, I don't mean to be a one-trick pony today, but news keeps breaking on this uh on the hoax of man-made global warming.
This has been a uh passionate subject of mine for well, all 21 years I've been doing this show.
We've started doing environmentalist wacko updates with Earth First.
I have known this to be the uh the repository for displaced communists after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the the fall of the Soviet Union.
Uh I've known this is all a hoax.
I I I've just I can't have scientifically proven, of course, but I never even gave these people the benefit of the doubt because I know who they are.
I know the kind of people they are.
I know to what lengths they will do to advance their agenda to take away from people their freedom, their liberty, and their property, and that's what all of this is about.
Chris Horner at the American Spectator Blog today, on behalf of the competitive enterprise institute, I filed three notices of intent to file suit against NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies for those bodies' refusal for nearly three years to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding climate gate scandal, revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries' freedom of information laws and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies.
Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leak emails, computer codes, and other data from the climatic research unit at the UK's East Anglia University.
All of that material and that sought for years by CEI, the competitive enterprise institute, go to the heart of the scientific claims and campaign underpinning the Kyoto Protocol, its planned successor treaty, cap and trade legislation, and the EPA's threatened regulatory campaign to impose similar measures through the back door.
Anyway, so there's legal action being taken now by an American freedom group, the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
So and don't forget NASA has this guy James Hansen, and he's every bit the fraud that these people at Hadley are.
Now, one of the one of the focus points of these emails, and I don't have time nor the inclination to read them all in specific detail, but I have Sent up to Coco Jr., the webmaster, a link to post on our website where you can access all of these emails and documents, and as a citizen journalist, you can do the job.
The media that lives in a universe of lies refuses to do.
You can find out what this is all about and see it and read it for yourself, because they are not going to show it to you.
Now, what this one of the many things that this is really all about.
I mentioned this man's name before, Michael Mann.
He is one of the quote scientists, unquote, involved in the tree rings scandal, and the famous hockey stick upturn in temperatures, which has been shown to be a hoax, a lie.
The hockey stick graph showing temperature rises.
It's made up.
It uses incomplete data.
So the tree rings scandal is another total fraud.
A lot of the emails at the Hadley Climate Research Unit are about fighting the Freedom of Information Act requests about this and doing damage control.
They do not want what they have been doing to be seen.
It would blow the lid off what they've been doing.
This is posted in Environment.
September 29th of this year.
A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers.
At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record may need to be revisited with significant implications for contemporary climate studies.
The basis of the UN's climate panel assessments.
A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British Climate Research Center, CRU, University of East Anglia.
In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.
At issue is the use of tree rings as a temperature proxy.
Using statistical techniques, researchers take the ring data to create a reconstruction of historical temperature anomalies.
But trees are a highly controversial indicator of temperature since the rings principally record CO2 and also record humidity, rainfall, nutrient intake, and other local factors.
In particular, since 2000, a large number of peer-reviewed climate papers have incorporated data from trees at the Yamal Pensant Peninsula in Siberia.
This data set gained favor, curiously superseding a new and larger data set from nearby.
The older Yamal trees indicated pronounced and dramatic uptick in temperatures.
How could it be?
Scientists have endured or insured much of the measured data used in the reconstruction remains a sea.
Anyway, they used all of this tree ring data to show that cold medieval times were actually sizzling hot.
They used the tree ring maybe the opposite was sizzling hot, it was actually very cold.
I forget.
They used the tree ring data to alter the historical record about temperatures during the medieval times to advance their whole notion of man-made global warming.
And that's one of the primary focuses.
And people, there's a guy in Canada, and I just mentioned his name.
His name is McIntyre.
And he has been trying for eight years to get this information, to find out how they have been jury-rigging and doctoring the data, and he's been unable to uh to get it.
Much of the uh the Yamal tree data was cherry-picked.
The implication is is clear.
And so uh they're doing everything they can to try to get these in this these documents to find out how these these guys at Hadley are coming to their conclusions, and the guys at Hadley, these emails back and forth.
How can we hide the data?
If we have to, we'll destroy it.
A lot of people don't know that there is a Freedom of Information Act law in Great Britain.
And so we don't want anybody to find that out.
So don't talk about that.
I mean, these guys are clearly the scientists are clearly conspiring to see to it that their doctored fraudulent lying ass data is not uncovered.
Pardon my French folks.
This just burns me.
I cannot tell you.
Let me make this very simple and understandable.
These tree rings, the trees, the Yamal trees in Siberia, that form the basis for revising the 2,000-year-old temperature record.
The number of trees used were three.
The global warming scientists used the rings of three trees, and they cherry-picked those three trees to prove what they wanted to be, or to indicate what they wanted to be able to prove.
And they ignored other trees which did not establish what they were trying to prove basically.
Three trees.
That's all they could find.
▲
Export Selection