All Episodes
Previous Next
June 8, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:16
June 8, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying.
Very simple reason why I'm right.
Telephone numbers 800 and documented to be almost always right now, 99.6% of the time.
A thrill and delight to have you along with us today, 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, Rass Mussins out today.
Most voters still believe that President Obama more liberal than they are.
Just 25% say they share the same ideological views as Obama.
24%.
Only 24% say they share Obama's political views.
And of course, they try to tout the leader of the regime as some massive centrist.
54% of likely U.S. voters think Obama is more ideologically liberal than they are.
That would be a majority.
Folks, do not believe anything you read or hear that Obama is unbeatable.
He is a man further and further isolated from the mainstream of this country.
And if there were a smidgen of mainstream media reporting along those lines, it'd be over for him now.
Of course, there won't be.
They're circling the wagons for the guy.
24% of the American people, likely voters, 24% say their political views are about the same as the president's.
24% of the country's socialist liberal.
We have not lost the country, folks.
It only is being made to appear that way, but we haven't.
In virtually any poll that I see on Obama issues, a clear majority opposes him.
In some cases, up to 60% and higher when it comes to the health care bill.
24% share Obama's views.
The number of voters who say they share about the same political views as the president ties the lowest result measured since August.
And interestingly, compares exactly with the number who say the same thing in Congress.
Yesterday on this program made it clear the McKinsey survey, the consultancy management consultancy firm pointing out that 30% of American employees would lose their health insurance starting in 2014 from their employers.
Wall Street Journal today, Grace Marie Turner, no, you can't keep your health insurance.
Another blatant Obama lie as he was selling Obamacare was, if you like your coverage, now you get to keep it.
You like your doctor, now you get to keep him.
You like your plan, you get to keep it.
No, you don't.
The Wall Street Journal has run some numbers on the McKinsey survey, and it is striking.
78 million Americans could lose employer health coverage starting in 2014.
Obamacare will lead to a dramatic decline in employer-provided health insurance.
As many as 78 million Americans forced to find other sources of coverage in hello government exchanges.
This disturbing finding based on my calculation, Grace Marie Turner, my calculations from a survey by McKinsey and company.
Now, Ms. Turner's president of the Galen Institute, the co-author of Why Obamacare is Wrong for America, published by HarperCollins.
So she's an authorette.
Well, author.
So that puts a number to the 30%.
78 million of you.
I can't say us because I don't have insurance.
But 78 million of you.
What do you, now what are you doing in there?
I'm self-insured.
I buy my health coverage myself.
That's all I mean when I say I don't have it.
I don't have an insurance policy.
When I go to the doctor, I pay it.
I don't.
It's a.
I just made a financial calculation.
I'm not like everybody else who gets up every day and thinks this could be the last.
I don't get up every day and think car wreck that puts me in the hospital for the rest of my life is happening today.
I think so many people have looking at health care as a disaster waiting to happen.
And it's all about a mindset.
I choose not to buy an insurance policy.
I'll save the money.
When I need to spend it, I'll spend it what's required.
Pure and simple.
Are you worried you don't have it?
No.
If I was worried about not having insurance, I'd go get insurance.
Don't worry about it.
I really don't worry about a whole lot other than the country.
You know, but you live in Rielville.
Things are what they are.
Deal with them as they happen.
Speaking of that, OPEC talks broke down in acrimony today after Saudi Arabia failed to convince other members of the cartel to lift production quotas.
This sparked a rebound in global oil prices.
Basically, we're looking here at $100 per barrel price of oil for as far as the eye can see.
And when they made this announcement, the oil barrel price spiked up.
And this is not going to help incumbents.
This is not going to help Obama.
This is going to guarantee high gasoline prices.
The OPEC talks have broken down.
So that is not healthy news for anybody.
But the way the media would look at it, how does it impact Obama?
Not well.
To the audio soundbites, this is why we say this program's on the cutting edge.
On the day after, when everybody left and right was panicked that killing bin Laden made Obama a shoe-in.
Remember this?
Osama was killed by Obama.
And our side, oh, no.
Well, they were glad that Osama was dead.
This is it.
I mean, this is it for us.
This is guaranteeing Obama's re-election.
Remember all that.
Here I came, El Rushball, roaring into the golden EIB microphone to say this.
Killing Osama is not going to change one thing about why people are upset with Obama.
And I'm telling you, they're going to be an uptick in the polls.
Get ready for that this week.
But it's going to pass.
It's going to pass.
And my friends, it has passed.
State control media scratching their heads.
They had Obama re-elected.
They want to know.
We had a montage here.
What happened to the bin Laden bounce?
President Obama appears to have lost his post-bin Laden bounce.
President Obama has lost his bin Laden bounce.
Obama got a boost in the polls after killing bin Laden, but those numbers have come back to earth.
The bin Laden bounce, not so long lasting.
The president losing the bounce.
Any laurels that he might have rested upon following the death of bin Laden have certainly been pulled from under his feet.
The president has lost his post-killing of bin Laden bump.
The political bump that the president received after the killing of Osama bin Laden has totally evaporated.
The bin Laden bounce and it was gone.
The bounce came and went.
It's gone.
Gone.
But you didn't need to wait for the montage today to know because I, Il Rochebo, told you it wouldn't last.
And anybody with any common sense would have been able to tell you this.
Bob Beckel, this morning on the Fox Business Networks Varney and Company, Beckel and Varney were talking about the economy and so forth.
And Stuart Varney, who I like, I like Stuart Varney.
He said, you can't tell me what Obama's economic policy is going to be, can you?
You can't tell me.
Right now, there's very little he can do about it.
The markets are supposed to do this.
Now they're sitting on a record number of cash and they're not doing it.
Banks could be lending and they're not doing it.
And I'm suggesting there's a conspiracy between the business and the banking community and the Republicans to ensure that Obama does not have good economic news.
Right.
So now it's a conspiracy between the banking community and business community and Republicans to ensure that Obama does not have good economic news.
Not much Obama can do about this anyway, Beckel says.
The markets are supposed to do this.
Let's go to CNNMoney.com.
J.P. Morgan Chase, CEO Jamie Diamond, still griping about financial reform.
And this time he took his complaints to Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve.
I don't personally buy the argument that because it was a financial crisis, it has to take a long time coming out, Diamond said in a Q ⁇ A session following a speech by Bernanke at the International Monetary Conference in Atlanta yesterday.
Now, in his speech, Bernanke acknowledged the economy was below its potential following a recent onslaught of negative economic news, including a disappointing jobs report and weaker than expected economic growth.
Diamond blames financial reform for stifling growth.
He gave the Fed chairman a laundry list of ways that regulators have already cracked down on the banking system after the Dodd-Frank financial reforms were passed last year.
He said, most of the bad actors are gone, off-balance sheet businesses, virtually obliterated, and most very exotic derivatives are also gone.
Diamond, who is known for his vocal opposition of many of the Dodd-Frank reforms, said that he fears that these reforms may be hindering rather than helping the recovery.
This is what you need to learn, Mr. Beckel.
It is this regime and its policies, the Democrat Party, which are retarding the recovery of our markets and of our economy by design.
Now, in a nutshell, let me translate this for you.
That's what we do here.
We make the complex understandable.
In a nutshell here, Jamie Diamond complained to Bernanke that the Dodd-Frank reforms are stifling credit and economic growth.
Now, you remember, if, oh, yeah, Diamond's a big Obama supporter.
They all were big Obama supporters.
They're all.
They're all of these guys.
You know, this is why we really have to redefine SMART.
There's all these financial wizards, crony capitalism.
Yeah, they saw Obama was going to win.
Get in bed with him.
But now they've got to live with the result of it.
And now they're getting blamed for not lending money.
They're not lending money because nobody in small businesses got the guts to borrow money because they don't know what the rules are going to be.
They don't want to take on new debt right now.
I don't know if you've heard it or not, folks, but there is a move out of cash even.
People in terms of investing, getting out of cash.
A month ago, cash was king.
Yeah, I know.
A month ago, cash was king.
Now people, I'm not sure.
They see what's happening to the dollar, any number of things.
Some people going back to real estate, some people are buying gold.
It's just nobody knows what to do.
Thirdly, this is the whole thing.
This is why everybody did.
There is no magic bullet.
There is no single thing you can do to preserve your assets, or everybody would be doing that one single thing.
There's mass confusion and a lot of insecurity out there.
Now, what, again, I'm back to Diamond here.
Diamond was complaining to Bernanke that all of these reforms, the financial regulatory reform bill, Dodd-Frank, was stifling credit, i.e. lending, and thus economic growth.
Now, Bernanke conceded, get this now, this is to redefine smart, Bernanke conceded that no one thought to gauge what effect Dodd-Frank and other regulatory reforms would have on credit and growth.
They said it's too complicated.
Bernanke said it's too complicated.
Never mind.
Tight credit is the one factor everybody points to as being the biggest drag on the economy right now.
Now, no one in Congress or the regime bothered to consider what effect their regulations would have, just like they don't bother to consider what effect tax rate increases or any other regulation will have.
They do not score things dynamically.
They don't take into account human behavior in reaction to these new policies.
They just look at people as sheep who will robotically follow along with the new regulations, whatever they happen to be.
No one in Congress or the regime bothered to consider what effect these Dodd-Frank reforms would have.
Now, to me, this is unreal.
And a perfect example of why we're in the fix that we are in.
So now here you have two of the big guns, Jamie Diamond, Ben Bernanke, arguing with each other about who's responsible for all of this.
You've got to throw Tim Geithner in here, too, because he's part and parcel of it.
Now, for the Wall Street Journal, Bernanke, recovery remains uneven.
U.S. economy should pick up in the second half, 2011, despite recent signs of weakness.
Ben Bernanke said Tuesday the economy's recovery remains uneven.
Bernanke said while he expects economic growth to rebound, he acknowledged that conditions, particularly in the labor market, remain troubled.
Have no clue.
In the meantime, Obama is now pledging, or very close to pledging, to bailing out Greece.
President Obama yesterday urged European countries and bondholders to prevent a disastrous default by Greece and pledged American support to help tackle the country's debt crisis.
So apparently what Obama wants to do is make U.S. taxpayers borrow more money from the CHICOMs and the Middle East so that he can then give it to Greece.
That way the Greeks won't have to cut their social justice spending too drastically.
That's what this is all about, saving the European socialist model in Greece.
And all of us are going to be paying for it.
And we don't have the money, as everybody now knows.
So we Americans will get to work until we're 75 to pay for Greeks who retired at age 45.
Do you believe this?
Bail out Greece.
Or at least participate in it.
Sit tight, my friends.
El Rushbo and the EIB network.
Back after this.
Grand Body O soundbites 30, 31, 32.
We've got the NPR soundbites that I was describing to you earlier.
On all things considered, Monday.
What?
You don't have them.
You do have them.
All right, grab them.
All right, so we got these NPR soundbites.
And it was funny.
They had their historian in there, and I'm sure they thought that the historian was going to come in there and rip Sarah Palin a new one, and it turned out to be just the opposite.
Monday night, NPR is all things considered the co-host of Melissa Block.
She's talking to Suffolk University History Department Chairman Robert Allison about Palin and blah, blah, blah.
Block said, let's review Paul Revere's midnight ride.
April 18, 1775, he's going to Lexington.
According to Sarah Palin, he's riding his horse through town, sending warning shots and ringing those bells.
Is that right?
He is telling people so that they can ring bells to alert others.
What he's doing is going from house to house, knocking on doors of members of the committees of safety saying the regulars are out.
That is, he knew that General Gage was sending troops out to Lexington and Concord, really Concord, to seize the weapons being stockpiled there, but also perhaps to arrest John Hancock and Samuel Adams, leaders of the Continental Congress who were staying in the town of Lexington.
Church bells are ringing throughout the countryside.
He also was a bell ringer.
That is, he rang the bells at Old North Church as a boy, but he personally is not getting off his horse and going to ring bells.
He's telling other people, and this is their system, before Facebook, before Twitter, before NPR, this is the way you get a message out, is by having people ring church bells, and everyone knows there is an emergency.
So Sarah Palin, she was saying that Paul Revere's message to the British and his warning was, you're not going to take American arms.
Basically a Second Amendment argument, even though the Second Amendment didn't exist then.
Yeah, she was making a Second Amendment case.
But in fact, the British were going out to Concord to seize colonists' arms, the weapons that the Massachusetts Provincial Congress was stockpiling there.
So, yeah, she is right in that.
I mean, she may be pushing it too far to say this is a Second Amendment case.
Of course, neither the Second Amendment nor the Constitution was in anyone's mind at the time.
But the British objective was to get the arms that were stockpiled in Concord.
She never said it was a Second Amendment case.
She never used those words.
She just talked about Paul Revere warning to British, you're not going to get our arms.
We're ready for you.
And so the hostette says, so you think basically on the whole Sarah Palin got her history right in this.
Well, yes, she did.
And remember, she's a politician.
She's not an historian.
And God help us when historians start acting like politicians, and I suppose when politicians start writing history.
Well, I don't know what that means.
God help us when historians start acting like politicians.
But regardless, yeah, yeah, she did.
She got it right.
Yeah, she did.
She got it right.
Do you think that was NPR's purpose?
I don't know.
I kind of doubt that it was NPR's purpose.
ABC News has done a poll in Egypt.
Actually, Gallup has ABC reporting it.
New survey by the Gallup organization, public opinion in Egypt, you know, big democracy uprising there, Arab Spring and all that.
Gallup found a deep-seated skepticism about American meddling and aid for Egyptian political parties.
They're not happy with us in Egypt.
They don't admire President Obama.
It's not like we were told during the uprising.
A man, a legend, a way of life.
Learn it.
Love it.
Live it.
Back to the phones.
Highland, Illinois.
Annette, great to have you with us.
Hello.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
I am, I have the answer for you about why Republican women and a lot of women don't like Sarah Palin.
And I'm probably going to cause World War III here, but it's a numbers game because Sarah Palin is a 10.
And anyone I found that's below an eight can't stand her.
And it's women are women first and Republicans and conservatives second.
And the women that I talk to are so jealous of her.
And I don't see them that way with Michelle Bachman, but I don't, you know, I don't know that Michelle Bachman has what Sarah Palin has.
I love Sarah Palin.
And I find that when I bring this up with women, they're just insanely jealous.
Really?
Yeah.
I mean, they're just because they can't give me a reason.
And I see it in other areas.
And now it doesn't matter if they're conservative or they're liberal.
They're like eaten up with jealousy.
And if you look at Sarah Palin, she's beautiful.
She's smart.
No matter what anyone says, she's smart.
She's got a nice-looking husband.
She's got beautiful kids.
She's got a lot of integrity.
And women do not like women who have it all.
They just don't.
Unless they're really secure.
If they're really secure, then they do.
But every woman that I find that is real negative about her, when I ask them what it is about her, they can't put their finger on it.
And then I have to take a good look at the woman.
And if she's not above an eight, she hates Sarah Palin.
Well, now, wait a second here now.
The eights and tens and all this is a little subjective.
What may be an eight to you might be a six or a five to somebody else.
Well, sure.
So like in my book, you know, if I look at someone and that's how it's perceived, I mean, they just, they just are really, really jealous.
And women are like that.
The starting point here is, the starting point here is with these women that don't like Palin, in their minds, she's a 10.
Yes.
Right.
And they aren't.
Whether they're an eight or a one, they're not a 10.
Right.
Because if Sarah Palin was really ugly and she had cankles and stuff, they wouldn't hate her so much.
I'm just telling you from a woman's perspective, that's how women think.
Now.
Now.
Interesting you bring this up.
There's no win here.
I thought I had a couple of questions here to prove the point, but there's no winning this.
Well, what do you mean?
Do you feel like I put you on a zombie?
I'm thinking of Democrat women.
And your theory is applicable there.
Because you don't find on your 1 to 10 scale, you just don't find a whole lot of threats there.
Right.
And I find that.
In the way you claim that Palin is a threat being a 10.
I mean, let's be honest.
You just don't see it over there on that side.
No, and that's what I'm saying.
In fact, I think, remember, undeniable truth of life number 24, as written by me in 1987, feminism was established in order to permit unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.
That's one of the primary functions of feminism.
And the men who don't like her, I find that the men who don't like her don't like her because they don't have the same even like, well, I'm from a Mexican background, but machismo.
They don't have even what Sarah Palin has.
So she even makes the men, some of the men insecure.
Interesting.
I mean, I have talked to people and looked at this for ever since she started running with McCain.
And during the campaign, I was almost physically attacked by a woman at Target because she had Obama all over her car.
And my husband was in Iraq, and I had a sticker on my car.
And she started picking on me about it, about the war.
And she started commenting about Sarah Palin.
And I'm, you know, I said, well, what don't you like about her?
She couldn't even put her finger on it.
She's just like, I just hate her.
And she just really got in my skin.
So I take it, this woman in Target was not a 10.
No, she was about a three.
And I said to her, I said, I think you don't like her because she's really attractive.
And my 20-year-old son literally had to get in between she and I because she was coming after him.
I'm telling you, that's what's at the root of this.
Women are very caddy unless they're secure.
So what do you like women?
What do you have it all together?
What you're saying here is that it's Palin envy.
Absolutely.
Like Pelosi.
Pelosi is the closest thing the Democrats have to affect.
That's how desperate it is on that side.
You're right.
Yeah.
She's kind of nutty, but they don't have anyone who compares.
I mean, who?
Seriously?
Rachel Maddow?
I don't know.
Hillary Clinton?
I mean, and I find the same thing with Ann Carl.
No, but you see, on the left, that's precisely my point.
On the left, being a one or two is the resume enhancement.
It's the badge of honor.
It is because there's so much sympathy and feeling sorry for people over on that side of things.
Well, and when people say stuff to me about Palin, because they know I like her, when I say to them, you know, if they'll say, well, why do you like her?
I have a lot of reasons I like her.
But if I say, she is really hot, and I'm married, I'm a heterosexual, but she's a beautiful woman.
And if I say, you know, she's really hot, they stop.
They're done.
No more conversation.
Are you, what are you?
You look in the mirror.
What are you?
Well, my husband better say I'm a 10.
Okay, so you're a 10, so you're totally.
No, I'm not a 10.
My husband better say it, but I'm not a 10.
I don't know.
I mean, I don't rate myself.
I don't really, I think if I looked at myself that way, I would be like a lot of other women and not like women who were 10s.
You know what I'm saying?
Yeah, but you like Sarah Palin, who is a 10.
Right, but that's because I don't really compare myself to her.
I like her, you know, and I'm happy with myself.
So I don't have that comparison going on.
I mean, if I look at her, I say she's better looking than me.
She's got it all together.
She's smart.
But I want someone in office who's smart and more charismatic and who has it all together.
I want someone who's got it more together than I do.
Hmm.
I'm just thinking, you know, if it's too bad I don't have a Twitter account or I could have this woman send me a picture or a tweet.
I'll tell you something.
Folks, if you've not been with this program since the outset, let me give you a little history.
Thanks, Annette, for the phone call.
Now, this is all kind of amusing to me because when we're talking about presidential candidates, I couldn't care anything less other than policy.
That's all that matters to me.
I really, you know, policy, energy, enthusiasm, passion, those are the things that matter to me, clear as a bell.
Everybody got all caught up in the historical nature of Obama's candidacy, first black president, perhaps.
Okay, fine.
Get over that after the first day, because what matters is his ideas to me.
The rest of the stuff is just a distraction.
It doesn't matter to me.
And Palin, to me, her appearance is irrelevant to whether or not I would support her as a candidate.
But I'm probably, I know that I am in a really small minority when it comes to that.
But for me, I mean, we're at crossroads time in this country.
This is like I said yesterday, this next election is going to be about what kind of country we are.
Are we going to be a socialist European country?
Are we going to be a capitalist, market-based, free economy?
I mean, that's what this next election is going to be.
And if somebody comes along and is able to articulate what I believe in a persuasive manner and genuinely believes it, then that sign me up.
I couldn't care less what they look like.
But I do remember, for those of you who have not been with us from the get-go, way back when one of the criticisms of talk radio was that it did not appeal to women, that issue-oriented talk radio did not appeal to women.
That they wanted to talk about carrot cake recipes and kids, soap opera updates, and that kind of thing, which, of course, is not what I do.
And the powers that be, we would huddle and we'd come up with ways to try to make the program interesting and attractive to women.
And I said, well, no, we got a basic problem.
If you're telling me that they don't like issues, then there's nothing we can do because I am not going to talk about carrot cake recipes and I'm not going to talk about kids and I'm not going to turn this program over.
I'm just not going to become Oprah.
I'm not going to do it.
So we came up.
We came up with a plan here to introduce this program to more women.
And it was very simple.
Women who wanted to appear on this program as callers had to have a photo of themselves on file with us.
We required every woman before she could ever appear to have a photo on file.
My mother was alive.
Oh, God, did I get in trouble?
My sister-in-law, I mean, we were at the bar at the Carlisle, and I forget who the artist was, some pianist and singer.
And family's screaming at me in there one night.
The point we had to move because it was interrupting the performance of the musical artists.
Sister-in-law was in my face.
Why would you do this?
Thing is, it was responded to one of the most successful things that we've ever undertaken.
Women started sending their pictures in droves.
Women in California would go out, pose on rocks on the beach.
Snerdley was in charge.
Snerdley was in charge of the cataloging operation.
That's exactly right.
And, yeah, what was that, Snerdley?
What was his name?
Mario Snerdley.
And Bo got into constant arguments over who would have first cracked the mail.
And I'll tell you, we were being inundated.
We were being in cataloging all these women and making sure that they were on file.
And we instituted the policy.
And for what?
What?
It lasted about a couple of months.
And it worked.
I mean, when it called, and then they'd go on hold, we said, do we have your picture here?
And they'd say, well, yes.
And we'll give the information from them.
We'd go find it and file.
And if we indeed found the picture, we put them up.
Now, none of the women who sent in pictures had a problem with it.
Not one.
But the women who didn't send in pictures thought it was the most demeaning thing.
They thought that it was just as improper as anything they could imagine.
Demeaning, insulting, and all of these things.
They accused me of a cheap way of hunting.
Yeah, you know, I guess you could say I was the forerunner to Wiener, except I never wrote back.
Anyway, it caused a lot of problems, but it did alert a lot of women to the existence of the program.
And it did work.
It functioned as was a brilliantly conceived and flawlessly executed plan.
But I'll never forget some of the responses to email I was getting from women.
You know that the unattractive ones aren't going to sit in their pictures.
You know that.
So those of us that aren't attractive, we don't have a chance.
We don't have a prayer.
So I was being accused of discriminating against.
And Annette here has just reminded me of that great period in our program's past.
All right, a brief time out, my friends.
We'll be back.
We will continue after this.
Don't go away.
Skank, I'm telling you, skank.
Don't, don't.
Now we're having arguments about things here.
Back to the phones.
Back to Mike in Hanover, New Hampshire.
Welcome, sir, to the EIB Network.
Great to have you here.
Thank you, Mr. Limbaugh.
Hi.
I was actually quoted by you yesterday.
I was the person who asked Mr. Romney at the town hall meeting about his position on global warming.
And you, unlike almost everybody else, actually did me the courtesy of quoting some of my questions before you gave the answer.
Anyway, I read the transcript that you provided.
I read the transcript of your show yesterday and just had a few comments on it.
Go ahead.
Fire away.
Well, sir, first of all, let me first, by the way, here's his question.
This is the guy who asked Mitt Romney at his announcement meeting.
The question was, nearly all other candidates suggest that there's no scientific consensus on climate change.
Some insist it's not even occurring.
We can't have a meaningful discussion about solutions until there's agreement about the problem.
Will you, sir, state now that under a Romney administration, global warming will be accepted as reality, and this reality will form the foundation for all climate energy policies?
That's the question, and you're the guy that asked it.
Right, right.
Prior to that question, Hall, however, I provided a bit of context.
If you do, don't mind.
I'd like to read that piece to it.
First of all, I wanted to specify the difference between policy and science.
I said that how to deal with climate change is a policy issue.
The science of climate change is not.
And my question was not about policy.
That is, how do we mitigate global warming?
Do we do carbon cap and trade or carbon credits or whatever?
But it was about the recognition of the science.
And I specifically quoted from a 2010 National Academy of Sciences report, and two quotes here.
The first is they concluded, and by the way, the National Academy of Sciences, as you know, is considered the Supreme Court of science in this country.
It was founded in 1863 by Abraham Lincoln, and it's charged with giving the Congress unbiased scientific information.
Now, their conclusion was, quote, a strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.
Then they've lost all credibility.
It's a bogus claim.
Let me go on.
They then went on to say, some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested and supported by so many independent observations and results that the likelihood of subsequently being found wrong is astonishingly small.
This is the case for the conclusions that Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very, very likely due to human activities.
And then I asked my question.
So that's the context for the question.
Your response was that there was evidence even the last year, see, that last year has established that this whole premise of man-made global warming is a hoax.
Right.
And I don't know where you're getting the hoax from, sir.
I mean, I'm looking at...
Well, it's called the University of East Anglia at England, the Hadley Climate Center, where they basically made it all up, pure and simple.
It's a hoax.
There's nothing true about it.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
National Academy of Science also vouched for global cooling back in the 1970s.
And any science that needs a court is not a science.
▲
Export Selection