All Episodes
Previous Next
March 31, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
March 31, 2014, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings to you and welcome back, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plane.
Your guiding light, Rush Limbaugh from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Great to be with you, folks.
Telephone numbers 800 282-2882, the email address L Rushmow at EIB net.com.
Okay, a miniature fire storm here because of Michael Lewis on 60 Minutes last night, claiming that the stock market is rigged by a combination of the stock exchanges, the big Wall Street banks, and high frequency traders.
And high frequency traders are what he focused on in an explanation.
Answer to a question, Steve Croft said, What how does uh how does high-speed trading, high frequency traders, what's that all about?
And this is what Lewis said, and this is what I am going to translate for you.
The insiders are able to move faster than you.
They're able to see your order and and play it against other orders in ways you don't understand.
They're able to uh front-run your order.
They're able to identify your desire to buy shares in Microsoft and buy them in front of you and sell them back to you at a higher price.
It all happens in infinitesimally small periods of time.
Their speed advantage that the faster traders have is milliseconds.
Sometimes fractions of milliseconds.
But it's enough for them to identify what you're going to do and do it before you do it at your expense.
But drives the price up, and in turn, you pay a higher price.
Okay, now that sounds okay.
They're able to learn because of computer programs what you're going to do before you do it, milliseconds, act on it, and but many people say, okay, so big deal.
I mean, I'm going to buy it at X. What what difference does it make if they know that or not?
I uh I consulted uh uh financial expert that I rely on oftentimes to to help make sense some of this stuff, uh Lord Rosso of Cross Harbor.
And essentially what this is the high frequency traders are buying a stock before you do because they're able to know you're going to buy it.
This did not used to be the case.
Uh the SEC, it used to be that every order on Wall Street was was published.
So everybody was equally aware or was able to equally aware, know what buy and sell orders were, what prices were.
And the SEC came along and said, you guys, you're a monopoly, and they busted it up, so uh this has led to for lack of a better explanation, much more unique competitive market, because it wasn't a monopoly, but the SEC said it was.
So the bottom line here is is that the high frequency traders with their computer programs are able to know what you want to buy and the price you're willing to pay for it before you do.
They buy it before you do, and you and they're selling it back to you now.
You don't know this.
And they may be making pennies on these transactions, but there are billions of them every day is the point.
Maybe fractions of a penny, but they're doing it so often that they make billions of dollars.
Since they see your orders before they they see your order, the computer program allows them to see that.
They know what you want to buy and what price you're going to pay for it, and they're able to see yours and everybody else's orders.
And they also have access to the futures markets this way.
They have an advantage that no individual trader does.
And they do this on both sides.
They do it on the buy and the sell side.
So they're they're they're ahead of you by milliseconds, and they're making fractions of a penny on each of these transactions, but there are so many of them that it adds up.
The profit per trade is minuscule.
It's so small that nobody is even willing to point it out.
Because if you if you tell somebody, yeah, you know what, they're beating you to the punch and they're they're buying it first and selling it, but You're actually buying it from them.
You're buying it from other buyers that you're in competition with, but you don't know that.
They do.
You're buying it from them.
The high frequency traders.
Who are the high frequency traders?
The Wall Street banks, the exchanges, and so forth.
They're the ones that have the in.
They have access to data that you don't, essentially, is what this is.
They're able to know in advance whether a stock is in demand or not.
And to capitalize on it, buy or sell side.
And this is what Lewis claims, Michael Lewis claims is a rigged market.
That you do not have access to this data.
And even if it were to be pointed out, as I am, the profit per trade is minuscule.
It's not enough for anybody to get upset about.
It's not you're not losing out on the deal.
It's just you're being used.
Your desires, your intentions to buy or sell are being used for other people to profit.
Think about it this way.
If how many how many of you have brokers that tell you, hey, I've got a I've got a sure bet here.
It's the XYZ widget company.
You come in now, six months from now, it's gonna be blah-ball.
Imagine if somebody could actually do that, but not in a six-month time frame, but a second or two-second time frame.
They are able to know the direction a stock is going to go before it gets there, and they put themselves in the stream to take advantage of where it's going.
On both the buy and the sell side, and they're using data, their computer programs produce for them that you don't have an individual trader does not have.
They're not gonna be equal.
They're not gonna make sure every other trader has this.
Now that's even before you get to quantitative easing.
That's that's that's before the Federal Reserve deciding to prop up the Obama regime.
This is just an explanation of what Michael Lewis means by the stock market being rigged.
Some people call it front-running, been around for uh for for a while.
Uh, and you might say, well, it's somebody gonna crack down on this.
Well, the SEC might crack down on it, but the last I heard the SEC was too busy watching porn.
Remember those stories from a couple of years ago, they were watching porn on their computer terminals at the SEC.
But look at this is here's another way uh of explaining this.
That the these traders with this inside data might not just depend on orders.
They could figure out what you're gonna do for metadata.
That sounds familiar to you.
The metadata that's in all of your phone calls.
Do you know there's metadata?
Whenever you take a picture, there's metadata.
I'm sure many of you do.
But you you you snap a picture on vacation, that picture, if you take it on a s on a cell phone, or a late model, or SLR, everything about that picture, where it was taken, the time of day, the various uh aspects of the exposure itself.
But it's you can take a picture of just an aimless blank desert landscape, and that picture will tell somebody where it was.
Latitude, longitude, all of that.
The metadata in in all these transactions is uh is profound.
But it's it's basically just people knowing what you're gonna do before you do it, and able to put themselves in the way.
Up or down.
And they're able to do it on so many transactions each day that by the time it's all over, they're up billions of dollars.
And that's what he means by the stock market being rigged.
Okay, I'm gonna take a timeout.
We're gonna come back, get started with phone calls, but uh and we will get into them March 31st, the deadline for Obamacare, what a joke it is.
A reporter, by the way, an Oklahoma reporter, rendered Kathleen Sibelius speechless.
An Oklahoma reporter told her how unpopular Obamacare is, and she had nothing to say.
He said to her, at last check, 64% of Oklahomans are not buying into the health care plan.
They don't like Obamacare.
They've been pretty vocal about it.
Now that's going to be still continue to be a tough sell, but we'll see how that plays out over the coming months.
They waited for Sibelius to reply, and she had no reply.
Seven seconds of dead air.
And finally the reporter broke back in to say, okay, Secretary Sibelius, thank you so much for being with us this morning.
I think we've probably lost sound here or something.
No, and she says, no, no, no, I I can hear you, but thanks for having me.
So there was not a technical glitch.
She just didn't know what to say when confronted with the fact that 64% of Oklahomans are not buying it and don't intend to and don't want it.
Because of course, she's been sent out, programmed to speak about how popular it is and how gangbusters it's going.
And when she hears data that's totally contradictory, she's lost.
She didn't know what to say.
I'm checking to see if we have audio of this uh to go with the rest of our health care stack when we get to that.
But your telephone calls are next, and we'll do that when we get back.
No, what I said was that March 31st is gonna come and go, and it's not gonna be a deadline.
You just wait and see.
Nobody is gonna be punished until after the election for not enrolling.
That's that's the bottom line here.
They're not gonna do anything to irritate anybody before the election.
Look, the New York Times has uh at the bottom of a story, Obamacare QA article.
Officials have said they may allow special enrollment periods for other reasons, with all the exceptions and adjustments that insurance executives said open enrollment could go on for the rest of the year.
Bingo.
Open enrollment for the rest of the year.
Open enrollment means whenever you want.
Uh think of it as on demand enrollment.
Popular term with kids in the way they watch video these is on demand.
On-demand enrollment into Obamacare.
The only people I I hasten to point this out, the only people are going to have to do something are people like me, who file quarterly tax estimates, and actually start paying next year's taxes on April 15th.
Whether we enroll or not, we're gonna be paying penalty or insurance, what have you.
And that's not very many people.
I mean, it's a lot of people, but percentage-wise.
Uh it's not a large percentage of the people, the country, but it's a big number.
And there is no exemption for them, and it's right there on the IRS form.
Matt Drudge has been through this, and it drive by has refused to see it.
It's right there.
Plain as day on IRS uh Form 1040 E. S. Anyway, all that in detail in a minute.
First, Jeff in Indianapolis.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Hello, sir.
It's a great honor to speak to you today.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that.
Well, I have a uh a reason why the time is so short for uh locating this aircraft that has been missing for what, three weeks now?
Yeah, because CNN's time is running out.
That's right.
Uh the underwater acoustical beacon, which is attached to the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorders as well, uh, have a 30-day limit, so to speak, if they are located underwater.
They are water.
Did you say the underwater acoustical beacon?
Is that what you said?
Yes, sir.
Okay.
So it's got 30-day lifestyle.
It has 30 days before the battery runs out.
And that way they won't be able to find it unless somebody just like happens to stumble across it by that point.
Well, which isn't gonna happen 20,000 feet below the sea.
Well, they've got all these warships out there and everything like that.
I I was in the Navy.
Uh they can turn their uh listening devices or sonar and and everything like that on passive, and they can hear this thing if they pass over it.
No, I mean nobody's gonna stumble across it.
It says twenty to twenty thousand feet.
Can I uh here's a question of uh uh I've always had you you sound authoritative on this.
Um battery technology's gotten somewhat better over the course of the lifespan of these flight data recorders and cockpit voice reporters recording.
Why and and knowing that uh uh many of these air accidents takes longer than a month to find the the these boxes.
Why don't they have more powerful batteries in them?
Well, they're they're limited in size, and being in aviation for twenty-seven years uh as a mechanic, uh they the the technology has gotten better.
The flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder has all gone to digital.
Yeah.
Um there's no more tapes or anything like that.
And so the batteries have to keep up with the times.
But like I said, you know, they're limited in space and um they just you know only last for thirty days.
And that's that's basically the only answer I can give you because I'm basically not an expert in the You know, people people ask me, you know, because I'm a uh I'm a noted iPhone expert.
And people constantly say to me, why don't they but you know what I could care less about this feature than give me a battery and it's gonna last 24 hours.
Maybe a battery lasts 48 hours before I need it.
Why don't it do that?
And the th you know the fact of the matter is when it comes to lithium-ion batteries, we are pretty much at the maximum capability we can get out of that type of battery.
There's not a whole lot you can do other than get a bigger battery.
So the way uh electronics firms that use these batteries try to maximize battery life is to write operating systems and use equipment that will put as less or as little strain or usage on the battery as possible.
Power management, it's called, and it is a science into itself, the software writing for your average cell phone, and I'm not gonna mention the company that's best at it, but it's well uh to me, knowing the size of a battery in an iPhone and how much they literally get out of that, it's really amazing if people knew.
You know why there are big screen phones?
No.
It has nothing to do with people being able to see them.
You know why all these Android phones have five and five and a half inch battery, uh a screen is because they needed a battery that big to keep the phone on for eight hours.
And you couldn't just put that big a battery in it with a small screen.
So it was the need.
They've got their the Android system just churns battery power.
So they had to create big phones, i.e.
big displays, to put a big enough battery in the thing.
It was it was the need for long-lasting battery power that gave you the big screened cell phones, not the other way around.
It wasn't people trying to build a screen that you could see.
It was people trying to build a phone that didn't run out on you in eight hours that drove big screens and phones.
Thanks for the call, Jeff, appreciate it.
Chris in Memphis.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
I wanted to clarify a little something.
You were talking about the C CBS um 60 minute segment last night.
For a number of years, the high frequency trading firms were completely under the radar.
The big institutional firms didn't even know what they were doing, that they existed.
I have a relative who worked in Chic still works in Chicago for one of those firms that are.
Okay, wait, wait, wait just a second, because I I want to follow your uh y you said um the big institutional firms didn't even know what they were who was they?
The high frequency trading firms when they first started.
Yeah.
It was all under the radar.
They didn't know what they were doing themselves or what other people the big institutional firms really didn't understand what was happening with high frequency trading.
Okay, gotcha.
It was all the the the firm that my relative works for in Chicago, for years they didn't even have a client.
They were just doing this for themselves.
They hired guys out of MIT and Stanford who wrote the algorithms to do all that millisecond stuff where they could sneak in on sales halfway, like they talked about last night.
Right.
Now they figured it out.
That young man, you know, from Canada from the Bank of Canada has figured it out.
But for years they were doing that all under the radar.
The SEC wasn't doing anything about it.
And I kept saying every time I talked to my relative, when are they going to understand what you guys are doing?
Because I can't imagine they're going to think it's okay once they get it.
And now they figured out a way to put the high frequency traders so they don't have the um the advantage they had for probably at least a decade or close to it.
Okay, hang on just a second, because I I uh I have one more question for you.
Now we are back with uh with Chris in Memphis, Tennessee.
Now you you you just said that the high frequency guys are getting away with it long before everybody discovered it.
Now everybody's discovered it and they don't have the advantage they used to have for at least a decade, right?
If what the young guy from the Royal Bank of Canada said last night the the program they've developed is true, then yes, the high frequency traders have lost the big advantage they had.
Well, but not entirely because individual investors, the only way they can access high frequency trading is if they're in a mutual fund or something that's that's being run by people that do that, right?
That's true now.
It wasn't initially.
Initially those guys were doing they were doing it just for their own the benefit of everyone in their firm, but like I said, they had no clients.
There was a f there was a firm in Chicago, and I believe one in the city.
This is this is all about eliminating fractions, folks, is what this is.
Yeah.
And the the way it would happen, the end of the day, your run tab uh if if if uh if something was was uh less than a penny in value, they just round it up and add it.
And nobody and never anybody would ever see it.
Like point six cent would be credited as a full cent.
It's got rid of fra and the SEC came along, okay.
You can eliminate fractions, we can deal in pennies, we can go fractionless.
Everybody did, gave birth to this.
And but your point now is that everybody's doing it, so nobody has an advantage in it anymore.
No, no.
I'm saying that that now that it's understood, they've figured out the the like the j the one guy was show at figured out a way to slow the whole thing down so they can't step in in the middle of a big buy like the explained last night and run the price up.
They don't have that ability on those kind of purchases anymore.
Okay, I didn't see the show last night.
You keep talking about this guy from Canada.
Did some guy in Canada figure a way to slow it down?
Is that what you're saying?
Yes.
Yes, uh a young man from the Royal Bank of Canada.
Uh and yeah, I'm sure he was working with other people, but they figured out that if you slow the whole process down for the institutional firms, then the high frequency traders don't have their advantage anymore, at least like they did.
And so after watching the show last night, you are of the opinion that it's no longer an advantage for anybody.
No, not that it's not at all, but not like it was for those private.
There was a pri they were private firms who wanted to stay completely under the radar.
They're not publicly traded or anything.
And I think the first one was profiled in the Wall Street Journal was in about 2006 or seven.
And they were already eight or nine years old then.
So for a number of years, and all they're doing is writing algorithms to make make their trades go faster and faster.
Right.
Getting themselves in the buy and sell stream long before an order was actually placed.
Yes.
But now they've been sort of found out, and so there's an attempt to help the institutional firms get you know, completely get their advantage back.
Well, then why why wait a second, and why would Michael Lewis on this show last night say the game's rigged?
Well, he he was talking about what had been happening, and he still thinks this the uh Royal Bank of Canada guy seems to be wanting to help the institutional firms get their advantage back.
And uh he so he's still saying that the the game's rigged, now it's back more in that favor instead of the guys who are under the radar.
All right.
Okay.
Okay.
I appreciate Chris.
Thanks, uh, thanks much for the call.
We've got now that sound bite where Sibedious was rendered speechless.
It's Stan Miller, uh, an anchor Oklahoma City Eyeball News, KW TV News Nine, eyeball.
And he's interviewing Kathleen Sabivius.
And this is how it went.
At last check, sixty four percent of Oklahomans are buying into the health care plan.
They don't like Obamacare, and uh they've been pretty vocal about it.
Now, that's going to be a uh still continue to be a tough sale, but we'll see how that plays out over the coming months.
One, two, three, four, five.
All right.
Secretary Sibelius, thank you so much for being with us this morning.
I I think we've uh probably lost sound here or something.
I can hear you.
Thanks for having me.
She didn't know what to say.
I can hear you fine.
She should have shut up and let it be assumed that they'd had a technical glitch.
She didn't know what to say.
This is my point.
She she sent, I'm telling you, she's robot.
She doesn't know any this woman.
I mean, I know she's a card-carrying leftist, but that means she's basically ignorant.
When you get down to brass tags, she's been sent out with this story to tell.
And the story is, oh, yeah, we're up six million people enrolled, and it's going gangbusters, and people have never had insurance before have insurance, and we've never seen anything like this.
And we're so gratified, we're so happy.
Finally, we're bringing affordable health care to all Americans.
Oh, Miss Belius, uh, sixty-four percent of Oklahomans aren't buying into it, don't like it, have no intention of buying into it.
Uh it's gonna be interesting to see how this plays out.
Three, four, five.
She had nothing to say.
Literally nothing to say.
Wonder how many, how many of these high frequency trades were made on the stock market during her six seconds of speechlessness.
Wonder how many billions of dollars were made in that six-second span of time.
Eagle River, Wisconsin.
Hi, Joe, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Nice talking with you.
Um to that articulate black woman who you um referred to at the outset of your program.
Uh I I don't believe in hyphenated Americans.
I I happen to be uh an American of Italian ancestry, and I love lasagna, Pavarotti, and Sinatra.
But I can't stand uh Nancy Pelosi, Andrew Cuomo, and Bill DeBlasio.
It'd be nice if we could uh stop with identity politics and see you have just swerved into what I think is a brilliant point here to make about immigration, if I may.
People like you and your ancestors and all of our ENSA, when they came to this country, they came here for two reasons, essentially.
The first was to escape wherever they were.
The second was to become Americans.
And to become an American meant something specific.
There was a distinct, unique American culture, and people wanted to be part of it.
So let's take your case.
Italian Americans came and they became Americans.
They held on to their traditions, and there were little Italys in various cities around, and and all the vestiges, but they be they were Americans first, not Italians first.
And they were not demanding that America change to accommodate what they had brought with them.
They changed to fit into what America was.
They in essentially were uh assimilating into a distinct American culture that they craved to be part of.
And you, sir, are uh an active lemming, living demonstration of it.
You here are an Italian, but your loyalty is not to Italians, it's to the country and what you think is best for the country.
And that allows you to understand that even though he's Italian, Andrew Cuomo may not be the best thing going.
Or did Bill de Blasio may not be the best thing going, or anybody else that you happen to mention that that you're you're able to draw a distinction, and you're not Blinded by any kind of nationalistic loyalty other than to America.
What's happening with immigration now is there is no desire really to assimilate.
People want to come here and get in on a gravy train, however they define it, work or welfare.
But they are coming here and demanding that America accommodate their culture and change to it.
And the left in this country is perfectly happy with that because they blame America for all the world's ills anyway, and they say it's only fair that we must change and accommodate all of these different cultures because that equals the melting pot, and it doesn't.
Exactly, Rush.
I I would say my mother came to this country and as a young girl with her brothers and sisters.
And though they only spoke Italian when they first landed at Ellis Island, they soon found out that they had to learn English and assimilated very well.
And uh they came through the front door, Rush.
They didn't sneak under a fence, they didn't come through the back door, and and now we uh there's uh I think there's a report today about how uh several thousand uh illegal aliens have been released.
Um have you seen that on the 60 yes, sixty-eight thousand, and it's a blatant attempt by Obama to get votes.
Right.
Yeah, I saw it.
I've got it in the stack.
It's it's coming up as today's uh program.
One one last point, if I may.
Uh I'd like to commend Mr. Snerdley, who's uh a wonderful person from what I can tell from the little bit I know about him, and uh he's a brother of mine, even though he's a black man and I'm a white man, you can't talk about the brotherhood of man without talking about the fatherhood of God.
And I think the way Bishop Sheen said that.
And uh I wish we would stop identifying people by the group they belong to, like the black community, the Hispanic community, as though it's a monolithic uh way of viewing things.
Well, let me tell you, let me tell you something about that.
I happened to speak about three weeks or a month ago to a Republican who is going to seek the presidency.
Name not necessary at this time.
It was uh it was an admitted, agreed to off the record uh conversation.
And he said to me, he said, Rush, the thing that you have to realize is that the Republican Party can no longer win elections simply by turning out its base.
The Democrats can, but we can't.
And I said, I'm not sure that I agree with that.
If you go back to 2012, there were four million Republicans that didn't vote.
And had they turned out, we'd have beaten Obama by two million votes, and they were by definition Republicans, i.e.
the base.
And and I said, I and he spelled out the way he was going to seek uh advancing his career, and he's gonna have a message for this group and that group, and say, you know what it's uh this is the problem, this is why I don't understand your business.
And I I'm not in your business.
I don't I'm not getting votes, and you are, I'm getting listeners.
And I can it takes uh they're totally different approaches.
I said, I'll just tell you, if if I were a candidate, I wouldn't do this group thing.
I wouldn't have a message for this group or that group.
I just have to say we're Americans.
It's like you just said.
And you know what he said to me?
He said, Rush, we're just gonna have to admit some things.
Americans are now organizing themselves by group, and they are expecting to be treated and approached as such.
And so what I heard was that uh we are gonna have to moderate the way or modify the way we go after, and we're gonna need a tailored message for every different group, geographical or racial or what have you, as Republicans, if we are to get, and he said, I don't need every one of them.
If I just get 10% of every one of these groups, we got a landslide.
Which is true, by the way.
It's just that the the approach I once if you have a message for women, single women, that's a Republicans uh Democrats own single women, so we come up with a message to single women.
Well, what if that message happens to offend married women?
Or what if it what if it offends men or what have you?
No, no, it won't, Rush.
It'll come up with it because it's all going to tie together into one America the way the way we're gonna do it.
And I said, well, good luck with that.
I hope it can happen, but you start tailoring uh and this guy's very smart, by the way.
When you start tailoring messages like this, I guess that's what people in politics think you have to do to get votes.
And since I've never gotten a vote for well, take it back.
I I was elected to the Senate at Missouri Boy State when I was a teenager.
I actually went to Boyst that was elected to the Senate there.
And you know why?
Because I reminded them that they had not left enough time in the administrative day for lunch.
And that got me the votes.
That put me I'm not kidding.
It put me oh put me over the top.
Anyway.
Uh Joe, I appreciate the call.
You sit tight, my friends.
We got much more straight ahead right after this.
Don't go away.
So I get this note from a friend of mine.
What do you mean?
You don't get votes.
Your book is getting votes as we speak.
And I had to say, oh yeah.
That's absolutely right.
The children's choice book awards is underway.
The voting is underway until May the twelfth.
And I am up for author of the year in that uh prestigious.
You know that the People's Choice Awards for bo uh uh TV shows and movies.
This is the children's choice book awards.
And I, L. Rushbow, honored to have been nominated.
It's it's based on sales, and the readers, the children vote.
And it started uh March 25th and runs to May 12th.
And the website CC Book Awards, children's choice, CC Bookawards.com.
We've linked to that site at Rushlimbaugh.com.
Here's David in Provo, Utah.
You're next.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Russ.
It's an honor to speak with you.
I'm 27.
I've been pretty much raised on your voice, and now I'm raising my son the same way.
Well, I'm flattered.
Thank you much.
Um, so Rush, I'm I'm calling to talk a little bit about global warming.
I'm a geologist, and I'll tell you one thing that's very interesting uh about you and your analysis of global warming.
I mean, absolutely no offense when I say that um you don't necessarily grasp a lot of the science behind it when you're trying to explain a lot of things, but you seem to always come to the right conclusion just based on the people supporting it and the you know fiasco of T. And all those kinds of things.
Well, I appreciate that.
He's basically saying my instincts are so right on, I don't even need to know what I'm talking about.
I'm right anyway.
Yeah, and that's what you're saying, right?
I may not know what I'm talking about, but I'm right anyway.
Yeah, exactly.
But I I just wanted to this guy's a big fan.
Stop and think of that.
Yeah, yeah.
So I I just wanted to give a little bit of insight onto just a couple things that you've been saying uh recently.
One of the things where we talked about, you know, what is normal on temperature and what is the average, and you try to you know say what is 60 years ago.
We think that the average is something in our lifetime.
And as a geologist, one of the things we look at is the history of temperature through time, and while the farther back through time you go, the less accurate our our uh estimates are.
We do have ways of estimating the changes in temperature uh millions of years back.
And it's what's interesting is that today we're actually geologically speaking still in an ice age.
Um there have only been about five ice ages in all of Earth's history, and we're technically in one now because we have significant polar ice caps.
And and so that's just something interesting to say, is that it's been much warmer for most of Earth's history than it is today.
Well, it doesn't I I wouldn't object to that.
In fact, I would add something to it.
Um, you know, the the uh women told the science on global warming is settled.
Right.
And all they're using is computer models.
They're not using any empirical data.
Folks, every prediction on global warming is based on a computer model that is simply nothing better than whatever the input data is.
But I've got this story here.
Researchers find five previously undetected greenhouse gases.
They've never been detected before.
So how could it be settled science if we've just found five new previously undetected greenhouse gases?
And does this mean it's even worse than we thought, or not as bad as we thought.
Well, I'll answer that question, even though I don't know what I'm talking about when we come back.
We got a break here, folks.
We see you in just a few minutes.
▲
Export Selection