Limbaugh fill-in Belling: "There is no global warming going on," it "stopped in 2001"
July 07, 2009 1:59 pm ET
From the July 7 edition of Premiere Radio Network's The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Has he been kidnapped? Is he too distraught over Micahel Jackson's death to do his show anymore? Is he quitting...?
Has he been arrested...again?
Is he having cosmetic surgery...again?
Is he getting married/divorced...again?
I think I saw this one.
Doesn't Beck make a cameo as a sleestak?
Anyone can take GOP bullet points and read them for Dittoheads. Heck, I could substitute for Rush, read from the prepared sheets, and pick up the fumble.
Why even have a human do a robot's job in this case?
As you pointed out, Bush dropped the ball in Afghanistan so he could go play Conquering Hero in Iraq. If we had concentrated those efforts on Afghanistan all these years, who knows what progress might have been made there?
Point out where Joe Biden's daughter made any hypocritical statements concerning drugs.
I will be generous and allow you another shot at explaining Rush's hypocrisy. Go!
Try again, fishergirl.
They try, bless their hearts, but the results are always embarrassing.
It wasn't a modest increase in the last 20 years, it was outrageous numbers from the 60s.
Stop looking at an 8 year trend and declaring that it stop warming!!! Don't they realize how stupid they sound (of course not)
trend.
Even -if- there is no global warming, Mr. Belling, we are still sending $700 Billion per year to buy oil from the same terrorists who attacked us. They are using the poor mileage of our SUVs to fuel their terrorist plans, to raise money for their terrorist training camps, to pay for the things they will need to attack us again.
So, even if there is no global warming, Mr. Belling, why are you and so many of the conservatives in this country so intent on funding terrorists?
The top six countries we import oil from are: Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Iraq, in descending order by amount imported. I grant your point that more than half our imported oil comes from the Western hemisphere, but we shouldn't be importing oil. I remember the gas lines in 1973, when the first major shortage hit the U.S. We've known about this problem for some time. Do you seriously expect me to believe that it's liberals who run big oil and the automotive industry?
As for nuclear power, once I have a guarantee that there will be no accidents, feel free to build all the nuclear plants you want. Be aware that without government subsidies, these plants cannot pay back the capital it takes to build them once all the costs of operation are factored in. Nuclear is more moneypit than long term solution.
Air quality standards reduce -power-, not efficiency. Also, larger vehicles are not necessarily safer. Safety is the result of careful engineering, not size.
After Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, it is not possible to argue that nuclear plants are completely safe. Indeed, no technology is. My point is that the consequences of a nuclear accident are so severe, damaging, and above all long lasting, that it is simply not worth rolling those dice. Especially not when there are much better alternatives at much lower cost.
Nuclear power plants cannot buy liability coverage. They depend on taxpayer subsidies. On and on....
Current tech an extraction methods give us an eighty year supply of Uranium. We could always strain sea water for it, I suppose. I don't suppose it would be cheap.
I'd prefer we get into geothermal resources. There's a lot of it, the tech is here. The power could be part of an H2 fuel production cycle.
While technology has come a long way and they're safe when functioning properly, it has potential to be an enormous disaster when something goes wrong. And to reduce our dependence, along with wind and solar power, wouldn't we be looking at hundreds of nuclear power plants?
1) Precisely where am I wrong on 'nucs'?
2) What is a 'leftie knee-jerk', some new dance craze those darned kids are into?
Its really a more middle of the road approach than trying to drastically move everyone to technologies that aren't ready (as in ready to satisfy the majority of our energy needs) without regard to the economic implications. Trust me both sides of the aisle don't want to funnel money to terrorists. One could argue that since in the near future the only real way to reduce the funneling of money to terrorists (through oil money) would be use our own oil and the democrats are blocking this, that democrats are "intent on funding terrorists"
As long as we're spending money to develop sources of energy, let's just spend the money to get out of the cycle of dependency on crude and coal, and move to something more sustainable. We've known since the early '70s that we needed to do this, and had we done it incrementally, this discussion would not even be happening. Thanks to cowardice in Washington, and kowtowing to big oil, the transition will be a bit more unpleasant.
What president Kennedy said about the moon is equally true about renewable energy: We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win...
So, either it doesn't exist, or it did exist...
Is anybody else confused from the double speak?
I'm convinced it exists, and even if there was a slight cool down recently doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt to me that we have been getting cooler as time goes on.
I have a theory: What if the Sun is getting hotter? That of course would mean it's starting to run out of hydrogen, and stars that do that are in the process of dying.
Now, does that sound ridiculous? Of course not, because I don't also say we are not contributing to the problem, and also it means I'm a reader of interesting things science based.
That is what stars do when they start dying. In a couple of million years, the Sun will expand and swallow everything in it's path, including the Earth. And you thought YOU had problems...
What this has to do with reducing our CO2 output and the affairs of our energy economy is a pretty small thing. If it serves as a distraction, well a small part of the population happens to be looking desperately for such distractions. Corporate medias are standing by to support such distractions as somehow giving the "whole picture."
So no the solar cycle story will not die, nor any of the other distractions that will be waved in our faces.
We need a sustainable life friendly energy economy. This is not a political position.
I don't know about the lexicon of the alarmists, but it's always been part of that of the scientists...
This is a job for satellites. According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed. <link>
We have already discussed the connection between solar activity, and this new analysis does not alter our previous conclusions: that there is not much evidence pointing to the sun being responsible for the warming since the 1950s. <link>
All these libruls are still in a September 10th mindset.
;)
a) Does anyone really care!
b) Who Cares!
c) If you do care about Rush why are you here?
d) If everyone ignored him, he'd just go away!
Shows a cycle effect over 100,000
My personal opinion is that because this is the first time humans are experiencing changes in climate and having the scientific capability to understand it, there is more of a panic over it.
I'm not saying that humans have not added to this already changing climate. But on the same hand more concentrated effort should be made to adapt to a change in climate then just trying to reverse something that maybe already irreversible.
the liberals and progressives can further control peoples lives and the evil corporations.
You people claim you can't use the last 8 years as proof warming has stopped yet you'll use 30 year cycles or the last 150 years which is like a single grain of sand on the beaches of the Hamptons, Martha's Vineyard, Malibu and South Beach combined???
Congress should be looking for scientists on both sides and host a real debate. Screw Al Gore and the private jet he flew in on. Talk about hypocrit!
Cap and trade is offshoring jobs and pollution. The so called green jobs won't make a dent in the private sector jobs we will lose. Pollution will may decrease slightly here but increase in developping countyies will far outpace the decreases here. Again, cap and trade is about controlling people and companies. It will have zero positive impact on the evironment but have monumental negative impact on the economy. It'll drive a stake through the heart of this economy.
If you liberals cared about this county you'd all declare global warming is over, cut taxes, get out of the way and let business flourish. Then when the economy is back on it's feet we can talk about wind and solar, along with nukes and natural gas and clean coal.
Lotta projection in the 1st para. Who's been concerned about what goes on in our bedrooms and bodies? Who we're talking to online and on the phone?
Climatology looks at long term info. The last eight years is a part of the data. To use it as a proof of climatological conditions is to start with a lie. That data concerns more than temperatures.
Find a peer reviewed climatologist on your side of the issue.
4th para. The last eight years must have been wonderful for you. Certain parts of that economy have acted in such a manner that a stake through the heart would be a good thing. Vampiric is a good description of how they've acted.
5th para. Sorry. We've seen what unrestrained business can do to various parts of our economy in the last couple decades. Beyond profit over public good they show what?
The second paragraph is interesting because you refute your own point. If 150 years is a grain of sand, what is 8 years to that? 150 years is handy because we have accurate temperature readings going back that far.
Third paragraph: Since 90% or more of the climatologists agree humans are influencing the weather of this planet, what is the purpose of the debate? I'll ignore the Al Gore dig; it's petty.
Fourth paragraph: I take it you are a conservative. If you are so concerned about jobs leaving this country, where have you been for the last 40 years? Reaganomics sent more jobs oversees than cap & trade ever will. Literally millions of manufacturing jobs, gone to the third world so a few execs could have a slightly bigger bonus. If pollution increases in the third world, and we have developed renewable power, they will want what we have. It is an investment in our future.
Last parpagraph: We do care about this country, to the point that we take time out of our day to point out the lies and distortions the media touts so that at least debate about current issues can be based on facts, rather than opinion and feeling. Why wait until the economy is back on it's feet? Why not use this opportunity the -help- the economy to regain it's footing -and- develop a more sustainable energy? I happen to believe that American ingenuity is more than up to this task!
We let business flourish and look where it got us.
What we learned is that an economy based on more consumption and population growth may no longer work, and even a elective war couldn't save it. It's time to figure out how to make an economy work by being reducing consumption.
As far as global warming goes, Mark Belling also knows that evolution is hoax.