About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Limbaugh cites existence of God to argue against global warming

February 02, 2010 1:42 pm ET

From the February 2 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' 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.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by nerzog (February 02, 2010 1:46 pm ET)
      10 1
      Wow. This is fallacious on so many levels, but it's really the only reasoning the Troglodytes and Palinites want to hear. It just goes to illustrate the profound mountain of ignorance we're up against.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by seahawks123 (February 02, 2010 1:59 pm ET)
        1 13
        Troglodyte is Sooo mature. If we died today... in a 100k years you wouldn't even know we existed. If we tried to rais the temp 10 degrees in 10 years we couldn't.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (February 02, 2010 2:06 pm ET)
          4  
          If we all died today, it wouldn't matter anyway now, would it?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by neon desert (February 02, 2010 2:08 pm ET)
          8  
          So 100k years later, we don't know that humble tiny sea creatures - as well as dinosaurs - existed? Or did they just have more impact on the planet than humans? How long does one have to live in a cave to believe that?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by christopher howard (February 02, 2010 3:03 pm ET)
            7  
            We can piece together a lot of what happened during the Permian, and the Cambrian, but 100,000 years would be enough to completely erase evidence of humanity?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by John Paradox (February 02, 2010 4:09 pm ET)
              2  
              There's a series on History Channel called Life After People, which jumps from 1 year (or less) up to over a thousand years. It estimates when various man-made items will collapse or otherwise fail.
              As for fossils, etc. from the current era, yes, there would be evidence, but the 'great structures' will fall within a millenium.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (February 02, 2010 4:46 pm ET)
             
          But we could raise the temperature 5 degrees in 13 years?

          what?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by vysotsky (February 02, 2010 5:33 pm ET)
          1  
          "If we tried to rais the temp 10 degrees in 10 years we couldn't."


          Well, one degree of increase in average global temperature per year is pretty ambitious. But let's say we wanted to do something more modest: maybe just raise the average global temperature by one degree Fahrenheit over the course of a century. How would we best go about that?

          First we'd need to pick a mechanism for effecting that kind of change. Fortunately, we've been aware of this thing called "the greenhouse effect" since the early 19th century. Based on research on the greenhouse effect, we know that we don't actually need to heat the planet -- we just need to manipulate levels of greenhouse gases, like CO2, in the atmosphere in order to retain more heat. Producing enough C02 to affect the global temperature even by a tiny fraction would be a big undertaking, one that would require massive funding and lots of CO2 producing machines. In fact, it would be a project of such a huge scale, you'd need to get almost every human being involved in the effort.

          Now, if only the global economy came to be based on a hydrocarbon fuel that produces CO2 when burned, and if energy for everything from electrical grids to personal transportation used engines that burn that hydrocarbon, then we'd have a solution. That way, nearly every human being's mere existence would depend, to a greater or lesser degree, upon an energy economy that converted hydrocarbons into large amounts of CO2. But what are the odds of that happening, right?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (February 02, 2010 2:20 pm ET)
        7  
        I've got a better one: The oceans won't warm and acidify, killing off the reefs, thus destroying enitre ecosystems that will even affect a critical source of food for billions of human populations... because POSIEDON won't let it happen. (We'd better round up some virgin bulls to drown!)

        And while we're at it, why don't we pray to ZEUS to cool off the atmosphere a little, and get rid of all that excess CO2 for us.

        ----------------------------------------------------------
        And then Rush Limbaugh can kiss my @$$ and go to HADES.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by raddave43 (February 02, 2010 1:49 pm ET)
      8 1
      Rush, God did give us the ability to destroy ourselves and our planet, it is called free will and intelligence. CO2 may be good for plants, but when man destroys forrests that are suppose to take in the CO2, there is not enough of them to do that, and just like Oxygen is to animals, too much of CO2 is bad for plant life.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by rtejon (February 02, 2010 1:55 pm ET)
        9 1
        The concept of responsible stewardship is implicit in Genesis. It's also common sense, with or without scriptural guidance.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (February 02, 2010 2:03 pm ET)
          8 1
          Exactly. That's why I don't understand these so-called "conservative Christians" who oppose any attempts to avoid destruction of our planet. As a Christian, that's what I'm supposed to do, be a good steward of God's creation.

          For the record, I really doubt that Rush has set foot in a church for many, many years.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by raddave43 (February 02, 2010 2:09 pm ET)
            7 1
            Well I think Ann Coulter summed up the mind set of the so called "Conservative Christian" when she said something like God gave us the Earth to do what we want to do with it, I say lets rape it.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by rtejon (February 02, 2010 2:21 pm ET)
              4  
              I thought of that, too, one of the most patently stupid things she's ever said, and that's saying a lot.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (February 02, 2010 1:51 pm ET)
      9  
      Oh, please...give me a break. Theology from Rush Limbaugh...?

      BTW, notice how Limbaugh pronounces "God".
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (February 02, 2010 1:54 pm ET)
        7  
        I have to wonder... has Blimpy even darkened the door of a church in the last 20 years? My guess is he worships God on the Golf Course every Sunday morning.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by IRONY 101 (February 02, 2010 1:57 pm ET)
          5  
          Somehow it's hard to picture a mean, ruthless, egomaniac who gets busted at the airport for carrying unprescribed Viagra while returning from a weekend in the Dominican Republic as a religious guy.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by rtejon (February 02, 2010 1:59 pm ET)
          6  
          An American Spectator story on him from almost 20 years ago said something about how he believes in creation but doesn't go to church.

          Obviously there a few teachings he's never really taken to heart.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by John Paradox (February 02, 2010 4:11 pm ET)
             
          "Oh, God, let it go in, let it go in..."
          Report Abuse
      • Author by neon desert (February 02, 2010 1:56 pm ET)
        5  
        To non-believers, that may sound like he's mocking. But most evangelicals will correct you that it's actually awesome reverence as proscribed in Hacks 13:5.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by seahawks123 (February 02, 2010 1:56 pm ET)
      1 18
      Why won't the scientists that believe this global warming crap release their data? Hmmmm? Alot of money in this I think, just ask Al Gore.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by neon desert (February 02, 2010 1:58 pm ET)
        12  
        Yeah, I'd love for someone such as yourself to analyze the data collected by scientists to get your take on it...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by seahawks123 (February 02, 2010 2:10 pm ET)
          1 17
          Why won't they release it so EVERYONE can analyze it? If it was real legit data it would be validated. It's like they have something to hide.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by IRONY 101 (February 02, 2010 2:19 pm ET)
            8  
            Be specific. Who won't release what? Details, please.

            Personally I think you're just blowing smoke out of your rectum...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by bintx (February 02, 2010 2:25 pm ET)
              9  
              He has no idea, it's something he picked up from Fox/hate talk radio/freerepublic. He won't look it up, but he saw or heard it there, so it MUST be true. It's part of the gallons and gallons of grape kool-aid he drinks every day.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by christopher howard (February 02, 2010 3:21 pm ET)
                8  
                "Why won't the scientists that believe this global warming crap release their data?"

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming?wwparam=1265137215

                http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

                http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/

                http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/publications/assessment-reports/ar4

                http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/publications/assessment-reports/ar4/working-group-iii-fourth-assessment-repo

                http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/publications/assessment-reports/ar4

                http://healthandenergy.com/global_warming.htm

                http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

                You sound like the creationists who whine "show us the transitional forms" when there are, of course, many transitionals easily available for anyone with the desire to type words into a search engine.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by neon desert (February 02, 2010 3:31 pm ET)
                  5  
                  Hey, Seahawks### -

                  I got this bump behind my left knee. It's about the size of a dime, slightly red and puffy, has smaller bumps on it, and oozes this yellowy-brownish goo. It's fairly tender, to the point that wearing long pants irritates it, and I can't walk after about 10 minutes. I was going to go to the doctor and have him check it out, but I thought I'd run the symptoms by you first.

                  If you get the chance, could you forward this to Sen. Inhofe, Rush limpaugh, and Sean Hannity too please? Thx. I'll be anxiously awaiting your analysis before I go visit that quack with the degree on his wall.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by seahawks123 (February 02, 2010 3:58 pm ET)
                      6
                    The space behind your left knee is called your popliteal fossa. The bump probably is an infected lesion due to poor hygiene. Don't worry, you don't have to leave your mothers basement. Just try bathing.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by seahawks123 (February 02, 2010 3:58 pm ET)
                      3
                    The space behind your left knee is called your popliteal fossa. The bump probably is an infected lesion due to poor hygiene. Don't worry, you don't have to leave your mothers basement. Just try bathing.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by neon desert (February 02, 2010 4:10 pm ET)
                      4  
                      Thanks, man, I appreciate the diagnosis. That idiot doctor was trying to tell me it was a brown recluse spider bite, and that I'd have to get treatment within a week or the whole leg would get infected and the flesh would start to fall off. Yeah, right. Like I'm going to believe THAT horror story just so he can make his boat payments.

                      You've saved me a lot of money, Seahawks, and it looks like I won't have to change my lifestyle. My hat is off to you.
                      Report Abuse
          • Author by raddave43 (February 02, 2010 3:08 pm ET)
            5  
            You know what I can't stand about those damned scientists is how they could manipulate their results by using actual tempertatures. I mean they keep doing that and their results might actually be more accurate and show that Climate change is worse than everyone thought.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 02, 2010 5:45 pm ET)
            2  
            Ask the guy Palin appointed to her climate change board to validate climate change for you. He went to Copenhagen. I saw his slideshow presentation online showing how climate change has devastated coastal areas of AK. Why would Palin have appointed him to study climate change in AK, and why would he have gone to Copenhagen if there was no climate change going on in AK?
            Report Abuse
        • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 02, 2010 2:41 pm ET)
          11  
          Maybe if those scientists would send that data over to the seahawks123 research lab.

          [http://www.readersheds.co.uk/images/sheds/new/119807E44FF70-EA63-8446-EA3313A841349302_thumb.jpg]
          Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (February 02, 2010 3:49 pm ET)
            4  
            It's nice to see that Seasquawk is housesitting for Ted Kaczynski while he's a guest of Uncle Sam .
            Report Abuse
            • Author by neon desert (February 02, 2010 4:21 pm ET)
              3  
              Update:
              Seahawks WeatherLab night interior illumination system blows out.

              Tomorrow's forecast: Windy.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (February 02, 2010 2:00 pm ET)
        8  
        Oh, yea...scientists are all out on their yachts sipping cocktails with topless babes as we speak with all the money they're making.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by christopher howard (February 02, 2010 3:29 pm ET)
          3  
          Damn. I knew I should have paid more attention in chem-class.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by raddave43 (February 02, 2010 2:00 pm ET)
        7  
        The data that they used is in fact public information and was provided to them by weather stations accross the world and not something they collected themselves.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by The New Pilgrims (February 02, 2010 2:03 pm ET)
        9  
        The World According to Conservative Geniuses:

        1) Liberals and progressives just HATE capitalism.

        2) They hate companies and they hate rich people.

        3) Al Gore and other liberals/progressives are trying to cash in on the phoney-baloney global warming.

        4) With the right mix of alcohol and medications, all of these points make sense somehow!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (February 02, 2010 1:58 pm ET)
      5  
      His God in the bottle ???
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (February 02, 2010 2:11 pm ET)
      5  
      See, this is how the Country Clubbers like Rush hoodwink the working class Troglodytes into supporting policies which only benefit the top 1%; they couch their propaganda in authoritarian and theologic language. Being the unsophisticated saps they are, the Trogs just lick it up like milk.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by blueline99 (February 02, 2010 2:15 pm ET)
      6  
      Rush's argument is either intellectually dishonest or he is just really that stupid.

      There is a balance in life that evolution and natural selection has demonstrated throughout history.

      When we man tries to change that balance, nature responds in strange and disastrous ways.

      When we overfish the oceans, the amount of jellyfish suddenly rises to a point of inconvenience at best, regional environmental disaster at worst.

      So, Rush thinks that all the man made CO2 that is being emitted in the air is actually good for the environment?

      How about increasing CO2 output and decreasing the natural wildlife, how does that work for us?

      Rush is a moron... to turn a phrase...

      Does anyone actually believe Rush?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (February 02, 2010 2:19 pm ET)
        3  
        Yeah, but see... God wouldn't let that happen! Besides, God promised never to destroy the world by flood again, so the Troglodytes' eyes just glaze over when scientists discuss the possibility of melting ice caps.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by raddave43 (February 02, 2010 2:37 pm ET)
          3  
          Are you sure that God didn't make a back door deal to flood the earth again?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (February 02, 2010 2:31 pm ET)
      5  
      Limbaugh better hope that God doesn't exist.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by AB-001 (February 02, 2010 2:36 pm ET)
      3  
      Of course Rush is talking about the White Male Evangelical Christian God and not those other versions of God that the heathens follow, like those Islamofacists or Jewish bankers. To say nothing of Hindus and Buddhists who fortunately aren't on his limited radar screen.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by draftedin68 (February 02, 2010 2:38 pm ET)
      3  
      Oxyman, oil and water

      There was a famous neurologist who once wrote that science should never be used in an attempt to prove the existence of God and science should never be used in an attempt to disprove the existence of God.

      Rush can keep sticking his head up his butt - I'll stick with Sigmund Freud.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 02, 2010 2:49 pm ET)
        4  
        Once again, Boss Hogg proves that he really is a comedian. unfortunately, only when he's trying to be serious.

        He did inadvertently sum up his 20 year career with this bit, which is, essentially;

        " I'd like to preface my scientific theories by making it clear that they are based entirely on the supernatural, and a mythology that runs entirely counter to all science".

        At least he's not even trying to pretend the Denial Cult is anything but faith-based. Those Deniers who attempt to appear reasonable have to work so hard, compulsively posting links to every tired and debunked GW Denial talking point. So much simpler, and no less convincing, to just go with "God said it, I believe it, that settles it !"

        Report Abuse
    • Author by SLRTX (February 02, 2010 3:01 pm ET)
      2  
      See. Denalisim IS a religion.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by QwertyPoiu (February 02, 2010 3:19 pm ET)
      3 2
      Intelligent Design Creationism and Anthropological Global Warming are literally the same ideology. Both are examples of religion trying to justify themselves with science. And neither are science.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by seahawks123 (February 02, 2010 3:59 pm ET)
        1 9
        That's right. We came from apes. There is no God. We control the Earth at will.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by raddave43 (February 02, 2010 4:07 pm ET)
          3  
          No one said that, but neither Creationism nor Intelligent design meet the qualifications of science, since they cannot be proven or disproven using the scientific method.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Boxer1979 (February 02, 2010 4:21 pm ET)
          2  
          Remember we walked with Dinosaurs as well. When they became extinct we lived on because we were the superior species! Oh! Oh! The Earth is only 6,000 years old also!

          *FACEPALM*
          Report Abuse
          • Author by raddave43 (February 02, 2010 4:32 pm ET)
            3  
            Man I would kill for a good bronto burger!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by christopher howard (February 02, 2010 4:42 pm ET)
              4  
              "That's right. We came from apes. There is no God. We control the Earth at will."

              Are you really also a creationist, Seahawks? We'll have to remember that the next time you hold forth on anything scientific.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (February 02, 2010 5:49 pm ET)
            1  
            No, silly... there wasn't room on the Ark for the Dinosaurs.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by vysotsky (February 02, 2010 4:58 pm ET)
          2  
          "That's right. We came from apes. There is no God. We control the Earth at will."

          Technically, evolutionary theory maintains that human beings didn't descend from apes, but rather that apes and human beings share a common ancestor from which... oh, never mind.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by vysotsky (February 02, 2010 4:53 pm ET)
        2 1
        "Intelligent Design Creationism and Anthropological Global Warming are literally the same ideology."

        What exactly is anthropological global warming?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by SLRTX (February 02, 2010 5:30 pm ET)
          2 1
          vysotsky --

          QwertyPoiu (look carefully at your keyboard to see how it got its name) was just mentioning that new theory that's being pushed by the denialists. The current level of global warming was caused by our ancestors.

          This is how it works:

          Our ancestors ate a lot of fiber. It made them gassy. They passed a lot of methane. Methane is worse than CO2 as a green house gas.

          So, global warming is "Anthropological"!

          Q.E.D (Quite Easily Disturbed) {:-b
          Report Abuse
          • Author by vysotsky (February 02, 2010 5:36 pm ET)
            3 1
            Ah -- I'm sorry, I was under the impression that anthropogenic global warming was the big buzz, but I see that I'm behind the times. Thanks for bringing me up to speed.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by SLRTX (February 02, 2010 7:38 pm ET)
              2 1
              vysotsky --

              You're right. I just couldn't resist. ;-)

              Well, at least it's not anthropomorphic global warming!

              How could we ever explain that one?

              Perhaps Galileoleotardo has an theory?
              Report Abuse
          • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 02, 2010 5:50 pm ET)
            1  
            Kill all of the cows! They release too much methane into the atmosphere! LOL
            Report Abuse
        • Author by QwertyPoiu (February 03, 2010 2:26 am ET)
             
          Anthropological(Human Induced) Global Warming.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 02, 2010 5:19 pm ET)
        3 1
        Intelligent Design Creationism and Anthropological Global Warming are literally the same ideology


        Quite possibly in the top five dumbest things I've ever seen posted on a website. Even if you take out the word "literally".
        Report Abuse
        • Author by SLRTX (February 02, 2010 7:39 pm ET)
          1 1
          Col.

          QwertyPoiu was literally speaking figuratively. ;-)
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 02, 2010 8:46 pm ET)
              1
            That's a symptom of the Hannitized, that bizarre usage of the word "literally".

            I still find it adorable that the wingnuts thiink the same technique that hypnotizes them is going to work on rational adults ; Say something completely ridiculous, but with absolute certainty and authority, and it becomes a fact.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by SLRTX (February 02, 2010 9:02 pm ET)
                 
              LOL. Yeah, I read ya.

              I believe I said something a long time ago about their Jedi mind tricks.

              They don't work on us. ;-)
              Report Abuse
    • Author by Boxer1979 (February 02, 2010 4:15 pm ET)
      2  
      Limbaugh cites existence of God to argue against global warming

      Hey. He did once say the sea will eat all the oil that was spilled in Alaska 22 years ago. Well?? He failed in that belief, so this one is not really surprising.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by cugagcmu805031 (February 02, 2010 5:53 pm ET)
        1  
        And the sad thing about it is that the residents in that area of Alaska did not receive adequate compensation for their losses, not to mention the damage to the ecosystem.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by pilotx (February 02, 2010 4:33 pm ET)
      2  
      One of the few things I actually applauded Rush for was that he kept his religious beliefs to himself but I guess that couldn't last forever. Anyhoo, I can't but help laughing at the conversation I had back in the summer of '05 when my meteorology professor, who is a well respected climatologist, about Rush. Jokingly I told him he could stop researching climate change because Rush said there was nothing to it. So now I'm sure they can all go onto other areas of research because god told Rush CO2 was good. All kidding aside, even though CO2 is only .036% of the atmosphere no one can answer the question "what is the threshold value"? At what point will it become a problem? I don't know, do you? Does Rush? Until we can answer that question methinks we should limit our output as much as possible. The atmosphere is a very fragile and complex environment so who knows what our present actions will have on it in the future. IMHO believing the invisible man in the sky will keep us safe isn't the best strategy I can come up with but I could be wrong.
      Report Abuse