Rush attacks National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as "corrupt"
February 23, 2010 1:06 pm ET
From the February 23 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.
















http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100003851/here-comes-the-next-bubble-carbon-trading/
Corrupt = they don't agree with my BS.
I couldn't have said it better, seahawks123. You're a good man, after all.
And not even 1 example! You rock!
If the administrations and scientists and other countries leaders were proposing ideas that didn't cost trillions of dollars, or taxing the hell out of anyone, or trying to tell me how to live my life to conform to your standards...then we decide to look at your so called "scientific data". But until you decide to be objective in your findings, as opposed to subjective...then we'll pass.
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC - which is supposed to be OBJECTIVE, admitted to exaggerating claims in the report to influence policy makers to take action. Ahh, yes the objectivity!
So me living my life according to what everyone else wants me to do is what this world is all about. Wow, such a wonderful place. And I thought society was about everyone just living amongst each other - not making each other live according to the way you want them to.
I've been noticing that, on the subject of Climate change, the wingnuts are even worse about using paraphrased second-hand bunk as evidence than they are on other subjects. Can't they at least find some out-of-context or unclear quotes to work with ?
This " So & so said so & so" stuff is not even trying.
He did not admit to exaggerating claims in the report to Influence anyone. He admitted that the source of the claim was a poor source because it did not come from a peer reviewed article.
Yet another poor, victimized, enslaved wingnut.
Amazing findings, where did you learn this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Psychoactive_effects
What I said bears repeating:
Two words: Al Gore. You'll never get them to admit it tho.
Why dont we just worry about our own energy that we have here and use that? Coal, Nuclear, Oil, Shale oil, hydro, and even wind & solar if their development increases enough to make them have a positive cost-benefit relationship (not emotional benefit).
Yeah, lets just f up the entire economy, make people suffer even worse with higher energy costs....so we can make up jobs for people. Wonderful!
Are you talking about Al? He's getting richer at the expense of 99% of us...
Seeing as how we have over 100 years of coal in JUST the US, not to mention the world has another at least 100 year supply of oil (just of what we KNOW of right now)...I'm not worried about it.
The last question is such a beautiful attempt at guilt-trip fear-mongering, that is almost hilarious.
Your understanding of science has made a huge impression on all of us, I'm sure.
Which one appears to be more of an exaggeration and strawman? lol. Get real mmfa.fan. They are the same thing.
A person CAN die from too much water. It happens on a regular basis.
Except you can regulate how much water you can (and will) drink.
But getting hand-fed with a baby bottle sounds like mixing the solids with the liquids ala Frank Burns. Thanks for the entertainment.
One of my favorite is in the Illegal Drug Debate: the insistence that 'legalizing marijuana will lead to everyone getting hooked'. (Of course, there is no physical addiction, but never mind)
I usually take that to mean that "I - the claimant - cannot control myself enough to not become 'hooked', therefore no one else can stop themselves". It's part of the egotism of many people.. like AGW deniers... "I can't understand the Science, so I'll believe what Rush, Beck, etc. say" - because if the Deniers can't understand it, no one else can (because they're as smart, intelligent and good-looking as anyone else).
Former Vice President Dick Cheney has even said "it's time to reconsider" the don't ask, don't tell mantra, whatever that means. He has his time in office to do what he needed to do concerning "don't ask, don't tell" but didn't.
Anyway, you make the claim - back it up. Show me scientific proof that humans wouldn't have survives back then.
Your text to link here...
Your text to link here...
Your text to link here...
And CO2 is the only byproduct of burning coal and oil right?
All this emphasis on CO2 and ONLY CO2 is not coming from the scientists. Is it the media driving the conversation that way?
And maybe he can get those energy saving technologies to partake in his carbon credit scheme....not like that would make him any money by buying and selling something that doesnt even exist lol
Go find out where it's snowing a lot, or find a right-wing opinion columnist. But don't give away your utter contempt for Gore, please. It just makes Deniers look like partisan, knee-jerk, librul haters.
No, the earths rotation, gravity, and tides cannot have anything to do with erosion around the world. It must be that pesky Arctic!
Your text to link here...
Your text to link here...
Your text to link here...
WTF? Where did you hear anyone say that SOON we'll be swamped by the rising seas?
What about the "faulty science" behind a loss of protective arctic ice that's causing remote Alaskan subsistence villages to fall into the sea? I haven't seen anyone withdrawing that claim yet.
Here in Realityland, we understand that this one study had a couple issues and that the conclusions may have been skewed in either direction and we won't know until the problems are accounted for. We also know that this was NOT the only study and that other studies showed a higher projected sea level in the future than the one that was withdrawn did.
As someone once said, I do not think this means what you think it means.
Which he then buys carbon offsets to offset what he uses, as in, he puts his money where his mouth is.
I'm pretty certain that Al Gore makes nowhere NEAR a billion dollars off of, well, anything. Just more hyperbole. And the things he said in his movie aren't being discredited at all. That is just more willful ignorance on your behalf, but that's OK.
[quote][Kind of like the sea levels rising being withdrawn due to faulty science. /quote]
This hasn't been withdrawn at all. There is scientific evidence that indeed, sea levels are rising. There is no scientific evidence to show that sea levels are NOT rising.
Dr. James Hansen--from wikipedia
He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo.
Maybe he should pay Chuck Grassley a visit to discuss climate change.
<sarcasm>
Do you have any relevant links for your assertions?
I didn't think so.
http://www.nbcdfw.com/weather/stories/More-Snow-Expected-Tonight-84994822.html
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-law-senator-inhofe-to-ask-for-congressional-criminal-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive/
-Snowy weather in Moscow in winter.
-Snowy weather in Dallas in winter.
-Snide, die-hard Climate Change Denier Sen. Inhofe wants an investigation!
Next you give a report that Sen. Inhofe is requesting the DOJ to investigate IPCC and Al Gore.
Oliver Stone wanted to put the LBJ on trial for the assassination of JFK... that doesn't make it so.
You really are aligning yourself with the flat earth society and moon landing fraud folks.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/climate-change-data-request-war
Where does it stop...?
You really don't understand how insurance (auto, home, health, etc.) companies operate, do you?
Is it in your best interest to have such a large underclass in society. Is it not in your self-interest to make sure that the underclass doesn't become so desperate and poor that their condition adversely impacts your condition.
Or do you feel that what's yours is yours, you earned it and screw the rest....
I'm guessing your're the latter.
(Dr. Tachyon? must be one fast fellow! )
;)
I saw an eerie reminder of this recently. An acquaintance told me that GW theory was "unraveling". As evidence, he mentioned Al Gore being MIA ( I asked where he was supposed to have shown up, but just got a blank stare) and as additional evidence, it was mentioned that Phil Jones was suicidal.
Jones, as I'm sure you know, is a nerdy scientist who was attacked by well-funded Denial Cultists, flooded with FOI requests in an attempt to interfere with his research, and he also received death threats.
He mentioned that he felt suicidal as this was all going on, and the wingnut thought this was a refutation of the science, just as one of the zombies above believes Al Gore's jet is a counterpoint to the science.
The pitchfork and torch-wielding mob is not only alive and well, but admired by the teabaggers as an opposing viewpoint to the heretic scientists.
(On my Must Read list.. or re-read for me)
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-law-senator-inhofe-to-ask-for-congressional-criminal-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive/
From page 2.
Man Made Global Warming BS is unraveling fast.
Feels good man.
http://www.climategate.com/worlds-biggest-coal-company-brings-us-government-to-court-in-climate-fraud
Stop the presses!
Fail. Get back to us when you've got somethin'. Man.
That's the cutest thing about the zombies, the way they all use the same word their trainers give them.
The only thing he does is belittle those who do have the knowledge and expertise in the field of Anthropogenic Warming and Climate Change. He pushes "Clean Coal" which is anything but.
Sen. Inhofe is his own Climate Change Factory with all the CO2that spews from his mouth.
You act like you're going through the 5 stages of grief. You seem to be somewhere between 1 and 2.
1-Denial-"this can't be happening to me", looking for the former spouse in familia places, or if it is death, setting the table for the person or acting as if they are still in living there. No crying. Not accepting or even acknowledging the loss.
2-Anger-"why me?", feelings of wanting to fight back or get even with spouse of divorce, for death, anger at the deceased, blaming them for leaving.
3-Bargaining-bargaining often takes place before the loss. Attempting to make deals with the spouse who is leaving, or attempting to make deals with God to stop or change the loss. Begging, wishing, praying for them to come back.
4-Depression-overwhelming feelings of hopelessness, frustration, bitterness, self pity, mourning loss of person as well as the hopes, dreams and plans for the future. Feeling lack of control, feeling numb. Perhaps feeling suicidal.
5-Acceptance-there is a difference between resignation and acceptance. You have to accept the loss, not just try to bear it quietly. Realization that it takes two to make or break a marriage. Realization that the person is gone (in death) that it is not their fault, they didn't leave you on purpose. (even in cases of suicide, often the deceased person, was not in their right frame of mind) Finding the good that can come out of the pain of loss, finding comfort and healing. Our goals turn toward personal growth. Stay with fond memories of person.
You are encouraging ignorance by the simple fact that you would prefer to call a skeptic a denier. Science is suppose to be skeptical in case you didn't know.
But this topic hasn't been a scientific discussion for decades. It is a political power grab.
Sometimes I feel like I can at least get people to take a look at the other side instead of just closing your eyes and denying that this isn't happening.
I once believed the story. Because I was being lied to by these scientist. Hell, they even got dubya to believe it. Then I started to look into this. Then the Al Gore coming out and saying all the time that the debate was over got me to look more.
Then all hell broke lose in November 2009. And all the nasty dirty secrets are flooding out now.
Who is denying what?
I'm sorry for being so abstract before. I hadn't realized the limits of your comprehension.
What else do you suppose they're lying about?
also, The Game.
I'll give you that. Trying to play lawyer for the Denial Cult is pretty difficult, what with the lack of evidence, and unreliable witnesses.
And you're making it look even harder than some of the other ones who do it here.
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/02/18/lawrence-solomon-vindication-dutch-global-warming-denier-quot-was-right-after-all-quot.aspx
http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1601:oklahoma-climatological-survey-strangely-mum&catid=54:tulsa-speaks&Itemid=147
Thanks.
...and up is down.
Thanks for coming out.
"no I can't disprove his statement and I don't have any credible sources but I'm going to argue anyway because I'm a denier."
Thanks for making that clear mmfa.fan.
http://climate.ok.gov/newsmedia/climate_statement.pdf
http://www.ocregister.com/common/printer/view.php?db=ocregister&id=234092
Come back when you have a current poll of scientist (post 2009).
Because science is at its core about discovering TRUTH. And all we have here is a bunch of lies.
But ignore that and keep believing.
The paper runs Michael Ramirez and Mallard Fillmore, the only two cartoons I saw in it.
Besides, what does being a local have to do with it ? I could email as easily as walking over to the offices, but anybody who's that invested in believing nonsense is pretty set whether they're two blocks away or 5,000 miles away.
>>U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.
This is plain garbage, which is why you shouldn't be taken seriously, Tommy. This is an *opinion* column, not a peer reviewed study. Smith and D'Aleo are flat out wrong, as has been explained a bazzillion times. The anomalies in the placement of the weather stations are known and adjusted for when constructing graphs. That's why it's science, you know, the stuff that brought us vaccines and airplanes.
Notice, too, how Mann, the scientists who came up with the hockey stick theory, was cleared of any wrong doing. Yet according to this columnists, that somehow indicates he the opposite, that AGW is in trouble.
I could go on, too, for instance debunking the silly Russian propaganda, but then you would just post more, none of it peer reviewed.
Really, Tommy? Why don't you just stick to saying "baaaaaw" like you do above, where at least you don't pretend to have an argument.
The science is as robust as ever on AGW, despite the manafactured controversy.
I'M NOT GOING TO READ ANYTHING ELSE I POSTED BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE DUMB.
PEER REVIEWED
PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED V
OH except that we found out that the "PEER REVIEW" process was compromised. but I need to say again
PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED
hypocrite
Cleared of wrong doing by the school he worked for so they wouldnt look like fools.
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/02/19/how-al-gore-wrecked-planet-earth/
I also like this quote from Mencken "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it."
http://blogs.the-global-deniars-are-p**py-pants/
I also like this quote from me: "The urge to quote philosophers or the Bible to prove an agenda oft springs from an urge to obscure proveable facts."
Again proving that deniers are all about their utter, spittle-flecked contempt for Al Gore and nothing more.
You twist just about everything to make it fit your beliefs.
It is incredible the lengths you go to try to justify your position.
You might want to stop using the word consensus. Consensus is not a scientific term, it is a political term. Science is not supposed to have consensus. Most scientific discoveries have come from people who went against the "consensus", like the world is flat, or witches should be burned.
You hide behind the term, but it isn't working anymore for you, so keep on using it. Cry louder, the world is coming to an end!
I am having fun watching this hoax, this fraud, this charade fall apart like a house of cards. Mother nature is weighing in.
The earth warmed, but now it is cooling, as CO2 levels rise.
There were three ice ages with more CO2 than today.
CO2 can not cause temperatures to rise more than about 1 deg C no matter how much there is. To cause more warming it must cause positive feedbacks. They have not been observed to exist.
If anything, nature has negative feedbacks, that cause temperatures to cool.
Yell louder, make even more incredible claims, we have three years to act, we are at the tipping point, we will be flooded, millions of climate refugees, yes, keep it up.
You are soon to be placed in the dust bin of history.
thanks anyway.
Libertarian Tommy is a bit sharper. Good luck and get well soon.
http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Venus.html
Venus has an atmosphere that is 97% CO2. There are no other greenhouse gases on Venus. The earths atmosphere is .038% CO2, so Venus has 2,552 times more CO2 than earth. If you burned all the fossil fuels on earth the CO2 level won't get much larger than double today's concentration.
Venus has an atmosphere that is 90% heavier than Earth's. It is so thick, that it is thought no sunlight reaches the planet's surface. Temperatures do not change between night and day (days and nights are 57 days long on Venus because of slow rotation).
Since no sunlight reaches the surface of Venus, it is thought that it has a thin crust and the heat is coming from the molten interior of the planet, and not from the Sun.
So here is another perfect example of why global warming is not happening and that warmers just make things up to make you feel like there is a problem.
Feel free to go check out Venus information for yourself and you will see this comparison is just BS.
CO2s ability to absorb heat is logarithmic, meaning the more CO2 there is the less heat it can absorb.
The first 20ppm of CO2 absorbs more heat than the next 560ppm and so forth.
Thus, CO2 BY ITSELF, can not cause more than about 1 deg C of warming, even if levels double or triple.
The man made global warming theory states that rising levels of CO2 will cause a little more warming (which it does) and this warming will cause there to be more humidity, which absorbs even more heat. (water vapor is a very powerful greenhouse gas). It is this additional humidity, caused by rising CO2 levels, that is said to cause dangerous warming, ends in a vicious cycle of warming. However, observation shows this does not happen. Temperatures in the tropics do not get above the high 90s, because of negative feedbacks, the humidity causes more clouds, it rains, and it cools. You can see this for yourself in the summer, thunderstorms form in the late afternoon, it rains, and cools.
You warmers don't even know how the theory of man made global warming works, how the h*ll can you say skeptics are wrong when you don't even know how your own theory works.
Stiff prison terms should be the result of this incredible waste of govt funding.
Rather see some prison time for various private contractors in Iraq. Where did that 9 Billion disappear to?
Denial Cultist: CO2 isn't bad in any amount
Normal Person : Check out Venus
Denial Cultist: NO fair, Venus has a lot of CO2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#
This is why I love the wingnuts. The ones who are up to speed on the latest propaganda are cute enough, but you retro-cultists are even better.
Here's a thread from almost three years ago. This film is mentioned in the thread, but look around. You'll find it addressed many other places.
You guys don't seem to have made any progress.