Limbaugh takes credit for poll finding decreased public concern about global warming
March 11, 2010 3:47 pm ET
From the March 11 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.
This is truly what the anti-intellectual, anti-college/university, anti-science right have done to America.
Celebrating stupidity should embarrass us. Rush wades in it.
Amirite?
JEEZUZ. Stop wasting your time with slapping each others back. Instead, put your heads together and come up with a new bit.
I'm sorry.
I just hope they've got enough lube for one that size.
"Global warming" is not real.
Feel better?
...Being a stupid conservative is no way to go through life.
This idea is still in the hypothesis stage, but some geologists are modeling the way the change in the distribution of water (from glaciers to flowing water to sea level) affect the tectonic plates. Granted we can't blame Haiti and Chili on this. But the idea is out there and is being studied.
I've never heard the name "Rush" and the word "courage" used in the same sentence before.
...Rush Limbaugh's lack of courage to admit when he has been proven wrong, time and time again, is nothing short of hilarious.
There, Rush and Courage in the same sentence, and with correct grammer with the use of "lack of."
I think El Dorkbo just reserved his spot in the Eighth Circle of Dante's EZ-Bake.
A street mugger might get $50-$60 off me. BHO will get a few thousands. I'd rather take my chances with a street mugger.
What evidence do you have that I have ever used an illegal drug? I don't even drink (other than Communion wine), so it is a bit of a stretch to suggest I am a cocaine user. However, if you have proof to the contrary, please let me know.
Isn't there a study somewhere that found children who are abused by their parents usually end up abusing their children too?
Resources for Child Abuse Statistics
IIRC, several studies have found the 'generational' link.
What a revealing comment that was...
SMH!
*FACEPALM*
(But remember, kids, if a librul does it it's "indoctrination".)
2) insinuating someone's deceased parent was a paedophile is beneath contempt - I would NEVER stoop to that level.....I would submit that is 100 times more offensive than the N-word
I do agree that I deserve everything I get. I work very hard, and I do deserve what I earn - I just wish you liberals didn't want to take it away from me in the name of spreading the wealth.
Not that we needed more evidence, but there it is...for all to see...you're nothing but an ideological piece of sh!t.
You should be ashamed...and it disgusts me that I know you're not.
You've made a dirty little convert out of me!
Here's one by Ziggy Marley that might be closer to the heart of the concept.
I still wonder how the kid turned out, I hope that incident opened her eyes.
"Because socialist/fascist/ communists want to make rich people poor and Al gores rich so he made it up"
Kinda like you asking "how did Hitler come to power in Germany?" and being given the answer "cause the germans were evil and/or stupid"
Its an ignorant answer without a shred of knowledge shown in it.
Im sorry to say it looks like you've waisted you're time asking a question.
When he left the Vice Presidency Gore's networth was between $3-5 million. It is now over $100 million. He is lying for financial gain. This is obvious.
It would not surprise me at all if Gore was massively short selling stocks such as Exxon Mobil.
"It would not suprise me..." Another baseless attempt at a smear.
All you've shown is that it bothers you that Gore has been successful in his investments in green technology.
That phrase does not mean what you think it does (furthermore, it is not spelled the way that you spell it).
de rigueur - Required by the current fashion or custom; socially obligatory. [French : de, of + rigueur, rigor, strictness.]
~
Je sais ceci parce que j'ai etudie francais. J'ai habite a Paris pour cinq mois dans l'universite HEC dans un programme d'echange.
Are you sure about that? Because in a search of French websites, I find 'de rigueur' and 'de rigeur,' but not a single instance of 'de riguer.'
Sorry, Booby. You've been duped by an idiot, again.
Believe it or not I share some of your concerns about plastic garbage in the ocean. However, you can not argue to me that McDonald's styrofoam floating in the middle of the Atlantic are causing earth's temperature to rise. That is an entirely seperate issue.
If forests are disappearing, isn't the solution to put more carbon in the atmosphere? Trees need carbon. I am not a scientists, but common sense dictates that if we cut back on carbon forests would suffer - that is akin to taking away food from animal species.
I do not necessarily dispute much of what you wrote, but I am saying it is unrelated to the earth warming.
I won't because that wasn't the argument I was making. Note I also mentioned acid. Our additional CO2 is changing the Ph levels of the oceans and their ability to absorb CO2. Keep in mind that we depend on the oceans to absorb 25% of the CO2 that goes into the air.
LMFAO!!! No, the solution is to stop destroying the forests and restore some of what we have lost. Putting more carbon into the atmosphere is not going to stop the chainsaws, bulldozers and deliberately set fires.
OMG, YOU'RE KILLING ME WITH THIS CRAP! Let's go with your premise for a brief moment and contemplate how the forests ever thrived long before modern man ever existed and began releasing more carbon into the atmosphere. Does your brain hurt yet?
You think that the deforestation going on in the world today is being caused by an insufficient level of carbon in the atmosphere? You think that the emissions cuts being proposed, which by the way are miniscule in relation to the overall amount of carbon emitted by human activity, would somehow harm forests? And that we should increase our emissions??
You've revealed yourself to be stunningly naive about basic science. I'm seriously mind-boggled by what you've said here. Wow.
We could come back and say, "because it would be much more effective to stop deforestation, stop desecration of our oceans, and reduce our carbon output," but it would go right over his head.
I'm a skeptic. And I'm skeptical of that claim.
Anything to back that up there, ace?
Equating a natural process over which we have no control to a human activity over which we do have control is, frankly, idiotic.
"Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines put more greenhouse gasses in teh air than 30 years worth of automobile emissions"
Hmm... Then, what about this?
"Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. While this is a conservative estimate, man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times."
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/education/gases/man.html
And this.
You must have really struggled to pass that remedial science class in HS. Poor thing.
I think you may have meant 'scatologists'.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/climate-change-data-request-war
"The Telegraph is a more reputable paper than the Guardian."
Your type wouldn't know a credible site if it slapped you up side the face.
Doo-duh-doo... Wikipedia...
Regardless of how you feel about the editorial slant of the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph is notoriously rightwing, so how can you possibly claim that it's free of spin? Ridiculous.
Why don't you address the facts, i.e. the science?
Explains a lot. Best in the world? If you say so, chief.
Also in February, the northern hemisphere had the second largest area of snow cover ever recorded.
Your text to link here...
The snow was not from global warming.
According to NOAA, in the USA Feb temperatures were -2.2 Deg. F below the 20th Century average for the month, the 29th coldest February in 116 years, and this month was also the 47th driest in 116 years.
So it was not extra humidity that caused the extra snow, it was colder temperatures. It snowed in places where it does not normally.
Your text to link here...
This hoax is becoming more apparent all the time.
"This hoax is becoming more apparent all the time."
Yep. The denialist hoax.
"So it was not extra humidity that caused the extra snow, it was colder temperatures. It snowed in places where it does not normally."
Where does WET snow come from? Faerie dust?
Aww... Here comes SLRTX with all them factsy things that make the denialists head hurt. Awww...
El Nino. Ever hear of it? Oh, that's right. You denialists like to pull that fact out of your rears every time you bring up 1998.
Hey, it's an EL NINO year, dude. That causes.... what????? More moisture off the Pacific to swing through the US. Duh!
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/02/extreme_snow_rain_this_winter_1.html
Oh, and this is interesting. Where where you when this happened? Out picking cherries?
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/02/report-el-nino-fueled-record-global-warmth-in-january/1
Well, your pal Spencer had fits trying 'splain it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/some-thoughts-on-the-warm-january-2010/
Interesting how "quasi-monthly oscillations" becomes a welcome explanation for denialists, when things don't go their way. :-(
You warmers said the extra snow came from more humidity, caused by global warming. But, the humidity was below normal in North America, and there still was more snow than ever before recorded.
The extra snow was from colder temperatures.
So where is the warming, it is getting colder, not warmer.
Also the Arctic sea ice is much thicker right now than in past years. Antarctica also had the least Summer ice melt ever recorded in 2009. So the ice is growing at both poles.
There will be less Arctic ice melt this Summer because of the thicker ice, the polar ice is recovering, more evidence that the earth is slightly colder than in past years.
I like how you warmers keep trying to explain your way out of what is happening. Yes, there were twenty years of warmer temperatures (it was very very cold in the 1960s and 1970s), and now the temperatures are swinging back the other way.
The true deniers are you warmers. Expect cooling temperatures to continue for the next decade or longer due to lower solar activity. The Solar magnetic field strength in December was the lowest level ever recorded. It has always turned colder when this has happened in the past, there is no deviation.