Jump to content
KJP

Global Warming

Recommended Posts

Funny how people's frame of reference changes so quickly. I've been hearing people complain about the cold weather the last couple of days, even though the highs in the mid- to upper-30s were still above the normal high temp of 33. Looks like Wednesday may be the only day at or below normal for the past month, and for at least the coming week.

 

Exactly.

55 and 28 in December constitutes global warming in Columbus and the next ice age in Baton Rouge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Warming - Kunstler

Contributed by James Kunstler

Monday, 08 January 2007

by James Kunstler

 

Everyone was walking around upstate New York delirious in their shirtsleeves on Saturday as the thermometer soared into the sixties (an all-time record for January here). The resource cornucopians were beside themselves with glee as the price of crude oil nose dived down to the mid-$50 range, proving what ninnies we peak oil alarmists are. The mustard greens we planted last July are still growing in the garden. The cat caught a garter snake. And later that evening those fluffy things in the headlights were moths, not snowflakes.

 

It was hard not to enjoy the end of the world. But despite all the high spirits and the roller-bladers and the kids hoisting their Ben-and-Jerry's cones, one was provoked to wonder about all the deer ticks out there enjoying an extra breeding cycle, not to mention the deer themselves, fattening up on prematurely swelling buds, and the pine bark beetles we've been hearing about up the road in the Adirondacks.

 

And for the really farsighted, there is the contemplation of what summer might be like. After all, if it is 67 in January, might it be 107 in July? And maybe that won't be so groovy. The electric grid is much more stressed out when all the airconditioners are humming across the land. I'm not looking forward to Lyme disease, West Nile virus, or maybe even Dengue fever, either.

 

...

 

More at:

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/617/81/


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched An Inconvenient Truth for the first time last night.  I didn't learn a lot in terms of new science, because I've been reading about the problem for years.  But the way Al presented everything, and some of the connections he sketched were incredibly vivid.  And yet, none of his points seemed overextended.  After just a few minutes, I sat there in a state of low-level shock during the rest of the movie.  At the end, Al allows for a brief respite of hope, by suggesting that we can still correct our course and avoid the worst catastrophes.  He cites our "success" in diminishing the ozone hole, but admits that global warming is a much larger challenge.

 

Myself, I think we are in deep shit.  I've never seen anything to indicate that human beings are capable of setting aside their own little equations to look at the big picture, for more than a minute.  The U.S. is the greatest part of the CO2 problem, and our general population spends a hundred times more attention on what celebrities are wearing than on whether their grandchildren will live on a planet capable of sustaining a human civilization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nrdc.org/media/2007/070112.asp

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

Press contact: Eben Burnham-Snyder, NRDC, 202/513-6254

If you are not a member of the press, please write to us at nrdcinfo@nrdc.org or see our contact page

New Global Warming Bill Signals Momentum Growing for Effective Reductions

 

 

WASHINGTON (January 12, 2007) – Today Sens Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) will introduce the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007. The new bill contains a “declining cap” provision that cuts emissions steadily over time, managing costs while effectively reducing pollution.

 

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) proposed such a declining cap in the November, 2006 issue of Science. The Lieberman-McCain bill caps the global warming emissions of the electric power, industrial, transportation, and commercial sectors of the economy at year 2004 levels by 2012. It then lowers that cap steadily, to cut total U.S. emissions by two-thirds from year 2004 levels by 2050.

 

...

 

More at:

http://www.nrdc.org/media/2007/070112.asp


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polar Bears Waiting To Die On Remnant Of Ice Floe

 

Can't rerun the graphic - copyright block - but link below.

 

This pair, surrounded by miles of open ocean, will almost certainly die from starvation or drowning as global warming melts what little ice they have left. The bears, which hunt on land and in the sea, can swim short distances near the shore.

 

...

 

More at:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007050462,00.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Colbert on Bears on O'Reilly

 

Transcript from The Bill O'Reilly Show, January 18, 2007...

...

 

O'REILLY: ...I have a sheet here that says you dislike and you are afraid of bears and owls. Is that true?

 

COLBERT: I am afraid of bears. I think owls are a waste of time.

 

O'REILLY: OK. You don't think about owls?

 

COLBERT: No, I don't.

 

O'REILLY: They're in the Jon Stewart category.

 

COLBERT: They are, absolutely.

 

O'REILLY: Right. You won't have anything to do with owls.

 

COLBERT: No.

 

O'REILLY: But you do fear bears?

 

COLBERT: I do fear bears.

 

O'REILLY: OK. The other thing is...

 

COLBERT: They're giant, marauding, godless killing machines.

 

[CUT TO IMAGE OF BEAR]

 

O'REILLY: There's one right there.

 

COLBERT: Right there. That's not a real bear, right?

 

O'REILLY: No...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of web links imbedded in this piece, so it's worth visiting the source page at:

 

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2245

 

Exxon Mobil conference calls

Posted by Stuart Staniford on February 3, 2007 - 8:04am

 

As part of a public relations outreach effort to improve their image on climate change, Exxon Mobil invited a half-dozen or so green-shaded bloggers to a conference call with Ken Cohen, their Vice President of Public Affairs. The Oil Drum editors were invited, and I ended up being the one to do it. Here are a few thoughts.

 

First of all, I should say that I went in deeply dubious about Exxon Mobil, based on their past history of funding Astroturf campaigns to increase the FUD around climate change, not to mention their editorial page peak oil denial ad in the New York Times. However, I think it's good to talk with people one disagrees with, so I thought I'd at least listen to what they have to say. I'm still fairly dubious, but I also appreciate that they have been courteous and willing to sit through a couple of very frank exchanges of views with I and the other bloggers on the call.

 

We had a first session last Friday, where they went through their message and we got to ask questions. In essence, they are saying that they now agree that climate change is really happening, the debate on the science is over, and the right question now is what is the proper policy response. They didn't propose a specific policy response, even when invited in questions, but said that the "devil is in the details" and discussed in generalities some of the trade-offs with carbon taxes, downstream cap-and-trade, upstream cap-and-trade, etc.

 

...

 

More at:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2245


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think global warming exists and is a problem, I don't think its nearly as bad as some people on here are saying it is.  While steps must be taken to help slow/stop global warming, I don't think we are a generation or two away from an unlivable earth like some forumers have stated.  I'd say that global terrorism and potential for nuclear warfare seem to be much more pressing and immediate issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Um, edale: I hope you're sitting down:

 

http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=DHA3488

http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L02862898&WTmodLoc=IntNewsHome_C4_Crises-6

http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=4723

http://peacejournalism.com/ReadArticle.asp?ArticleID=14981

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20070203-9999-1n3warm.html

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/health/sfl-climate02feb02,0,2684904.story?coll=sfla-news-science

 

...and about a ten thousand articles published in the last several days.

 

But then, I guess I'm not sure what your personal definition of "serious" is.

 

Are we 40 years away from the global extinction of the human race? Good news: NO!

 

In that period of time, however, will regions of the Earth where significant portions of the human population live become unlivable? Yes!

 

And within a generation or two (or three or twenty, if it makes a difference), will weather patterns remain wholly unpredictable for the rest of us, causing spiking energy costs, crop failures, more destructive storms, disrupted flows of essential goods and services and a significant drain on the resources of governments and humanitarian relief agencies? Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

 

Will the terrorists attack? Will nuclear proliferation get out of hand? Nobody knows.

 

Will the worsening world climate make for more desperate individuals and governments? Oh, yes.

 

Will the al quedas and Irans of the future have anything worth blowing things up for? That's the only debate that's still open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth visiting the source site as there are numerous web links to more material embedded in the article...

 

http://www.energybulletin.net/25622.html

 

Published on 3 Feb 2007 by PeakOilDesign.com. Archived on 4 Feb 2007.

 

Global warming myths and lies

by PeakEngineer

 

As the fervor over global warming continues to permeate the discussions of politicians and the media alike, I’ve noticed a stock set of anecdotal arguments from those who choose to remain unconvinced of anthropogenic global warming. A lot of their arguments remind me of the arguments of those who believe NASA faked the moon landings: “Well, in their pictures you don’t see the stars, so it must have been done in a studio.” Um, have you ever tried taking a picture of the night sky? How many stars do you see? But I digress...

 

While RealClimate has a solid collection of responses to common contrarian arguments, I have yet to see a concise, simple document targeted at the average reader for debunking the global warming denier crowd. NASA has hardly bothered to produce a response to moon landing deniers, finding it impossible to do so with a straight face at the preposterousness of the claims. Given the gravity of global warming, we similarly must respond seriously to the denialists even if it pains your face to keep from laughing in theirs.

 

...

 

More at:

http://www.energybulletin.net/25622.html


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: The American Solar Engineering Society is having its annual conference in Cleveland July 7-12

Events: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=11684.0

 

Renewables Can Turn the Tide on Global Warming

 

By Kelpie Wilson

t r u t h o u t | Environmental Editor

 

Friday 02 February 2007

 

PDF download here: http://www.ases.org/climatechange/main.html

 

On Thursday, the American Solar Energy Association (ASES), with the backing of several US representatives and a senator, released its new nuts and bolts approach to reducing carbon emissions with a combination of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.

 

The report comes at an opportune time: the release of the IPCC's latest climate change report (The full report may be available for download@ http://www.ipcc.ch/ ) is expected to finally clear up any lingering uncertainty about the role fossil fuel burning and other human activities have in changing the Earth's climate. As the deniers and obstructionists lose all credibility, the debate now turns to solutions.

 

The ASES report, titled "Tackling Climate Change in the US - Potential Carbon Emissions Reductions From Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by 2030," makes this extraordinary claim: "Energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies have the potential to provide most, if not all, of the US carbon emissions reductions that will be needed to help limit the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to 450 to 500 ppm."

 

...

 

More at:

http://www.ases.org/climatechange/main.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Um, edale: I hope you're sitting down:

 

http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=DHA3488

http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L02862898&WTmodLoc=IntNewsHome_C4_Crises-6

http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=4723

http://peacejournalism.com/ReadArticle.asp?ArticleID=14981

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20070203-9999-1n3warm.html

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/health/sfl-climate02feb02,0,2684904.story?coll=sfla-news-science

 

...and about a ten thousand articles published in the last several days.

 

But then, I guess I'm not sure what your personal definition of "serious" is.

 

Are we 40 years away from the global extinction of the human race? Good news: NO!

 

In that period of time, however, will regions of the Earth where significant portions of the human population live become unlivable? Yes!

 

And within a generation or two (or three or twenty, if it makes a difference), will weather patterns remain wholly unpredictable for the rest of us, causing spiking energy costs, crop failures, more destructive storms, disrupted flows of essential goods and services and a significant drain on the resources of governments and humanitarian relief agencies? Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

 

Will the terrorists attack? Will nuclear proliferation get out of hand? Nobody knows.

 

Will the worsening world climate make for more desperate individuals and governments? Oh, yes.

 

Will the al quedas and Irans of the future have anything worth blowing things up for? That's the only debate that's still open.

 

 

Mmm ok...guess we're fucked then.  Seriously though, why haven't we felt serious effects of global warming up until now? Is it that before we were such a clean society with no CO2 emmissions?  The Earth will warm, storms and floods will happen just like they always have, and we'll get through it just like we always have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

edale, I salute your optimism. However, here are a couple things to ponder...

 

...

 

3. The Earth (and its carbon cycle) is too big for humans to affect it.

 

While the Earth exchanges a great deal of carbon between the ocean, atmosphere, soil, and biosphere, it is the net balance which is of greatest concern to us. Without human influence, this regulatory process produces a net carbon increase of 0.0 Gt/year. During 1850-2000, through a combination of fossil fuel burning, cement manufacturing, and land-use changes, humans added a net 174 Gt of carbon. This caused the majority of an increase from 288 ppm (parts per million) to 369.5 ppm of CO2. As mentioned above, we currently add 8 Gt/year to the atmosphere.

 

4. The sea level has not changed.

 

Yes, it has. Since 1900, sea level has risen by about 35 cm (13.8 inches). This change in sea level is accelerating.

...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to the IPCC study SUMMARY: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf. I've yet to see an actual link that has sources of the study. Don't get me wrong, I believe these guys, but good science means source information should be available.

 

RealClimate is a political action group and some of their numbers are on the much higher end than what most scientists agree on. The real stuff about global warming is in this link, from NOAA's Climate Prediciton Center:

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

 

To be honest, it's probably going to updated soon with the 2007 study...but it's probably the most balanced site I've found to answer commonly asked questions on climate change.

 

Edale, we just need to have a more balanced attack on the two issues. For the last 6 years it's all been about terrorism while ignoring some glaring climatic change facts. But hopefully the pendulum won't swing completely to global warming. If ,God forbid, a terrorist lays 20 dirty bombs in major cities around the globe future generations will judge us for not saving millions of people as well. It's a tough balance, but one that needs to be made.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmm ok...guess we're fucked then.  Seriously though, why haven't we felt serious effects of global warming up until now? Is it that before we were such a clean society with no CO2 emmissions?  The Earth will warm, storms and floods will happen just like they always have, and we'll get through it just like we always have.

Have you ever heard of Global Dimming?  There is a PBS documentary in the Cle library system, I am sure you can get a copy sent down.  Smog and particulate emissions have decreased due to the Clean Air Acts of 1970 and 1992.  Now more sunlight gets to the surface of Earth.  Hence, we're hotter.  Note that the hot years started in the 1990s and the trend continues.

 

The benefits we will get from CO2 emissions are manifold.  Carbon reductions will mean cleaner air.  We in Ohio have among the worst in the nation.  I am sure you want to breathe cleaner air.  How about lower energy costs?  Efficiency and other regulations mean that we will consume less and have lower energy bills.  I am sure you want that unless you like to enrich Exxon-Mobil Corporation and your electricity company.

 

Further, it is a cumulative effect.  The world's economy is consuming energy at an increasing rate, and the CO2 and methane in the atmosphere are well beyond what they were in the 1960s. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It amuses me that no one has talked about Global Warming in the past two weeks in which the temperature hasn't reached above freezing.

 

I could go for some Global Warming right now. :evil:

 

Maybe that's because it's FEBRUARY?!

 

After going to that LEED lecture, I wonder how effective high performance infrastructure and green design in general will be, when you have so many people that are anti-development in existing cities. I like the idea of subsidies on construction materials that get high scores for efficiency. With China and India soon to be consuming way more resources they definitely need to have programs like that probably more than anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe that's because it's FEBRUARY?!

 

I know it's february, but that didn't stop so called experts from blaming our 60 degree weather in December on Global Warning. Just two weeks before our deep freeze, I saw a Global Warming expert on TV say that the rest of our winter season would be very mild and attributed it to Global Warming. He's got to feel like an ass now. And it happens every time they try to make a prediction. I think it's funny as hell.

  I believe in natural Global Warming, not man-made Global Warming. Until you can come up with some cold, hard facts prooving that man-made Global Warming exists, it will remain a science based on opinion.

  It IS a prooven fact that the Earth has gone through many warming cycles in it's history. BEFORE cars and Industry.

  They predicted that the 2006 Hurricane season would be even worse than the 2005 season. Oops, wrong again.

  Everybody seems to assume that scientist's are always right, so when you hear a scientist say that we are close to a Global catastrophe, a lot of people think there right, but it's not always the case. Especially when it comes to this subject.

  They say "Oh my God!! Greenlands glaciers keep melting and falling into the ocean, the world is going to end!! Ahhhh!", but what you never hear about is the fact that at one time Greenland was lush with plants and animals and humans.

  Here are a couple of links to stories about past warmings of the globe.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060812085938.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/10/981002082033.htm

 

  Now I'm not saying we shouldn't try to clean the air. If anything, we should do it for everyones health.

I'm just saying, when people claim that humans are the main culprit in Global Warming, they are not stating facts. The facts are that Global Warming has happened plenty of times in the past, NATURALLY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

look, when cold air blows onto us from America's Hat, it is cold. 

 

global warming is happening on the balance of the year, it doesn't mean every day will be hotter, it means that we will have a series of record setting world temperature years... oh wait that is what has already happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's dog-kicking cold right now, but let's not forget that average temperatures and CO2 concentrations are rising. Stay tuned for thirty or forty consecutive days of above-90º spring and summer temps. And remember: one of the crappy consequences of global warming is more severe and unpredictable weather patterns. Severely dog-kicking cold qualifies for me.

 

And yes, the earth has heated and cooled naturally over the eons. However, I'd hesitate to call the conditions we've cultivated "natural." Scientists are not always right about the natural world, but they still score better than lobbyists for industrial polluters.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats pretty scary, that evuantally we will have to live in bubbles! And we cant go outside in summer cuz well sizzle. Why dont we just shut down all the factories in the world?! JK, but we need to work on global warming..while we can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's february, but that didn't stop so called experts from blaming our 60 degree weather in December on Global Warning. Just two weeks before our deep freeze, I saw a Global Warming expert on TV say that the rest of our winter season would be very mild and attributed it to Global Warming. He's got to feel like an ass now.

 

I suppose you didn't see the article about last month being the warmest January on record? Not in Ohio, not in the U.S., but globally.

 

What will the data be for February? Who knows. But just because it's cold here in the U.S., doesn't mean they're freezing their butts off in the rest of the world. But we Americans sometimes seem to forget that the globe doesn't end at our shores.


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The blurb is about the "rift" in the church, but the archived video of the PBS program reveals how the right-wing churches have "sold out" to the oil industry by taking money through the Acton Institute think tank.

 

"Sold out" is the politest term I could find.   

 

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/green/

 

"Is God Green?"

 

A new holy war is growing within the conservative evangelical community, with implications for both the global environment and American politics. For years liberal Christians and others have made protection of the environment a moral commitment. Now a number of conservative evangelicals are joining the fight, arguing that man's stewardship of the planet is a biblical imperative and calling for action to stop global warming.

But they are being met head-on by opposition from their traditional evangelical brethren who adamantly support the Bush administration in downplaying the threat of global warming and other environmental perils. The political stakes are high: Three out of every four white evangelical voters chose George W. Bush in 2004. "Is God Green?" explores how a serious split among conservative evangelicals over the environment and global warming could reshape American politics.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Links to two very interesting articles connected to global warming: one from NPR and the other from the Money section os USA Today.  The first is about the KKR buyout of Texas Ultilities (TXU) and how KKR would only do it if the company could be restructured as a "green energy" power producer

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7615616

 

The other story is how the issue of global warming is changing the business and investment world.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/us/2007-02-27-global-warming-usat_x.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Links to two very interesting articles connected to global warming: one from NPR and the other from the Money section os USA Today.  The first is about the KKR buyout of Texas Ultilities (TXU) and how KKR would only do it if the company could be restructured as a "green energy" power producer

Yes, Noozer, I heard the NPR/ME story this morning.  The critic (Lucere ?) said that the 8 cancelled plants were a "bargaining chip" and that the utility just wanted the "three they got in the agreement".  My activist buddies in Texas tell me that this is a "fast track" hustle around the existing siting process that they had worked out with Governor Perry.  Democracy in peril

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Temperature Of Coffee Expected To Rise Nine Degrees By End Of 21st Century

February 23, 2007 | Issue 43•08

 

WASHINGTON, DC—A report released by the Union of Concerned Dietitians stated that not only will the temperature of coffee increase by nearly nine degrees by the end of this century, the rise is directly linked to human activity.

 

...

 

More at:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/temperature_of_coffee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Temperature Of Coffee Expected To Rise Nine Degrees By End Of 21st Century

Thanks, Brewmaster, we needed some levity.  However, you have an obvious bias here because...you are a brewer!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

County officials issue a plea on global warming

Commissioners urge Congress to act

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Jack Torry

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

WASHINGTON — The nation’s county commissioners are calling on Congress and the White House to adopt laws that would reduce the industrial emissions believed to cause higher global temperatures.

 

In a meeting here yesterday attended by Franklin County Commissioner Paula Brooks, the board of directors of the National Association of Counties approved a resolution to combat global warming. It was the first time the nation’s commissioners have agreed on a climate-change policy.

 

"It shows broad-based support for doing something about this problem," said Brooks, a Democrat. "This is a very positive thing. It says that at the local level, people want something done."

 

...

 

More at:

http://dispatch.com/national-story.php?story=dispatch/2007/03/06/20070306-A3-01.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Economist:

 

Winds of change

Mar 9th 2007

 

The EU unveils bold plans to tackle global warming

 

SO FAR, 2007 seems to be shaping up as the “year of global warming”. As January came, analysts were still debating the report issued in October 2006 by Sir Nicholas Stern, which urged rich countries to combat global warming or risk seeing global GDP cut by 20% by 2200. Then, in February, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its draft report, which predicted that global warming would cause the world’s temperature to rise by somewhere in the range of 1.1-6.4ºC by 2100.

 

Now Europe is trying to take action. On Friday March 9th, European Union (EU) leaders sealed an agreement on ambitious long-term plans for reducing the 27 member states’ greenhouse footprint. By 2020, governments are supposed to lower emissions to 20% below those of 1990; boost the percentage of energy consumption that comes from renewable sources to 20% of the total; and ensure that biofuels make up at least 10% of fuels used for transport. In exchange for agreeing to these tough targets, individual nations won flexibility in how they reach those goals.

 

Like the Stern report, the agreement is clearly meant to stand as a rebuke, and a prod, to other nations, particularly America, that have not tackled the problem of anthropogenic global warming. With countries like China and India rapidly industrialising and providing ever-more carbon-intensive consumer goods like cars to their citizens, the rich world will have to trim its carbon footprint substantially if there is to be much hope of slowing the pace of warming.

 

...

 

More at:

http://www.economist.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031207/content/01125116.guest.html

 

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

 

RUSH: Here's Ivory in Hayward, Wisconsin. Hi, Ivory.

 

CALLER: Hi, Rush. It's nice to talk to you.

 

RUSH: Nice to talk to you. How old are you? You sound young.

 

CALLER: Yeah, I'm a senior in high school.

 

RUSH: Ah, a senior in high school. I remember those days. You like it?

 

CALLER: Yeah, it's fun. But I'm going to be doing a persuasive speech on global warming for my class next week. I was just wondering, I'm going to be doing this speech on why global warming is not such a serious issue as people say, and I was just wondering what you would say to my class. How can I convince my liberal environmentalist teacher and classmates that global warming is not a big issue?

 

RUSH: In the first place, change your objective. You're not going to persuade 'em. If they're really environmentalists and activists, you can try, but don't think of yourself a failure if it doesn't work. Change the expectation on this. Still try to do as persuasive a speech as possible. I don't have a whole lot of time here. I need to ask you: are you or your parents subscribers to my website?

 

CALLER: No, we're not.

 

RUSH: Well, I'm going to make you complementary subscribers. Do you have a computer and use a computer?

 

CALLER: Mmm-hmm.

 

RUSH: You go online and all that? Good. I'm going to make you a complimentary subscriber of my website, so when the call is over, hang on, and somebody will tell you how to access it, because I've got a whole encyclopedia of the stuff --

 

CALLER: Okay.

 

RUSH: -- that you could research and put together your own presentation, which would do you better than if I write the paper for you here on the radio. But I'll give you a couple of items -- and I know I'm going to get grief. “She set you up, Rush! All she wants is a free subscription.” I don't think that about you, Ivory.

 

CALLER: Okay.

 

RUSH: But I'm going to get all kinds of complaints from people. Nevertheless this is a worthwhile project. Microsoft gives discounts. I give comps. Now, the first thing that you should say is that global warming cannot possibly be science.

 

CALLER: Okay.

 

RUSH: The reason it can't be science is because there are too many scientists who disagree with it -- and they are prominent, and they are many and they have written books, and you will find who they are and you will find the books on my website. The global warming advocates like to say that there is a "consensus" among scientists that global warming is manmade. The problem is that when you're talking about science, there can be no consensus. Science is not a subject to a vote. We don't take a vote on what we want our science to be and whatever wins turns out to be our science. Science is precise and it is what it is, and there's a method for determining scientific fact and it has not been met with global warming. That, to me, is the most basic point. But you're going to have a problem with that, even, because to most of the people like your teacher... My belief is that their belief in global warming is more a religious belief than it is anything scientific, because it isn't scientific.

 

People like your teacher and some of your classmates have just, because of guilt, bought into the notion that they are destroying -- that we are destroying -- the planet and that we must pay a price for this. But what you need to point out to these people is that global warming is just the latest of a long line of efforts on the part of liberals around the world to grow government, to raise taxes, to increase regulation, and to limit the behavior of a free people, because that is their real objective. This is just the latest tactic use to scare people and make them feel guilty, to get them to agree because they have "sinned" against the planet, to pay higher taxes and to accept reductions in lifestyle and this sort of thing. Now, I only have ten seconds here, but I have said some brilliant, brilliant monologues. If you wanted to, you could rewrite one of those in your own words and get an A.

 

CALLER: Okay.

 

RUSH: But don't do that. Well, yes, do it however you want, but do the work yourself so you will learn it. Don't hang up.

 

CALLER: Yes.

 

RUSH: Somebody will be right with you.

 

END TRANSCRIPT


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...