Rush Limbaugh claims global warming is a hoax and conservatives eat it up, while Limbaugh laughs all the way to the bank. The same with his Fox news talk show cronies like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and friends.
Creating fodder for their conservative audience is exactly what these commentators get paid for doing. So, they go all out, including editing clips to show only what they want people to hear, as Laura Ingraham recently did on Bill O’Reilly’s show to .jpg)
accuse Al Gore of making money from his environmental activities. But they cut out the part about profits going to charity. Loyal listeners to conservative TV or radio talk shows don’t get their news anywhere else. They check their brains at the door and seize upon every word, as if it were gospel.
For this reason only, one could speculate that Fox News has higher ratings than CNN and MSNBC. Republicans and conservatives are so hang-dog over the election of President Obama and his popularity, that they are drawn to the safe haven of rhetorical liberal bashing that lays at the alter of Fox News.
According to Dana Milbank’s article in the Washington Post May 12, 2009 Limbaugh recently claimed that he is the architect of the global warming naysayer’s movement. Milbank reports on this line of conversation delivered by Rush during his Monday program:
Among callers to his show yesterday, the opinions of Limbaugh were more on the side of extravagant admiration:
"There are no words to adequately describe our appreciation for your program and your individual accomplishments as a patriot."
The host had a similar sentiment:
"I normally don't pat myself on the back, but today global warming is an issue that has the concern of 30 percent of the American people, and years ago it was over 50 percent," he said.
(Par for the course, that he doesn’t cite any statistics to back up his claim)
"That's because somebody spoke up day in and day out and said, 'This is a hoax, this is BS.' That somebody was me."
To express pride in the mass distribution of ignorance and undermining societal response to global warming, is a badge of honor that conservative talking heads wear proudly, because they have been greatly successful at it.
Statements similar to, “oh, it’s cold outside, how about that global warming?” has been used by Sean Hannity repeatedly. He cannot be oblivious to the fact that he is conveying a blatant level of incomprehension on the subject of climate change that defies reasonable thought, but he is telling his audience what they want to hear; even as polar ice caps are melting.
Glenn Beck is up in arms over an unconfirmed source that claims the White House is being advised to use different language to replace the words “green jobs” and “global warming”.
“Here is the real problem as I see — it's causing us not to deal with actual issues. You want to talk about global warming? Great, let's talk about global warming. But now, they're not. Now, because we know that's bull crap — now we're going into creating new clean — not green — clean jobs, which has that nice fuzzy sound to it, but isn't the same issue. We're no longer even talking about the same issue.”
Evidently, according to Beck, it must be a conspiracy by the US government to confuse the American people on what the Administration is talking about.
The real tragedy in all of this war on science by Fox’s liberal-hating political posse is that people, who are normally rational in all other regards, are so hungry to denigrate the opposition, that they succumb to the conservative-hyping ideology…without challenging a single word.
Rush Limbaugh in Liberal showdown over LA terrorist remarks
Copyright 2009 Jean Williams
Comments
Jean, please don't get confused by the facts.
1)Ice core data says temperature drives CO2.
2)Last 10 years - temperature falling with rising CO2.
3) IPCC 100 year forecasts could not hit the broad side of a barn even with the help of an urban heat island (UHI). Must be due to CKDS - Cloud Knowledge Deficiency Syndrome.
4) How about the Alaskan Hubbard Glacier advancing at 7 ft. per day? Must be Al Gore's global warming extremes causing this one.
Please Jean answer my call.
Jean, please don't get confused by the facts.
1)Ice core data says temperature drives CO2.
2)Last 10 years - temperature falling with rising CO2.
3) IPCC 100 year forecasts could not hit the broad side of a barn even with the help of an urban heat island (UHI). Due to CKCS - Cloud Knowledge Deficiency Syndrom.
4) How about the Alaskan Hubbard Glacier advancing at 7 ft. per day? Must be Al Gore's global ewarming extremes causing this.
You bring up such an obvious point, I wonder why it hasn't been brought up more often. Fox network has enjoyed a steady rise in ratings this past year, since the campaign and election. Obviously, boosted by the increasing unhappiness of conservatives.
Of course, liberal talk show hosts like Bill Maher and Jon stewart are paid commentators, as well, but you don't hear about them editing clips to fabricate a point.
It just seems the right winged media like Fox News and self-proclaimed global warming scuttlers like Rush Limbaugh have been given a free license to dumb down the public and they are taking full advantage of it, as long as the ratings are good. But the blame has to be shared by a willing audience of conservative lemmings, who are willig to be lead off a cliff.
The Republicans are demonstrating themselves to be very sad and small people. Even when someone like Jeb Bush steps up and says the Republican party needs to be more inclusive and less devisive, you get Cheney putting out the proclamation for Republicans to stick to their conservative (narrow-minded) and steadfast (inflexible) philosophy.
Pathetic...
Bewildered:
Where do you get your facts? You don't offer any supportive scientific data. Your message is mostly incoherent jibberish.
You pen a snide remark at Al Gore, but I'm willing to bet good money that you have never seen "An Inconvenient Truth". Most Republican conservatives haven't. Why? Because they aren't allowed to think for themselves. They take their lead from blow-hards like Limbaugh and O'Reilly.
The fact that Al Gore's documentary was honored by an academy award and won the nobel prize, would suggest what? That he was instrumental in the successful conspiracy of thousands of scientists around the world to offer false climate models, decades of biological data, and other forms of misinformation? Get real!
As for me: I find recent reports, supported by video and photographs, of massive polar ice shelves breaking apart and falling into the sea, to be pretty demonstable evidence of a climate problem.
Bewildered, thank you for providing that demonstration of Jean's point about conservatives checking their brains at the door.
1: Ice core data shows that in the past temperatures started to increase prior to CO2 levels going up. This is true. That it means temperature drives CO2 level is the false spin put on it to deceive conservatives with their brains turned off. In the past there were no factories or automobiles pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Ergo, you only started to see CO2 increases when the temperature went up... causing CO2 trapped in ice and permafrost to be released. That extra CO2 then absorbed more infrared radiation, further heating the atmosphere... which melted more ice... and released more CO2... until eventually the process peaked and started to reverse. A natural cycle between ~200 and ~300 atmospheric parts per million (ppm) of CO2 which happened every 100,000 years or so for at least the past million. Atmospheric CO2 levels are now at 385 ppm and climbing fast... a level not seen since the massive CO2 levels of the early volcanic earth became sequestered in the ice, ground, and oceans. This increase in CO2 has preceded the increase in temperature over the past several decades precisely BECAUSE it is not natural. Humans have increased the CO2 levels.
2: The temperature has not been falling for the last 10 years. This claim is derived from the fact that 1998 was, according to some measurements, the hottest year ever recorded (others have it as the second hottest). In conservative 'logic' anything less than the hottest year is therefor cooling. In reality this is nonsense. The past ten years were hotter than the ten before that which were hotter than the ten before that... which in rational circles is known as a 'trend'. The past five years (2004-2008) were hotter than any other five year period on record. Taking ONE year, 1998, and using that single outlier as the sole basis for comparison is known amongst statisticians as 'lying'.
3: Any 100 year forecast which turns out to be correct will be so largely due to luck. We do not have complete understanding of every variable impacting global temperatures and this makes climate modeling an inexact process... which of course is obvious and fully acknowledged by everyone working in the field. However, it must be pointed out that the actual MEASURED increases in temperature and effects from global warming have consistently EXCEEDED those in the IPCC and other models. In other words, they haven't nailed things down precisely... because actual results have been worse than they predicted.
4: Yes, the Hubbard Glacier is advancing very quickly... into the ocean... because it is MELTING!
CB - show me some output from your brain versus moronically citing the realclimate propaganda.
1)How about citing research/facts that support the fairly tail that CO2 takes over for temperature as the driver relative to the ice core record
2)Temperature has dropped since 1998, that is 10 years ago, it is a fact, not a lie.
3)Please site a reference or two that supports your gibberish on the IPCC forecast accuracy. And please note that forecasts are not facts only wishful dreams.
4)Lets see, when glaciers recede it is due to AGW and when they advance it is also due to AGW, how convenient.
The truth would seem that people like "Bewildered" are convinced of their position, in the face of monumental evidence to the contrary. They can always find research to support their claims.
Unfortunately, there have been groups of dubious scientists, who have been paid by oil and gas companies, to produce reports that cast doubt on the validity of global warming. But that is a drop in the bucket compared to the influence that people like Limbaugh and Hannity have on their minions of followers.
That seems more to the point of this article. I know people, who are absolutely dedicated to these commentators. One guy would not miss a nightly Bill O'Reilly show if his mother was dying. But if Obama is giving a speech on NBC, he walks out of the room. This person is the epitome of many conservative mentalities. He gets his information filtered through the third party view point of opinionated people, who are paid to feed them exactly what they want to hear.
FOX News fair and balanced "no spin zone"? That is a farce and a total contradiction in terms.
Please leave the party if any apply (even one):
-Pro-choice
-Anti-gun
-Anti-military
-sympathetic to homosexuals
-Anti-religion
-Pro-taxes
-Pro-welfare
-Pro-diplomacy
-Pro-environment
-Pro-evolution
-Pro-sex education
Jean:
We should be thankful that only 25 percent of the population currently identifies with this group. FDR did not bring our country out of the Great Depression through his new deal reforms--they were never intended to do as much. Like Obama, FDR sought to bring about a change in the way we thought about the role government should play in our lives. FDR was successful in this endeavor. It is my hope that Obama will garner success in much the same way.
I wrote an article that focused on the difference between journalism and entertainment, which made very similar points to your own. I couldn't believe how many people insisted O'Reilly was moderate....sigh.
The Hannity's and Limbaugh's of the world are scared to death of change--and no wonder--an educated public would reject their vitriol outright.
Just a little rebut.
ttp://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/i-hate-science/
Learn a little science before you preach.
Jean,
Take a deep breath....and look at the scientific evidence. Here are 2 web pages of actual scientific evidence (data) that you can review at your leisure.
www(dot)c3headlines(dot)com/modern-temperatures-chartsgraphs(dot)html
www(dot)c3headlines(dot)com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies(dot)html
Look, and then think about the data you're seeing. Honestly, after your own careful review, do you really think "global warming" is a major crisis or problem in the context of historical climate temperatures? If you think the actual temperature data deserves hysteria, please proceed as usual.
C3H Editor
Bewildered, Jeff IiD, and C3H,
Right back at 'ya:
www.forbes.com/feeds/hscout/2009/05/13/hscout627059.html
www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGPz4tCECfYX-zCj52qE49DH2KlQD985CC380
www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2009/05/13/news/local/184895.txt
climateofourfuture.org/changes-in-the-sun-are-not-causing-global-warming-new-study-shows/
www.voanews.com/english/2009-05-13-voa17.cfm
www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/01/sea.level.rise
www.theglobalwarmingcause.com/?p=300
Hi, I'm Al Gore, I used to be the next President of the United States
Now imagine you were sitting in your house, when an iceberg fell on top of it. Now imagine it's floating down a river, with your family sitting on top. Now imagine it's happening tomorrow, so that my life has meaning.
It has not been this hot until TEN of the last FOURTEEN YEARS! This summer will be hotter than it has been ALL......YEAR.......LONG
Is it possible that we should focus on threats other than terrorism, like bovine flatulence?
So remember, the climate crisis is real, like my marketability
GregerT,
Are you aware you just cited a bunch of newspaper articles against my actual plot of actual data from the actual NSIDC NOAA satellite microwave transponder series on sea ice in the Antarctic? Do you understand the difference?
Sorry to harsh your buzz dude.
It's not my fault you fall for hype, it's yours. As the article above says, its a shame people listen to this crap without taking the time to look at the data themselves. It's a further shame that articles like this get written by people who claim knowledge without looking at the data or reading real science publications (not news articles) either.
Even AGW supportive science typically drags well behind the hype of the leftist media. Stop getting your knowledge from articles like this or face the consequences of ignorance.
Jeff Id, I find your implication that reputable publications don't base their reports on scientific data to be considerably misinformed and self-righeous.
Here's another one I believe is credible and I will take NASA satellite studies over some dude who slinks around the Internet criticizing opposing viewpoints and slathering it generously with accusations of ignorance--any day.
www.examiner.com/examiner/x-5266-Seattle-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m5d13-Catlin-Arctic-Survey-disappearing-Arctic-ice-news-is-dire-for-coastal-cities
Don't mean to hash on your buzz, dude, but you and Bill and Al and Limbaugh and C3H and bewildered should all get together and stoke each other's ego. You're probably all the same person, anyway.
I find it amazing how Rush Limbaugh propaganda has hoodwinked people into believing that global warming is a hoax by using statistics about weather in the past year, ten years or even one hundred years. A century is only a blip on the screen of time and every educated scientist knows that. To claim that since the last year or the last decade has been cooler/warmer than usual in some spot or other around the globe means absolutely positively nothing and has no scientific validation.
GregerT
"Jeff Id, I find your implication that reputable publications don't base their reports on scientific data to be considerably misinformed and self-righeous."
So when I download over 1Gb of data from the National Snow Ice Data Center, process the gridded data into ice area, anomalize it for trend and plot it, that somehow is equal to a liberal arts major posting on my conservative ignorance?
If you look at the ice cap melting link in the article, Jean links to her own post discussing the disappearance of ice caps. I simply show how the cap has grown. This is well known in science and is actually mainstream, outside of know-nothing reporters and the ignorant public of course.
I can't believe you linked to the Catlin survey. A huge publicity stunt gone completely wrong due to unexpected cold weather and substantial growth of the Arctic ice as well. Nearly every aspect of their mission failed as supplies couldn't be delivered in bad snowstorms and they nearly froze to death. Link doesn't work by the way.
Are you aware that global polar sea ice anomaly was greater than 98% of all historic measured values last month. That's why catlin had so much trouble. I was, because I calculated it rather than reading a horsecrap news article!
In case you're wondering my calcs match well with the mainstream Cryosphere graphs as well but for some reason people like Jean don't report on that.
Karen, it is interesting that you accuse Rush et al of being narrow sited using a “blip in time”, 10 or 100 years, to stress a point yet when the IPCC and Hansen et al use the past 100 years to claim that warming is unprecedented and use that to model 100 years out you give them a free pass. Why is that?
Science it not well served by political-oriented articles such as this. Quit the name calling and respect the process that good science continually tests itself.
For the past 20 years I believed global warming was caused by CO2. Now, after many months of research, I'm not so sure. It's looking more and more to be a natural phenomenon to me. My interest in energy policy is so great I launched www.energyplanusa.com where I take a common sense look at global warming and energy policy. I've waded through the wellspring of global warming theory, the United Nation's IPCC reports, and conclude they lack the 'smoking gun' that proves global warming is man-made. Moreover, I've come to realize that man-made global warming theory cherry picks facts and ignores contradictory evidence from reliable studies.
I'm dismayed that my own party, the Democrats, the thinkers, have turned a scientific issue into religious zealotry where faith trumps facts. I'm also dismayed that the American press seems content with publishing hearsay, without backing up conclusions and presumptions with facts and evidence.
Before we increase the cost of energy with cap-and-trade, I believe it's imperative that the United States establishes a non-political, scientific commission to review all facts and evidence surrounding global warming. The UN, a political organization, should not be determining our energy policy. The stakes are huge. If we respond to global warming incorrectly, our children and grandchildren will likely lead lives of increasing hardship and desperation.
"I find it amazing how Rush Limbaugh propaganda has hoodwinked people into believing that global warming is a hoax by using statistics about weather in the past year, ten years or even one hundred years. A century is only a blip on the screen of time and every educated scientist knows that."
So let me get this straight: A century (or two) isn't enough time for any real comprehensive evaluation. With that said, would not going back to the time BEFORE mankind be a much better method?
With THAT said, you see a little bit of a problem implicating a group for a situation they may have 10% to do with?
Pick up your trash and leave the campground better than you found it, so to speak. What do you want to other than that? Kill an entire economy/ies (which btw has "coincidentally" been happening ever since An Inconvenient Al) over it?
The presumption of moral and intellectual superiority seems to be the trademark of the social progressive, on full display here. The progressive’s views are so intellectually correct, and morally righteous, that it is just not possible for a reasonable, open-minded person to disagree. So Laura Ingraham, et. al. [I assume the column’s actual wording of “et. Al.” was not a Freudian reference to Mr. Gore] of course know better, but cynically manipulate a gullible audience for financial gain. Therefore, if you disagree with the progressive value system, you must be ... either inferior or a huckster.
I am tired of hearing this conceit, popular from Ms. Williams to Dick Cavett to Janine Garofolo, and am angered. For Ms. Williams expresses the New Racism, which is a lot like the old racism except that it has been redirected. The old racism looked down at people of color as inherently inferior, and “lacking the necessities.” The New Racism is based on the color of your politics: if you are “one of them” you “check your brain at the door.” Janine Garofolo goes so far as to say a conservative’s brain is actually malformed. I hope that Ms Williams is not susceptible to this kind of weird anatomical theorizing. I thought it had died out along with the rest of the 18th-century Victorian racial attitudes.
Confused about climate? Well, I admit it. Maybe I am irrational.
It started in the 70’s with the global cooling scare. Then CO2 AGW research really got going from British Govt. funding, who was interested in justifying building more nuclear power plants. This idea was seized upon by environmentalists. That doesn’t make AGW not so, but it doesn’t it make sense to ask questions of the “follow the money” variety?
After wading through parts of the IPCC, and having some exposure to computer modeling on a professional basis, I am confused as to why Govt. publications and IPCC scientists put such blind faith in computer models. The enterprise at times seems more like a witch’s brew of decision analysis, statistics, and computer gaming than real science. As justification of this view, I ask you this: What set of observations would falsify the theory of catastrophic AGW? From what I can tell, they don’t exist. Anything that happens is compatible with AGW. That isn’t science, that is religion. That doesn’t make it untrue per se but does put it in context.
I am confused why Al Gore represents the plight of the polar bear in a way that is either ignorant or blatantly misleading. If the ice were really frozen solid nice and thick year round, how would the polar bears get to the seals? And that famous picture of the polar bear on the ice floe? The bear was in no danger whatsoever. Who’s susceptible?
I am confused how a Nobel prize winner, Dr. Steven Chu, can bumble and stumble thru a slide show and be totally unable to convert Farenheit to Celsius correctly, and speak of phantom temperature values that should be on his charts but aren’t. Or how he can testify in Congress and be seemingly ignorant of the fact that temperatures in the northern latitudes have been much, much warmer in the past? For that matter I am confused as to why Steven Chu won a Nobel Prize and John Bell and Alain Aspect haven’t, but I digress. If Ms Williams could take some time away from writing for Critters USA to explain that one I’d appreciate it.
I am confused by predictions of massive sea level rises as predicted by Al Gore, which don’t seem to be occurring or are very likely. I am confused by stories of massive latent heat stored in ocean pipelines that seem to exist only in computer models. I am confused as to why climate scientists treat their data and algorithms like they have something to hide.
I am confused as to why the hurricanes are not increasing in frequency and ferocity, as predicted from AGW. I am confused as to why papers are published saying we could be in for cooling for the next 20 or 30 years, and if it happens I am sure Gavin Schmidt will say “Yea, we knew that” but if it doesn’t ... well whatever happens won’t change a thing.
I am confused why predictions are couched as “50% likelihood”, because 50% is also used for estimates when you don’t know the probability and need a placeholder. I am confused as to why the non-conservative USA Today publishes a temperature chart, extending back 1,000s of years, accurate to a 1000th of a degree. That is truly irrational. Who believes that arbitrary precision? I am confused as to why the IPCC includes in the details a lot of hemming and hawing yet jumps to robust and forceful conclusions.
I am confused as to why a year ago I read a proper scientific paper saying the entire historical trend of temperature measurements on Mt. Washington showed no significant warming, and that was the only paper I could find on Google. Yet now a Google search brings hits claiming that data shows warming. Well, as they say, what’s up with that?
I am confused why the non-conservative, thinking, intelligent and nuanced media trumpeted headlines blaming a wide variety of human disasters and financial losses on AGW when it seemed so implausible. Even the NYT quickly came to realize this couldn’t be the case. I am confused as to why so much of the media lets the NYT set the editorial agenda for that matter.
I am confused as to why water vapor is such a massively larger proportion of GHG, yet seems to be so unimportant.
And Steig with his RegEM and PCA? Oh please.
I am confused why the Polar 5 expedition measured ice that was thicker than expected. i am confused as to why Cyrosphere Today has made it more difficult to compare daily ice extent estimates.
I am confused as to why Russian scientists are fairly well convinced we are heading for global cooling...perhaps catastrophic.
I am confused why Al Gore’s won’t debate Lord Monckton. Al should be able to mop the floor with him -- couldn’t he? I am confused why Mr. Gore’s lifestyle is so at odds with his message. I am confused by Al Gore’s web of financial interests, and how that might bias his opinions.
I am confused as to why AGW proponents do not champion nuclear power.
Will the world get catastrophically warmer because of AGW? Maybe. I’m open minded.
But I am not open minded about slander, insults, and denigration aimed at consumers of conservative media who may disagree with you.
Correction: Previous post should read "19th-century Victorian" vice the 18th. Though I gather things were even worse in the 1700's.
Quantum,
You seem like a very confused person on so many levels, but the main one clearly demonstrates the point of Ms. Williams article, which is how Ms. Ingraham portrayed Al Gore as a lieing cheat on Fox News and sold it to people like you.
What Laura Ingraham did was accuse Al Gore of doing his environmental work for profit, but she conveniently edited out the part that stated his organization's profit goes to charity.
If you want to defend people like that, who use a practice that permeates the right wing media, that is your freedom of choice. But when someone writes an article to expose the hypocricy and the motivation behind these productions, that person inevitably becomes the target of stone throwers, like yourself and others on this blog.
Conservatives have annointed themselves to be the moral police for everyone else on the planet, and by gosh, they will cheat, lie, distort, and fabricate whatever truth is inconvenient to them.
Maybe there is a reason why you are confused, but you should look in the mirror for the answer, instead of pointing the finger at people who disagree with the "lemming" effect.
News flash, ICE CAPS ARE ALWAYS MELTING! They always have been! they're ICE! and ice melts, but it's not gonna melt enough to get rid of them! oh and lets not forget about the claim that the melting will cause to oceans raising putting Cuba and Florida (and other places) under water, there isn't enough ice! and no i'm not just following Rush or anyone else, I'm 15 freaking yrs old! i don't HAVE A STABLE POLITICAL VIEW! if it makes sense to me and i believe it's right then i'll agree with you! Oh, and there was weather before it was recorded, how do we know this hasn't happened before? i don't wanna waste my time and life freaking about these things.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!