The Rush Limbaugh Thread

[The Senator]

The problem with environmentalists is not whether they are right or wrong. So much of a "doom and gloom" group they are. This attitude does not solve problems. Much of their solutions are either impractical or exasperates the situation.

If you want to be an environmentalist that will make a difference, go into engineering or business where you CAN make the difference. Wasting 4 years to learn how to WHINE "professionally" about problems is less productive than spending 4 years learning how to SOLVE problems.

Or go into environmental law or policy, like some of us on this forum are considering (<---)....

 

[Kelly]

Oh, god noooooooooooooooooo..............bringers of bureaucracy.....say it ain't so Jman.....say it ain't soooooo......*big wink*

 

[The Senator]

Oh, god noooooooooooooooooo..............bringers of bureaucracy.....say it ain't so Jman.....say it ain't soooooo......*big wink*

I will never work for the government again. I've done it on and off through college... I'm not a real fan of how much it takes to get something done... such as getting a letter from the first floor to the second floor the same day I ask someone to do it... my work will be private practice or non-profit oriented.

 

[Genesis 1.0]

Well, like I said in the other thread, it is really interesting. People so far have been touting it as some instant-fix (the word, "erase," has been thrown around erroneously). It's completely anomalous.

Worth keeping an eye on, though, for sure.

Yeah, pretty much every source that's carrying the story uses the term 'erase' when referring to the drop eclipsing the rise. I can't find one site that carries the actual report from the four major bodies that monitor the situation, however, if they too use the term 'erase' I would think it lends more credibility to the argument.

Then again, I can't find the actual report anywhere.

 

[dolfan55aj]

Ha, yea, if this keeps up we may be begging for more global warming. No matter how much Limbaugh bugs me he's got a point, all those Global Warming activists were overreacting due to a natural global occurance.

 

[Kelly]

Ha, yea, if this keeps up we may be begging for more global warming. No matter how much Limbaugh bugs me he's got a point, all those Global Warming activists were overreacting due to a natural global occurance.

Proof?

 

[dolfan55aj]

Proof?

I'm not saying that global warming isn't real, I'm just saying why does everybody say that we're the ones that are causing everything. You should be asking for proof that we are the ones responsible for global warming. I just don't think that biking to work is going to save the environment, and everybody should stop making a big deal of it.

 

[Hush]

If you think that there is seriously global warming you need to sit your butt down in STL, MO. It's freezing! Oh and no i didnt read this whole thread.

 

[Carcharodon]

I'm not saying that global warming isn't real, I'm just saying why does everybody say that we're the ones that are causing everything. You should be asking for proof that we are the ones responsible for global warming. I just don't think that biking to work is going to save the environment, and everybody should stop making a big deal of it.

Yeah, because there aren't other negative effects of our pollution, right?

I'm sick of the attitude of, "OH, well, if we're NOT causing climate change, global warming, etc., we should just continue to piss all over everything without any thought of the consequences!"

 

[dolfan55aj]

Yeah, because there aren't other negative effects of our pollution, right?

I'm sick of the attitude of, "OH, well, if we're NOT causing climate change, global warming, etc., we should just continue to piss all over everything without any thought of the consequences!"

I don't think we should just go along polluting the earth and not worry about the effects. I'm just pointing out that people make it out to be a bigger deal than it is.

 

[ray243]

Haiz...so many people are blinded by the short term-effects of global warming.

Seriously, Global warming is important now because if we wait, our species as a whole will not have time to save ourselves in the future.

Look at desertification as a example, in the short term, people will keep thinking that desertification only last for a short time and by the time people notice how serious it is, it is too late to save the land for futhur use.


Yes, in the short term, it may not benefit people, but in the long, doing something active to solve global warming will benefit us.

But NOOO...the short term effects are SO important, hence we need to deny global warming.

I am begining to wonder what is the damn use of having a USA...where so many people do not even acknowledge global warming.

 

[Genesis 1.0]

Errrrrr.....

So some people choose to ignore an issue and the nation should be disbanded?

 

[brobdingnag]

Heh, that made me chuckle.

Ah but chuckles aside, this is quite possibly one of the biggest weather based stories in some time and it's not being carried at all. Limbaugh seems to think the media won't carry the story on par with Global Warming, if at all, because it would basically make them out to be foolish and undermine the liberal nature of the media.

I don't know if I'd go that far but it is rather odd to see something like this passed over when we hear something about Global Warming several times a week.

Warming IS occurring but the cause is unknown. It is patently false to say that it is definitely man made especially in light of the fact that Mars has experienced a temperature rise that parallels our own. He is right though about it being more about political science that real science. Back in the 70's, which I am old enough to remember, the liberals gave a go at global cooling. When that fell through, they switched to this. Whatever it takes to create some false issue that needs a big expensive program supported by tax increases.

 

[SuBe]

Warming IS occurring but the cause is unknown. It is patently false to say that it is definitely man made especially in light of the fact that Mars has experienced a temperature rise that parallels our own. He is right though about it being more about political science that real science. Back in the 70's, which I am old enough to remember, the liberals gave a go at global cooling. When that fell through, they switched to this. Whatever it takes to create some false issue that needs a big expensive program supported by tax increases.

agreed

 

[Mr Sparkle]

The problem with environmentalists is not whether they are right or wrong. So much of a "doom and gloom" group they are. This attitude does not solve problems. Much of their solutions are either impractical or exasperates the situation.

If you want to be an environmentalist that will make a difference, go into engineering or business where you CAN make the difference. Wasting 4 years to learn how to WHINE "professionally" about problems is less productive than spending 4 years learning how to SOLVE problems.

hmm.
I disagree.
"doom and gloom" group or not, the majority of actual environmentalists pretty much talk the talk and walk the walk.
I don't think the idea of everyone concerned with the environment becoming an engineer will "solve" much of anything, nor is it really feasible is it?
calling attention to issues that are far beyond the scope of many, and often times are only the domain of world governments.

 

[dolfan55aj]

Warming IS occurring but the cause is unknown. It is patently false to say that it is definitely man made especially in light of the fact that Mars has experienced a temperature rise that parallels our own. He is right though about it being more about political science that real science. Back in the 70's, which I am old enough to remember, the liberals gave a go at global cooling. When that fell through, they switched to this. Whatever it takes to create some false issue that needs a big expensive program supported by tax increases.

I agree, I mean I believe there may be environmental issues we can try to solve, but the left wing media is always there trying to blow it up into something bigger than it is, for personal gain.

 

[Genesis 1.0]

Regardless of the merit in Global Warming, there really is no argument against the fact that many of the far left have turned it into a political club to bludgeon any opposition that dares to propose moderation or a different view. This should be an issue that's discussed and thoroughly reviewed under a variety of different lenses, instead it's become another buzzword, another tool to gain funds and clout. A fashionable tag to draw votes, completely overshadowing the actual foundation.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

not really.
sections of the both right and left are guilty of politicizing the issue.
in fact, one might say that denying it, is pretty much closing oneself to discussion.

 

[Kelly]

I don't know of any of the "right" as far as politicians that have "totally denied" this........if so I would like to know who, and I'll send'um an email.

 

[Genesis 1.0]

not really.
sections of the both right and left are guilty of politicizing the issue.
in fact, one might say that denying it, is pretty much closing oneself to discussion.

Of course you would, it benefits your view.

 

[UltimateJustin]

Neo-Cons = "TERRORISM IS IN YOUR FACE AND IS GOING TO KILL YOU, YEE HAW"

Democrats = "THE WORLD IS MELTING AND YOU'SA PEOPLE GONNA DIE"

This is why I am an apolitical samurai ronan who travels the countryside going on various adventures while I master the art of swordplay. 3 1/2 CONFIRMED kills.

 

[Kelly]

Neo-Cons = "TERRORISM IS IN YOUR FACE AND IS GOING TO KILL YOU, YEE HAW"

Democrats = "THE WORLD IS MELTING AND YOU'SA PEOPLE GONNA DIE"

This is why I am an apolitical samurai ronan who travels the countryside going on various adventures while I master the art of swordplay. 3 1/2 CONFIRMED kills.

And you are having a hell of a time as well.........

 

[Franklin Richards]

Why am I hearing the Incredible Hulk credits music?

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Of course you would, it benefits your view.

how would it?
since I have accused both sides of doing it.
you're the one that seems to think one side blameless.
I wonder if the blameless side happens to also be your side.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

I don't know of any of the "right" as far as politicians that have "totally denied" this........if so I would like to know who, and I'll send'um an email.

Last year, the National Journal asked a group of Republican senators and House members: "Do you think it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?" Of the respondents, 23 percent said yes, 77 percent said no. In the year since that poll, of course, global warming has seized a massive amount of public attention. The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a study, with input from 2,000 scientists worldwide, finding that the certainty on man-made global warming had risen to 90 percent.

So, the magazine asked the question again last month. The results? Only 13 percent of Republicans agreed that global warming has been proved. As the evidence for global warming gets stronger, Republicans are actually getting more skeptical. Al Gore's recent congressional testimony on the subject, and the chilly reception he received from GOP members, suggest the discouraging conclusion that skepticism on global warming is hardening into party dogma. Like the notion that tax cuts are always good or that President Bush is a brave war leader, it's something you almost have to believe if you're an elected Republican.

How did it get this way? The easy answer is that Republicans are just tools of the energy industry. It's certainly true that many of them are. Leading global warming skeptic Representative Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), for instance, was the subject of a fascinating story in the Wall Street Journal a couple of years ago. The bottom line is that his relationship to the energy industry is as puppet relates to hand.

But the financial relationship doesn't quite explain the entirety of GOP skepticism on global warming. For one thing, the energy industry has dramatically softened its opposition to global warming over the last year, even as Republicans have stiffened theirs.

The truth is more complicated — and more depressing: A small number of hard-core ideologues (some, but not all, industry shills) have led the thinking for the whole conservative movement.

Your typical conservative has little interest in the issue. Of course, neither does the average nonconservative. But we nonconservatives tend to defer to mainstream scientific wisdom. Conservatives defer to a tiny handful of renegade scientists who reject the overwhelming professional consensus.

National Review magazine, with its popular Web site, is a perfect example. It has a blog dedicated to casting doubt on global warming, or solutions to global warming, or anybody who advocates a solution. Its title is "Planet Gore." The psychology at work here is pretty clear: Your average conservative may not know anything about climate science, but conservatives do know they hate Al Gore. So, hold up Gore as a hate figure and conservatives will let that dictate their thinking on the issue.

Meanwhile, Republicans who do believe in global warming get shunted aside. Nicole Gaudiano of Gannett News Service recently reported that Representative Wayne Gilchrest asked to be on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio refused to allow it unless Gilchrest would say that humans have not contributed to global warming. The Maryland Republican refused and was denied a seat.

Representatives Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md. and Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., both research scientists, also were denied seats on the committee. Normally, relevant expertise would be considered an advantage. In this case, it was a disqualification; if the GOP allowed Republican researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on a global warming panel, it would kill the party's strategy of making global warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood lefties.

The phenomenon here is that a tiny number of influential conservative figures set the party line; dissenters are marginalized, and the rank and file go along with it. No doubt something like this happens on the Democratic side pretty often too. It's just rare to find the phenomenon occurring in such a blatant way.

You can tell that some conservatives who want to fight global warming understand how the psychology works and are trying to turn it in their favor. Their response is to emphasize nuclear power as an integral element of the solution. Senator John McCain, who supports action on global warming, did this in a recent National Review interview. The technique seems to be surprisingly effective. When framed as a case for more nuclear plants, conservatives seem to let down their guard.

In reality, nuclear plants may be a small part of the answer, but you couldn't build enough to make a major dent. But the psychology is perfect. Conservatives know that lefties hate nuclear power. So, yeah, Rush Limbaugh listeners, let's fight global warming and stick it to those hippies!

source