Log in | Jump |


News & Perspective from the Center for Environmental Journalism
This item was posted on November 24, 2009, and it was categorized as CRU email controversy, Climate Change, Global Warming, Rush Limbaugh, climate skeptics.
You can follow comments through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and trackbacks are closed.

Rush Limbaugh went on an extended rant today about global warming, liberals, and climate scientists, triggered by the hacked CRU emails. Here is a portion of what he said:

They’re all frauds. They are all liars. They are skunks. And they ought to be held up for public ridicule. Obama said he wants to restore science to its rightful whatever. Then he ought to be leading the way to find out who these people are, what they’ve done, who they’ve infected, who went along with them, calling them out by name. Making sure that every scientist at every university in this country who has been involved in this is named and fired, drawn and quartered, or whatever it is, because this is a world wide hoax, and it’s primary target was you, the people of the United States of America.


You really can’t make this stuff up. Check it out for yourself:

Limbaugh likes to pretend that his show is about “reality,” versus “the universe of lies.” But later in his broadcast he revealed why he and many like minded people will never believe that humankind is having any negative impacts on the environment — because this would contradict their deeply held religious beliefs.

Well, belief in God is a very personal thing, but I happen to believe in a loving God of creation — and I just intellectually cannot accept the fact that a loving God which has created all this beauty and has blessed this country — I cannot believe that a God like that — would punish the human being he created for progress, for improving the quality of his life.  No longer do we have to follow plow mules in the fields.  No longer do we have to have kids out milking cows.  We have enhanced human life, the life experience, the quality of life, the standard of living.  I refuse to believe that a God who created the universe would create creatures who, by virtue of improving their lives and making progress, would destroy another part of His creation.

It just doesn’t compute in a logical sense.  If you don’t believe in God, then you probably are a global warmist or a liberal.  If you don’t believe in the God of Christianity or the God of Judaism or any other god you have to make some god. There has to be something bigger than you, and so it’s the global warming movement now or it’s health care or it’s Obama or it’s some earthly object that you apply godlike status to.  Even atheists believe in something beyond themselves.  But the point is they have used and targeted children, scaring them to death with lies.  Ted Turner’s been doing it with Captain Planet cartoons, getting kids to hate big business.

The left, my friends, is a truly evil bunch.  They know no bounds.  They have no compassion . . .

It’s hard not to feel some sense of dread about the future of our country when I listen to this.

This item was posted by .

You can follow comments through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and trackbacks are closed.

This thing has 10 Comments

  1. v
    Posted November 24, 2009 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

    does he know what “drawn and quarted means, if so ,how can he say that and get away with it?

  2. John Zulauf
    Posted November 25, 2009 at 10:56 am | Permalink

    the quote is “drawn and quartered, or whatever it is” — so no, he likely didn’t think clear about the meaning of that phrase. Even “tarred and feather” — which is the mostly likely replacement — reflect a violent, unthinking mob-speak act.


    The rant about God and progress is very odd. A balance, view most in line with the Western, Judeo-Christian tradition (which as a conservative he ostensibly supports) is one of “stewardship”. The stewardship view is that while the Earth is ours (collectively), it is also our responsibility to care for. A blind belief in progress as inherently good is certainly not consistent with that view.

    Actually, “stewardship” is the reason that it’s important that we get the AGW answer right. What is the “stewardship” opportunity cost for focusing on AGW? If AGW isn’t correct, what is it we *should* be spending T and $ on? Oceanic pollution? Habitat preservation? Groundwater contamination? T and $ are finite — what should we be using them on?

    “Everything” is not a valid answer. Not even the Chinese could lend us that much money.

  3. John Zulauf
    Posted November 25, 2009 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    What do you think about the quote from the putative CRU emails? Parenthetical mine.

    “Next time I see” (AGW skeptic) “Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
    the crap out of him. Very tempted.”

  4. Posted November 25, 2009 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    This sounds like a man who felt himself under siege and vented to a friend — not thinking anyone else would ever see it. (Always a bad, bad, bad assumption. Internet Communications First Commandment: When angry, THOU SHALL NOT HIT SEND.)

    This is not like Rush Limbaugh shrieking to his audience with spittle flying out of his face that climate scientists should be drawn and quartered, and Andrew Revkin should go go kill himself (after calling him the equivalent of a jihadist on the very day that Andy’s son entered the Israeli Army).

    Let me ask you this: How comfortable would you be about the world seeing all of your email communications? (This is one way of mentioning the “casting stones” thing…)

    What’s much more important to me than scientists blowing off steam and saying really stupid things in private emails is whether and to what degree the peer review process was undermined. That cannot be determined from email messages. It can only be determined by an inquiry carried out by a fair-minded, independent expert or group of experts familiar with the peer review process. They would have to speak with all parties involved, and look at relevant documentation, etc, and reach a dispassionate, judicious conclusion.

    For the sake of scientific integrity and public credibility, I would hope that CRU endorses such a step.

    But to make the argument, as some readers of CEJournal have, that possible misbehavior by a handful of scientists implicates all climate science is logically unsupportable. Some men beat their wives. Does that mean all men beat their wives? Or even that we should suspect all men of beating their wives?

  5. googler
    Posted November 25, 2009 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

    “But to make the argument, as some readers of CEJournal have, that possible misbehavior by a handful of scientists implicates all climate science is logically unsupportable.”

    But the argument that all science requires independent verification of data and methods is supportable. And verification appears to have been what has been avoided for the generation of one of the key temperature indices which is extensively quoted in the climate corpus.

    A clear explanation is here:


  6. John Zulauf
    Posted November 25, 2009 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    Tom: re, the publication of private email — fair enough. I’ll stipulate Limbaugh was an idiot above (if I wasn’t already clear). There might be people who should be fired if ethical violations can be shown (would urging deletion of records be sufficient?), but that is a small (but important) minority.

    > But to make the argument, as some readers of CEJournal have,
    > that possible misbehavior by a handful of scientists implicates
    > all climate science is logically unsupportable.

    Fair enough, but look at who these folks *are*. They are not bit players here, these are the same folks that *created* the hockey stick (the self described “hockey team”), that *deleted* the MWP, etc. These are the people defining the climate history that everyone else has depended on. If CRU really did what is claimed (cherry picked/spiked the temperature record), then the WMP exists and you can delete the A in AGW.

    Look at quote below (from someone you know, likely) and tell me that what the CRU emails show isn’t critical to the validity for the AGW case. The CRU has been a key player in the climate data that people are using.

    From Kevin Trenberth:

    “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

    I read several other quotes from Mr (Dr?) Trenberth and was quite impressed. Far from positioning the modeling as closed or subject to consensus, he openly (in private emails) questioned substantive portions of the modeling (in terms of heat rejection, sequestration, etc.). As an old numerical modeler, it warms my heart. Sadly, those nuances are missing from his public statements. That seems to be part of the tribal culture of “circling the wagons” so clearly seen in the published emails (again assuming them to be true).

    But this brings me back to my stewardship point, if there are still substantive questions about the models, and open questions about the data — why is this a public policy mandate, or even a crisis?

    Aren’t there other things in need of giga-$, celebrities, and ex-vice presidential bully pulpits?

  7. googler
    Posted November 25, 2009 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    Another set of suspect readings here:


  8. Posted November 25, 2009 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    John: Read my current post — http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2341

    And for my analysis of the implications for AGW of what we know so far in the email imbroglio, go here: http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2315

    I do not believe this episode undermines the case for human-caused global warming. But I also do not believe that I or anyone else is ever going to convince you. So as I’ve said before, I’m not going to try. I’d rather talk about energy technology.

  9. TW Childs
    Posted November 27, 2009 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    It is no doubt desirable for those who have been completely duped by the CRU crowd, Jones in particular, to suggest that a relaxed, calm and non-confrontational approach in reviewing the hacked files be the primary consideration. However, while Mr. Yulsman (and others) seeks solace in ridiculing the more abrasive Limbaugh, he appears to have forgotten – or otherwise ignored the stark reality of the genuine science of paleo-climatology, geology and the very extensive hard historical EVIDENCE that the hacked emails and files illustrate as having been maliciously skewed – or for the most part – ignored. Rely on the JOURNALISTS to conduct peer-reviews???? That’s tantamount to suggesting that the Iranian Mullahs be nominated to review American Constitutional Law!!! There has been a monumental FRAUD that quite literally has affected every human being on the planet, and enriched the likes of Gore, and other elitist bureaucrats and politicians! While a Star Chamber procedure may not be the most ideal approach, it is DECIDEDLY time for a transparent, complete and extremely broad brush GLOBAL review of the CRU – the IPCC and the related agenda-driven political panderers.

  10. Dave Welwood
    Posted November 27, 2009 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    This man is truly dangerous. I’m all for free speech but this guy reminds me of the Radio Rwanda broadcasts right before the genocide.

Comments are currently closed