Rush Limbaugh, In a Nutshell

For the past ten months, the United States economy has lost jobs. A lot of jobs. 1.2 million in 2008, to be precise. The automobile sector has been hit hard, bleeding money and failing to move their inventory. Retail sales have plummeted. We've seen banks fail and major institutional investors go under, bringing with it a credit freeze that fundamentally affects the entire economy.

This has been the major story of 2008. The other day brought even more bad news, as unemployment figures were higher than most expected.

Given all this, how does Rush Limbaugh explain yesterday's stock market decline?

By blaming Barack Obama, of course (see Obama Recession in Full Swing, November 6, 2008).


According to Limbaugh, "his ideas are killing the economy." In this bizarre alternate universe, all of the most obvious explanations are cast aside in order to pin blame on the guy Limbaugh insists is "an Arab" and a "man-child." The overwrought Limbaugh thinks that "His ideas are killing Wall Street. . . . He's causing it! He is causing the sinking economy." He also insists that "the market sell-off is Obama fear-based. There's no question." Limbaugh, of course, does not cite any evidence to back up his claims. He does, however, shout a few times.

UPDATE: FOX News, of course, is following suit.

Gretchen Carlson: “There’s a lot of feeling in the market not reacting very well to the election of Barack Obama.”


Fred Barnes: “We have seen the stock market go down over 800 points the last two days. There is great uncertainty out there about [Obama’s] policies.”


Dick Morris: “Now the other thing that I predicted in “Fleeced” is that the stock market would go crazy after he was elected. Not just because he’s a radical, not just because he’s a Democrat, but because he’s going to raise the capital gains tax. […] Its going to continue to tank.”

UPDATE II:


UPDATE III: The Dow rose 250 points on Friday. I wonder if these people will attribute that to Obama, as well.

UPDATE IV: The Los Angeles Times sees it, too.

UPDATE V: Sean Hannity predictably joins the chorus.

"Wall Street keeps sinking. Could it be the Obama recession: the fear that taxes are gonna go up, forcing people to pull out of the market?"

Rush Limbaugh on Barack Obama - Part II

Rush Limbaugh has the following graphic on the front page of his website:


It links to a transcript where Snerdly calls an Obama anecdote "incredulous," and Rush Limbaugh has this to say:

RUSH: Thank you, Mr. Snerdley. Bo Snerdley, the official criticizer of Barack Obama. It is an unbelievable claim here, that it's easier to get Taliban weapons and it's easier to get Taliban ammunition than it is our own because the commander-in-chief has not got the troops properly equipped? Mr. Snerdley is right. I would like to echo Mr. Snerdley's criticism on this program. Prove this! Where's somebody demanding proof? Where's somebody demanding the name of the military official that Senator Obama spoke to? This just can't slide, folks.

However, ABC News has already looked into this story. They picked up the phone, called the Obama campaign, contacted the captain in question, and confirmed the story.

Aside from not doing his research prior to airing this segment, why does Rush have to cover this issue from a racial angle?

Part I: Rush misinforms his viewers about Barack Obama's legislative record.

Rush Limbaugh on Barack Obama

College dropout Rush Limbaugh has once again shown that he cannot be bothered with basic fact-checking. He recently said this on his radio program:

The fact that [Hillary Clinton is] losing to somebody with no experience, the fact that she's losing -- do you know this guy [Barack Obama] -- you look at his record in the Senate, you won't find a Senate bill with his name on it. You won't find a Senate bill with the Breck Girl's [John Edwards] name on it -- other than a couple of post offices being named for people in North Carolina. First-term senators don't get much done, certainly not under their own names. And she's losing to somebody with veritably no experience whatsoever.

Actually, Obama sponsored 152 bills and resolutions brought before the 109th Congress, and cosponsored another 427. In the 110th Congress, he has introduced 55 bills, and is listed as a sponsor for 113 bills and resolutions. All this took was a simple search through the Library of Congress website. It's really easy to do, for those of us who have access to the Internet.

Simply put: you will find his name on plenty of Senate bills.

However, one must keep in mind that during the 109th Congress, there was a Republican majority in both houses of Congress, as well as a Republican President wielding the veto power. This makes it very hard for a junior Democratic senator to get legislation actually passed.

Also, as I've noted before, the 110th Congress has been marked by record-breaking use of the filibuster by the Republican minority, as well as veto threats by the President. Again, this is an environment that makes it very difficult to pass legislation.

Nonetheless, Obama was able to pass the "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" in 2006, providing for greater openness and transparency in government expenditures. It even resulted in an online searchable federal spending database, where anyone can go to see where their tax dollars are being spent. He also passed the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act," strengthening public disclosure of lobbyists' activity and funding, putting more restrictions on the ability of Congressmen to accept gifts, and establishing mandatory disclosure of earmarks in expenditure bills.

Of course, not everything Obama proposes will make it past his colleagues, or survive a veto threat. But there certainly are "Senate bills with his name on them," and to say otherwise is extremely poor journalism.

UPDATE: Just in case you might have mistaken Limbaugh for a serious commentator, take note that this is how he covers Barack Obama.

UPDATE II: Nationally syndicated columnist Cal Thomas repeats this false meme.

The Congress, of which Obama is now only a freshman member with no legislation he can point to that has his name on it. . . .

UPDATE III: Just to give some more examples of legislation bearing Obama's name:

S.116 : A bill to authorize resources to provide students with opportunities for summer learning through summer learning grants.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (3)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 1/31/2007) Cosponsors (20)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Senate Reports: 110-191

S.697 : A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to improve higher education, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 4/5/2005) Cosponsors (2)
Committees: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Rush to Judgment

Last week, journalist David Thorpe decided to test the louder and more ignorant climate change contrarians. To do this, Thorpe created a paper that purported to show that global warming was actually caused by tiny organisms living in the ocean, rather than industrial emissions (hint: it's not). The journal it purported to come from (The Journal of Geoclimatic Studies) did not actually exist. Nor did the scientists exist. Nor did their purported university exist. But it contained charts and graphs and other science-y looking things like this:

4δ161 x Λ³Жญ5,6,1,8Φ-4 = {(ΣΨ²Њyt3 - 14๖P9) x 49}

2β x ⅜kxgt -§

Scientists and intelligent adults (or anyone with access to Google) could easily see this paper for what it was: a hoax/fraud/sloppy paper. Nonetheless, people like Rush Limbaugh (who passed it on to his 20 million listeners) ate this bullshit up. (See here for more people who were duped)

But wait. It gets better. Scientist Dr. Roy Spencer had warned Limbaugh the day before not to fall for this trap, calling it a "hoax." College dropout Limbaugh misinterpreted this warning, and thought that Spencer was calling global warming a "hoax" (something Rush himself believes).

So here we have college dropout Rush Limbaugh trumpeting this "study" despite the fact that a real scientist warned him not to do so. Real classy journalism.

On Rush Limbaugh's website, he has posted an "apology" in which the scientist involved (Dr. Spencer) praises his own ability to spot the hoax (completely missing the point that Rush Limbaugh failed to understand the paper or even the warnings not to talk about the paper). The "apology" is immediately followed by the normal global warming contrarian talking points.

UPDATE: David Thorpe explains the hoax here.

Rush Limbaugh on the Constitution

College dropout Rush Limbaugh recently explained to a caller his opinions on Church and State. Rush begins with an anecdote about some unnamed "total hack, liberal" teacher who calls the Founding Fathers atheists and helps her students cheat on exams. Rush doesn't explain the point of this anecdote, nor does he cite anything to confirm that it is in fact a real story, but it's assumed that this is supposed to be a typical story of the scary atheists in Academia.

Rush eventually gets into the meat of his argument.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence -- and, of course, it speaks of God repeatedly.

Um, the Declaration of Independence names God exactly twice. And even then it uses generic Deist terms like "Creator." And besides, this was a separation document, cutting off the American colonies from England. America was not its own country with its own government until the Articles of Confederation. When that didn't work out, the Founding Fathers drafted the United States Constitution, which established the country we have today. That document mentions God exactly zero times, and only mentions religion insofar as it keeps the American government out of that sphere (e.g. - no religious tests for public office, no law respecting an establishment of religion).

Now, the Declaration of Independence is our founding document.

No, it isn't. The Constitution is.

When this all started in 1947, the Supreme Court seized on a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote. "The wall of separation between church and state" was taken out of context in a letter that Jefferson wrote to the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptist community in which he explained why he didn't call for national days of fasting and Thanksgiving, as George Washington and John Adams had as president. But two days later he went to church!

Wow, where to start on this one? First off, the Supreme Court relied on Jefferson's letter much earlier. In the 1879 case of Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously held that "Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured."

Next, Jefferson did not simply write this letter to explain why he did not call for national days of prayer. In fact, Jefferson's letter makes absolutely no mention of any such thing. Nor did the letter from the Danbury Baptists, to whom he was responding.

Also, what is Rush's point in saying that Jefferson went to Church? Is it so hard to comprehend that somebody would be a believer and also intend a separation between Church and State? Actually, the most fervent supporters of the wall of separation were deeply religious people (such as Roger Williams, John Leland, and the Danbury Baptists).

He attended church services in the House of Representatives. He continued as a regular attendant throughout his presidency.

This tired meme shows up over and over again whenever someone like Rush Limbaugh discusses the Founding Fathers. The House of Representatives was not used for "church services" (another claim straight from the pages of David Barton), but rather was used for social gatherings complete with gambling and speakers who belonged to various denominations.

Rush goes on:

You can go to the Constitution, go to First Amendment, and freedom of religion is the first thing that's mentioned. And it just says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That seals us against the fear of a state church. That's it.

Nope. The language is more broad than simply prohibiting a "state church." In fact, the Founding Fathers considered a version of the Amendment that would say simply what Rush just said ("The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief, nor shall any national religion be established"). But they declined that option in favor of the broader language we now have: "No law respecting an establishment of religion."

This phrase, separation of church and state, comes from Thomas Jefferson's letter.

Let's not forget James Madison, Father of the Constitution:

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).

Rush continues:

Now, this letter ended up being seized on in 1947 by the Supreme Court, in a case called Emerson vs. Board of Education.

Actually, it's Everson v. Board of Education, not Emerson. Also, as mentioned above, the Court relied on this document much earlier.

But of course, no Rush Limbaugh speech would be complete without some venom directed at liberals and the French:

this is something that's been taken totally out of context, purposefully by liberals, teachers, and so forth, who have a great fear of religion... Liberalism can be defined in many ways, and one of the ways you can define it is, it has no meaning beyond itself... They have never learned that there are things in life that are more important than they are. They're hostile to religion... empty lives... We're all searching for meaning, but liberals aren't... They are genuinely afraid of people who have discovered or are on the path trying to discover genuine meaning in life... one million French citizens never brush their teeth. Half of all French do not brush their teeth in the evening.... huge threats to liberals because it shakes their total world view and it takes them out of being the center of the orbit. That's the reason for their hatred of the Christian right. In fact, their hatred of the Christian right is such that they will tolerate violent religions... Nothing more than a pure liberal hack who probably has a miserable life, spends a lot of it in fear.

New Meme: Hansen Paid by Soros

Investor's Business Daily (IBD) has a new hit piece on NASA climate scientist James Hansen, in which they try to paint him as some sort of liberal shill under the control of George Soros.

Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program.

There's really a whole lot wrong with this. In 2005, college dropout George Deutsch was appointed as a NASA press officer. He did a lot of crazy things, such as altering references to the Big Bang (which he called merely an "opinion"), and trying to prevent NASA scientist James Hansen from speaking to the media about climate change. Hansen rightfully resisted. In the process Hansen accepted pro bono legal representation from the Government Accountability Project, a non-profit and non-partisan whistleblower protection organization. GAP also offered Hansen a Ridenauer award, which included $10,000, but Hansen declined.

Therefore, the IBD editorial is flat out wrong. Hansen received $0 from George Soros (or from anyone else) in this entire exchange.

So where did the $720,000 for the "politicization of science" claim come from? Well, the non-profit GAP accepts donations from many organizations interested in protecting whistleblowers (including the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Family Fund). One group that recently donated was the Open Society Institute (OSI), a part of the Soros Foundation, which donated $100,000 total to GAP for the purpose of protecting whistleblowers in science and engineering. IBD picked the $720,000 figure because that was OSI's total budget for combating the politicization of science. It seems like IBD just picked the biggest figure they could find in their cursory glance at all the budgets that could have possibly been involved.

Of course, this is really nothing new for IBD, which had previously incorrectly asserted that James Hansen predicted an imminent ice age.

Nonetheless, as expected, this meme has already taken off. In a recent Newsbusters article, Jake Gontesky makes the following claims about James Hansen.

Under the so-called "politicization of science" program, George Soros' (the favorite fundraiser of many democrats) has reportedly given as much as $720,000 to Hansen to help package his alarmist claims and get them pushed by the mainstream media...

So he got some big paychecks from Soros - but was there a quid pro quo? The evidence certainly indicates as much

Basically, Gontesky is trying to push the "global warming is a conspiracy by Big Environment" meme. Oh, and Brent Bozell's Media Research Center (of which Newsbusters is an arm) has accepted $202,500 from Exxon-Mobil since 2003. Nice.

College dropout Rush Limbaugh has also picked up on the story, reporting that "Soros Paid Off NASA Scientist".

UPDATE: You can always count on Free Republic to pass a meme like this along. They're now reporting "NASA's Hansen Mentioned in Soros Foundations Annual Report." According to Free Republic, "As is typical, a global warming obsessed media don't find this newsworthy. Think they'd be so disinterested if this smoking gun involved an oil company giving money to a Republican official?"

UPDATE II: The Seattle Post-Intelligencer handles the story appropriately here: "The swift boating of a climate scientist"

UPDATE III: The awful Daily Tech handles the story inappropriately here: "NASA, James Hansen, and the Politicization of Science." According to the factually challenged Daily Tech:

For Hansen to secretly receive a large check from Soros, then begin making unsubstantiated claims about administrative influence on climate science is more than suspicious -- it's a clear conflict of interest.

Never mind the fact that Hansen didn't receive a single penny from Soros.

You might remember that the people at Daily Tech are the ones responsible for spreading the false "Less Than Half of All Published Scientists Endorse Man-Made Warming Theory" meme.

UPDATE IV: FOX News hack John Gibson weighs in:

Remember the name Soros. His Open Society Institute has just released its 2006 report on the way it has spent Soros' millions, $74 million just this year. Did you know that in addition to funding groups to try to kneecap Bill O'Reilly and me, Soros' stooges have also cut a $720,000 check to the so called NASA whistleblower, who claimed the U.S. government was covering up global warming?

How is it that this guy can still have a job? Doesn't anyone in his office do any rudimentary fact-checking before making a claim about some fictional "$720,000 check"?

UPDATE V: If there's ever a rumor that supports his pre-conceived notions, Drudge is sure to report it: "Report: NASA scientist who accused Bush Administration of censorship received $720,000 from George Soros"

UPDATE VI: Human Events has its own shallow commentary, titled "It's All About the Money":

Forget the fact that the whole man-made global warming theory is a gigantic scam with not a shred of genuine scientific evidence to prove it. Instead, follow the money trail to get an idea of what it’s all about. And what it’s all about is money -- the big bucks the disciples of Al Gore will rake in, and the big bucks you’ll have to pay to finance this incredible con game...
Then there’s NASA’s hysterical James Hanson, the media’s favorite climate change alarmist who Williams reveals was financed by ultra lefty George Soros.

Among other factual inaccuracies, Human Events author and former game-show host Michael Reagan spells Hansen's name wrong.

Schulte Paper: Cancelled

Remember that paper that purported to show that "Less Than Half of All Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory"? The one that was held up by James Inhofe (R-OK), DaveScot, Brent Bozell, Matt Drudge, FOX News, Free Republic, Michael Savage, and Rush Limbaugh as a sign that there was no scientific agreement on the issue of global warming? Well, it turns out that it's not even going to be published.

A Willfully Blind Look at the Peer-Reviewed Journals

Energy and Environment is a poorly regarded social science journal. It is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals, and it has been roundly criticized for publishing substandard papers in the past. Additionally, it's run by global warming contrarians for the sole purpose of giving other contrarians something resembling a scientific platform.

A new paper in E&E purports to update a survey done by Naomi Oreskes that found overwhelming support for the concept of anthropogenic warming in the peer-reviewed scientific journals. According to the Oreskes paper (which was published in perhaps the most prestigious scientific journal in the country):

"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

Dailytech (a contrarian-friendly website) recently reported on the forthcoming E&E survey, and stated that:

"Of 528 total papers on climate change [since 2003], only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

Sen. James Inhofe's (R-OK) most recent breathless blog entry simplified the findings even further:

"Less Than Half Of All Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory."

It's really funny how they see that some papers don't deal with attribution at all, and immediately rush to the idea that "less than half of all published scientists endorse global warming theory." That would be like saying that, since most published papers about the sun don't mention heliocentrism, most of the scientists don't actually endorse it. The conclusion just doesn't logically follow.

Anyway, let's take a look at the proposed findings of the paper itself. It does, after all, purport to find 32 papers that "reject the consensus outright." However, we should even take this with a grain of salt, considering the source. Some of you may remember that Benny Peiser (another E&E contributor) once claimed to have found 34 papers that "rejected the consensus outright." He ended up having to whittle that number down to just 1 after somebody actually observed his findings (which were, incidentally, rejected for publication at a real peer-reviewed journal).

According to Monckton (another loud contrarian with no scientific training), only seven of these papers "explicitly" reject the consensus (we won't know exactly what definition of "consensus" was used until publication; perhaps they will make the same mistakes here as Peiser). That means that the other twenty-five only "implicitly" reject it somehow.

Looking at the seven that supposedly "reject" the consensus, Tim Lambert found that:

"Cao just says that there are uncertainties in our understanding of the carbon cycle. Leiserowitz just studied public opnion of the risks of climate change. Moser was not one of the 576 papers. Lai et al ends up implicitly endorsing the consensus by suggesting that reducing CO2 emissions will reduce global warming. The three that do reject the consensus are Gerhard, which was published in the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin; Shaviv arguing for cosmic rays, which doesn't explain how they could make a difference over the past 50 years when the cosmic rayflux hasn't changed over that period; and Zhen-Shan and Xian, which is just a rubbish paper that should not have been published."

Nonetheless, you can probably expect to hear a lot of people trumpeting this E&E survey in the next few weeks. It'll be just like the statistically insignificant NASA data adjustment. That's just how these memes work.

[NAOMI ORESKES RESPONDS HERE]

UPDATE I: The perpetually wrong Davescot over at UncommonDescent has this to say about the study: "A recent survey of climate change articles in science journals finds fewer than half of the authors endorse anthropogenic global warming theories. The so-called consensus has now collapsed to a minority position. I love being right."

Looks like this meme is going to catch on, and those who lack critical thinking skills are going to start thinking that they're in the majority position.

UPDATE II: Brent Bozell's Media Research Center has this to say about the study: "A new survey about to be published by the journal Energy and Environment finds that less than 50 percent of the scientific papers written about climate change since 2004 have endorsed the view that man's activities are causing global warming... If we had an honest media, this would be a huge part of today's reports. Unfortunately, it is quite likely that only conservative blogs, Fox News, and the Drudge Report will view this survey as being in any way newsworthy."

I hope he's right about that last part.

UPDATE III: Sure enough, if there's ever a rumor that supports his pre-conceived notions, Drudge will report it: "Survey: Fewer than half of scientists endorse man-made global warming"

It really seems like these people read just the headline, then mangle it into something else without even reading the article itself.

UPDATE IV: FOX News Alert: How Many Scientists Say That Mankind Is Affecting Global Warming?

"Earlier this year the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said it was "90 percent likely" that man was having an impact on global temperatures. And dailytech.com reports an analysis of scientific papers in 2004 concluded that a majority of researchers supported what it called the "consensus view" that humans were effecting climate change.

But now a study of all research papers between 2004 and 2007 indicates only seven percent give an explicit endorsement of that so-called consensus. Forty-five percent give an implicit endorsement. But 48 percent of the papers are classified as neutral — neither accepting nor rejecting the hypothesis. And only one of the 528 papers reviewed makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results."

UPDATE V: The Free Republic wins, when it comes to getting things completely wrong. Here is their headline: "New Global Warming Consensus - NOT MANMADE"

UPDATE VI: Michael Savage predictably joins the chorus: "DEBUNKING GLOBAL WARMING: Less than 1/2 of Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory"

UPDATE VII: Rush Limbaugh weighs in: "Fewer Than Half of Scientists Endorse Man-Made Warming"

UPDATE VIII: Well, after all that it turns out that not even Energy & Environment will publish this paper. That's right. After all this noise, the paper isn't even going to be published.

NASA, GISS, 1934, 1998, etc.

This past week, Steve McIntyre wrote an email to NASA pointing out a jump in their U.S. GISS data from 1999 to 2000. The NASA researchers looked into it, discovered a faulty assumption in their analysis, corrected their error, and sent a letter thanking McIntyre. In the old data set, 1998 and 1934 were in a dead-heat for the title of "warmest year on record in the United States," with 1998 being 0.01ºC warmer. However, in the corrected data, it turns out that 1934 is 0.02ºC warmer. Mind you, this is only for the continental United States temperatures, not those of the entire world (1998 is still hotter on a world-wide scale).

First, let's take a look at the old NASA data:


Now let's look at the new data:


Shocking! But of course, you can always rely on the same old standbys to highlight this finding in big, bold letters in an attempt to further the idea among the misinformed that climate science as a whole is too inexact to inform any public policy decisions whatsoever.

First off, we have a FOX News alert from Steven Milloy:
Junk Science: New Science Challenges Climate Alarmists?

"climate alarmist-friendly media...manmade global warming boogeyman...alarmists...an embarrassing temperature error rained on their parade...existing climate models are so prone to error...energy price-hiking and economy-harming laws and regulations...NASA’s alarmist-in-chief James Hansen...fiction...climate alarmists...even wrong on the matter of 1998 being the warmest year on record...1934 is the new warmest year...embarrassing setback for alarmists... alarmists... clamping down on CO2 emissions from SUVs may do absolutely nothing... the climate-worry bubble... ominous weather reports"

Next, we have a report from the Wall Street Journal's college dropout James Taranto.

"it turns out that there was a Y2K bug--and it contributed to global warming hype... The one Y2K bug that happened to slip through was the one that contributed to another alarmist narrative. But when you think about it, it makes sense. NASA's faulty findings didn't look faulty to global warmists, who saw exactly what they were expecting to see."

Finally, we can always count on college dropout Rush Limbaugh:

"The thing to remember is that 1998 is not the warmest year on record. It forms one of the central theses about the current global warming hoax... " We have proof of man-made global warming. The man-made global warming is inside NASA. The man-made global warming is in the scientific community with false data... I don't know if they intend to correct it or not. I doubt you'll hear anything about this, other than this program... We're nowhere near as hot as we have been 75, 71 years ago. Nowhere near as hot..." So it is just more evidence, ladies and gentlemen, that this whole global warming thing is a scientific hoax..." In four or five years we'll have a majority of people understanding how phony and fraudulent this is... raise your taxes, control more of your life, reduce your lifestyle, all coming from the United Nations"

My favorite part of this particular response is how Limbaugh embellishes the facts and says "We're nowhere near as hot as we have been 75, 71 years ago," despite the fact that, in the continental United States, 1934 was only 0.02ºC warmer than 1998. Also, Limbaugh is possibly unaware that the present five-year average temperature is still warmer than it was back then, and that the worldwide 1998 temperatures on a whole are also warmer.

So once again, I'd like to recommend the Newsweek article The Truth About Denial.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin joins the party: "NASA quietly fixes flawed temperature data; 1998 was NOT the warmest year in the millenium"

Rush Limbaugh and Child Discuss Science

A thirteen-year-old child called the Rush Limbaugh program on Tuesday to complain about how his school teachers had presented him with "liberal magazines like TIME and Newsweek" that mentioned global warming. Of course, Rush saw it as a liberal conspiracy by shadowy liberals to convince poor children to become liberals themselves, rather than a scientific issue with overwhelmingly broad scientific agreement.

RUSH: Well, but look. Patrick, this will be a good lesson. There are liberals everywhere. You may think that just because your town is conservative -- there are liberals. They're hiding in the shadows, and they are lurking there, and they're around and the odds are that many of them are in the school system. You'll probably at some point probably have to watch [An Inconvenient Truth], unless your parents and other parents find out about it and demand, "If you're going to show this movie, you better show the Great Global Warming Swindle and put the other side to our kids out there." Well, congratulations. I'm glad you called and told us this. This is the kind of thing that gives us all encouragement for the future. Here you are at 13, already aware of when you're watching propaganda. That's great.

There are so many things wrong with this. First off, it's not just the liberals, but pretty much all the scientific organizations and peer reviewed scientific publications that say CO2 emissions are the principle climate forcing agent. Rush Limbaugh, who dropped out of college due to his poor grades, would love to frame the issue as a liberal conspiracy, but it simply is not (see Naomi Oreskes). Even Newt Gingrich and the friggin' National Review have come around.

Next, Rush suggests that this kid watch the Great Global Warming Swindle as some kind of anti-propaganda antidote. I wrote about TGGWS here and here, but would just like to reiterate that this movie had doctored graphs, false claims, poor research, and designated experts who objected to the film's own conclusions. Plus, the film's producer, Martin Durkin, had previously had his work rejected by the BBC for "ignor[ing] a large body of evidence contradicting his claims in the program," and had been reprimanded by Britain's Independent Television Commission for misleading and misrepresenting his interviewees.

That being said, TIME and Newsweek are not very good sources of scientific information, either. Those two magazines carried the more sensational "global cooling" pieces in the 70s (see here and here), even though the scientific establishment said nothing of the sort, and the NAS itself had come to the conclusion that there was no basis for making such claims.

What's Shakin', McFly?

Michael J. Fox recently ran this ad in Missouri:



To which Rush Limbaugh responded:

"In this commercial he is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He is moving all around and shaking and it is purely an act."

"I stated when I saw the ad, I was commenting to you about it, that he was either off the medication or he was acting. He is an actor, after all."

It seems pretty clear that he wasn't off his medication for the ad, because the medication is what causes that severe shaking. People with Parkinson's Disease tend to stiffen when they're off their medication.

As far as him faking it, it's also worth noting that Michael J. Fox is pretty much like that for all of his interviews. After this was pointed out to Rush, he issued a semi-apology and then shifted gears a bit:

So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act, especially since people are telling me they have seen him this way on other interviews and in other television appearances.

"Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democratic politician."

As far as him shilling for a Democratic candidate, it's worth noting that Michael J. Fox ran a similar ad in support of Republican Senator Arlen Specter in 2004. I think it's pretty obvious that he's doing these ads simply to promote stem cell research. I haven't seen any evidence anywhere that he has some secret liberal agenda or that he was pressured into this by the Democrats.

Several B-List celebrities also put out a very cheap-looking counter-ad:



The claim that this will allow human cloning is bogus. So is the claim that it will seduce poor women to sell their eggs in some back-alley clinic. Let's look at the language of the proposed amendment itself:

Section 38(d). 1. This section shall be known as the “ Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative.”

2. To ensure that Missouri patients have access to stem cell therapies and cures, that Missouri researchers can conduct stem cell research in the state, and that all such research is conducted safely and ethically, any stem cell research permitted under federal law may be conducted in Missouri, and any stem cell therapies and cures permitted under federal law may be provided to patients in Missouri, subject to the requirements of federal law and only the following additional limitations and requirements:

(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.

(2) No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the purpose of stem cell research.

(3) No stem cells may be taken from a human blastocyst more than fourteen days after cell division begins; provided, however, that time during which a blastocyst is frozen does not count against the fourteen-day limit.

(4) No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures.

(5) Human blastocysts and eggs obtained for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures must have been donated with voluntary and informed consent, documented in writing.

(6) Human embryonic stem cell research may be conducted only by persons that, within 180 days of the effective date of this section or otherwise prior to commencement of such research, whichever is later, have
. . .

Despite the amendment's language saying that "No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being," its opponents say that the amendment's definition of cloning is misleading. The amendment does allow researchers to undertake a procedure called Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT). Basically, they can take a human egg and fill it with a nuclear body cell and then do research upon it. This is the first step in the process that scientists used to clone Dolly, except that under this amendment you can't take any further steps that would grow and develop this cell into a human being.

To say that this amounts to "human cloning" basically requires you to say that this cell and the blastocyst that it forms within the next two weeks is a human being itself. The first thing that I would like to point out, however, is that this group of cells doesn't even have a single brain cell, let alone any brain activity. It takes two weeks or longer for this to even form a the beginnings of a pre-neural network. A blastocyst is simply a pluripotent group of cells that could turn into pretty much anything. It could turn into a liver or a pancreas or a human, depending on the conditions provided. But a sperm could turn into a human being, if given the right environment and conditions. To say that this is a human being simply by virtue of what it could turn into just doesn't make much sense to me.