The Great Global Warming Swindle

[ewv 0]

The attacks on the film are now well under way, so it must be having an impact. Here is one from the Times and the farther left Guardian. It seems that all the objections can be explained away with effects causing causes, "bad data", "other" government controls conveniently reducing temperatures at just the right time, sneering ad hominem's, etc. Much of this speaks volumes on the current sad state of scientific theory formation and "modeling", and their validation, as patches are patched on patches to shore up the original hypothesis. Almost amusing are the acknowledgements that it is true that for millions of years the global climate has changed dramatically on its own, followed by claiming that none of that matters to their argument because we are causing it now.

The film itself did not provide a detailed or complete enough explanation of all the different aspects and arguments to be self-contained, but it did show the seriousness of the scientists and their arguments who reject the climate change hysteria that has itself become a dangerous political fad. And that is badly needed.

But most interesting is the widely publicized objections by one of the participants in the film, climatologist and ocean specialist Carl Wunsch of MIT, who was briefly shown in the film (23:08-25:02) discussing the role of the oceans as delayed storage and release of CO2. Wunsch has previously strenuously objected to certain Global Warming doomsday scenarios like claims that ocean currents are being disrupted, and emphasized the uncertainty in the theory overall.

But he has now publicly repudiated the film and his role in it, claiming it wasn't "balanced" and he hadn't realized he would be part of a "polemic" that he likens to "cartoons" and a "batman movie". He says he is "embarrassed", and seems quite shaken. He demands that the film be edited to remove his statements, even though he agrees with them, because he doesn't want them in the "context" of other arguments against warming caused by man.

His more general objections to the politicalization, abuse and exploitation of science which he writes are understandable, and he properly emphasizes the need for care in understanding scientific ideas, but his own rhetoric in denouncing the film indicates that something here is very strange.

He seems to have a mistaken idea of what the film was supposed to be about, based on wishful thinking, and objects that it wasn't what he wanted it to be. Yet when you look at the advance description he was given (which he provides) and which he claims misled him, you have to wonder what happened to his own objectivity. The film was not supposed to be presenting scientific arguments and counterarguments from all sides; it was clearly intended to present the views of those scientists who disagree with the hysterical bandwagon and who are not being heard from in the general media.

Despite his previous criticism of unproven claims, Wunsch now writes: "I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component. But I have tried to stay out of the climate wars because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess."

So he wanted to have his science and eat it too, rejecting bad arguments with no proof, while feeling embarrassed associated with people willing to stand up and say the emperor has no clothes. Wunsch wanted to use the film to argue conclusion he "suspects" despite the lack of proof and despite the stated purpose of the film -- which was not his to change for his own purposes.

He seems to want to be chronically play the role of the "respectable middle", believing that only "probabilities" can be known and saying nothing for certain, yet in the end socially siding with the viro position.

And what of the viros' own sensationalist propaganda film stridently promoting hysterical doomsday scenarios? He thinks Gore is "a very intelligent man who is seriously concerned" and despite things in Gore's film that make him "cringe", he says "the overall thrust is appropriate". Talk about double standards. Dr. Stadler comes to mind.

[dondigitalia 0]

I wonder if Wunsch might be receiving heat from his colleagues regarding his role in the film, and if that might be (at least part of) the reason for his attempt at disassociating himself from it.

[ewv 0]

I wonder if Wunsch might be receiving heat from his colleagues regarding his role in the film, and if that might be (at least part of) the reason for his attempt at disassociating himself from it.

I'm sure he's heard from them, but it seems that he is more prone to want to be part of them rather than being subjected to pressure to conform against his will. His embarrassment seems to have preceded any kind of pressure. I guess he thought that any reputable film would accept and promote the conclusions even while exploring difficulties with the justification.

It's like viros all agreeing emotionally and intellectually that nature has "intrinsic value" even while discussing the lack of justification. They are looking for justification for something they feel in advance must be true. That has also been the history of the Globulwarming theory.

To some extent, the Globulwarming scientists may have reasons why it seems plausible -- any science has to proceed by exploring plausible hypotheses someone expects to be true, but man-made Globulwarming has become an obsession, with nonbelief intolerable.

There has always been an underlying paranoia that man's life is destroying the earth from the beginning of the viro movement (first called ecology) in Germany in the 1860's, and this has seeped into our culture with the rise of the viro movement. Back at the beginning, one of their big fears was "erosion" -- all the dirt was supposedly being washed into the ocean by man's activities. The intrinsicism was a Hegelian reification of an "ecosystem" as an entity, but the idea of an ecosystem would have been a valid scientific abstraction without the Hegelianism. They had the same politically arrogant belief in rule by a bureaucracy of "scientists" (themselves) under which their supposedly superior insights would be politically imposed on everyone else. Long before the Nazis they were the first political applied biologists, and were anti-industrial back-to-the-landers with a romantic Garden of Eden complex just like German culture under the Nazis and like the viros today.

Not all climatology done by Globulwarmers is bad science, but with all their ideological baggage and religious-like fervor they cannot be believed simply because they claim to be "scientifically" authoritative. Viros think everything they do is "science" just because they say so. They cannot be trusted.

Wunsch, despite his pandering, seems to be technically very competent, and it would be hard to know the full nature of all that is driving him without knowing more about him.

[Stussy88 0]

Here is a link for the recent Channel 4/BBC documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle.

If anyone is interested, here is a link where you can purchase the DVD

http://www.wagtv.com/acatalog/store.asp

[Carlos 0]

I wonder if Wunsch might be receiving heat from his colleagues regarding his role in the film, and if that might be (at least part of) the reason for his attempt at disassociating himself from it.

It wouldn't be the first time.

I remember reading a story several years ago about a Harvard professor who discovered that black students at their Harvard medical school weren't required to pass their final exams. He blew the whistle on the issue, was subject to the stereotypical witch-hunt/burning that you would expect from open-minded Liberal professors, and ended up caving in and giving a public apology.

Sadly, it seems that the people who we depend on the most are the ones without the spines. I had been quite pleased when I discovered this MIT Climatologist who was against the Global Warming Frenzy, and would readily cite him as an example of discrediting the "Scientific Consensus" that Liberals so often gloat about, so this is quite a disappointment.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

If anyone is interested, here is a link where you can purchase the DVD

http://www.wagtv.com/acatalog/store.asp

Thanks for providing the pointer to the DVD of the show.

Allan Chapman's Great Scientists DVD looks interesting. Do you know who are the five scientists that he focuses on?

Also, when the price is only in pounds, as it is for Great Scientists, I assume that is because the DVD is available for Region 2 only. Do you know if that is right?

[Thales 0]

Sadly, it seems that the people who we depend on the most are the ones without the spines. I had been quite pleased when I discovered this MIT Climatologist who was against the Global Warming Frenzy, and would readily cite him as an example of discrediting the "Scientific Consensus" that Liberals so often gloat about, so this is quite a disappointment.

I can understand your disappointment, I am too, but Lindzen has a spine of steel, as do most of the other scientists in that documentary. They exist!

[Jack Wakeland 0]

I can understand your disappointment, I am too, but Lindzen has a spine of steel, as do most of the other scientists in that documentary. They exist!

There are quite a few brave scientists of Dr. Lindzen's caliber out there who are perfectly willing to be called "climate criminals" and global warming "deniers" in order to speak the truth. And these men are guarded by a substantial group of (mostly conservative) political commentators who tell the inconvenient truths about the ideological nature of the communist-turned environmentalist global warming campaigners.

I often visit "Wretchard's" "Belmont Club" website to read his comments on war policy. His comments are pithy and sometimes quite insightful. But his comments aren't entirely limited to the West's wars and other conflicts with Islam. Recently he's taken on the global warming hacks.

Last week he posted an AP story about a pair of global warming protesters who turned back from the Artic hike to prove the North Pole is melting because of frostbite. (Yes, yes, I know, the North Pole actually is melting...one of the few claims of the Global Warming creatures that accidentally turns out to be true.)

Last Week"Wretchard" also provided a link to "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and he discussed the catstrophically expensive idea of sequestering CO2 produced by burning coal.

This week he dug into the epistemology of global warming environmentalists. ("Wretchard" exhibits few explicity philosophical views on the topic -- I suspect he is a philosophical skeptic -- but he finds himself constantly drawn to epistemological topics in the news or into making epistemological evaluations of current events.)

On Wednesday "Wretchard" linked to an essay in Britain's The Guardian tabloid that advocated a "new" epistemological standard for science -- a standard which is to be applied whenever the conclusions of science have great value-significance: "Post-Normal" science. And Today he again dug into this doctrine.

For me, this was a new term. "Post-normal" science is a doctrine that explicitly advocates intellectual dishonesty for the purposes of imposing government restrictions on every significant human activity. Why? Because when one is going to exercise power, one must disallow reason. (One might recall that Dialectical Materialism assumed the total suspension of rational criteria when issues of power or "power relationships" were at stake...which was ALWAYS.)

"Wretchard" is just one of hundreds of effective bloggers and full-time professional journalistic commentators who condemn environmentalism in detail. For example, religious conservative commentators now routinely condemn environmentalism as an animist cult. This may not constitute a rejection of the ethics of altruism that drives the environmentalists, but it is a general attack on their intellectual standing and mental soundness...and that kind of an attack does go to the most fundamental sources of environmentalism's evils.

[PhilO 0]

For example, religious conservative commentators now routinely condemn environmentalism as an animist cult. This may not constitute a rejection of the ethics of altruism that drives the environmentalists, but it is a general attack on their intellectual standing and mental soundness...and that kind of an attack does go to the most fundamental sources of environmentalism's evils.

The extreme irony, though, is that the commentators themselves have little intellectual standing, given their own religion. I wonder how much good it does to have the religionists promote the right ideas for the wrong reasons (e.g. because, in one scenario, they sense that their religion is being replaced by another, and they resent it. "My God is a jealous God" after all.)

[Thales 0]

There are quite a few brave scientists of Dr. Lindzen's caliber out there who are perfectly willing to be called "climate criminals" and global warming "deniers" in order to speak the truth. And these men are guarded by a substantial group of (mostly conservative) political commentators who tell the inconvenient truths about the ideological nature of the communist-turned environmentalist global warming campaigners.

Sure, and I think many of them don't care one whit what they are called, because they know the source. Seriously, I think lots of them just scoff at the idea that these outsiders can tell them what is what. Btw, in the documentary did you notice how Lindzen and some of the others questioned this whole consensus thing?

For me, this was a new term. "Post-normal" science is a doctrine that explicitly advocates intellectual dishonesty for the purposes of imposing government restrictions on every significant human activity. Why? Because when one is going to exercise power, one must disallow reason. (One might recall that Dialectical Materialism assumed the total suspension of rational criteria when issues of power or "power relationships" were at stake...which was ALWAYS.)

I'd never heard the term "post-normal" science either.

Here is what Mike Hume says in the Guardian article you link to:

The other important characteristic of scientific knowledge - its openness to change as it rubs up against society - is rather harder to handle. Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken.

It has been labelled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science.

Science is not supposed to be "[open] to change as it rubs up against society". Science is a method of inquiry to get at the truth and if you do it right you are doing science and if you do it wrong you aren't doing science.

Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken.

Whether the values involved are high or not doesn't change the fact that science has to be done the same way. In fact, if a value is high it's important to be all the more assiduous and careful about getting things rights.

Anyway, I'm not surprised postmodernists are attacking the scientific method now. It's evident that real scientists have debunked their global warming enterprise and they need a way around it all, while still holding onto the prestige of science, their ticket to ride. Their corruption knows no bounds.

Btw, in one of Wretchard's links you provide, there is a youtube link to Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and another quality scientist with courage.

Here she is making an analogy between environmentalists and witch hunters of days gone by. It's an apt comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfRqkweo5jo

[Jack Wakeland 0]

The extreme irony, though, is that the commentators themselves have little intellectual standing, given their own religion. I wonder how much good it does to have the religionists promote the right ideas for the wrong reasons (e.g. because, in one scenario, they sense that their religion is being replaced by another, and they resent it. "My God is a jealous God" after all.)

Yes, religious conservatives are "faith based" on many issues. However many of them aren't -- and aren't soon about to become -- more deeply committed to relgion than they are to their favorite traditions of Western Civilization (the ones they cherry pick so as to not offend their own altruist "sensibilities" too badly).

Whatever they lack in intellectual standing on the broadest issues of culture and reason, religious and semi-religious conservatives have always had more intellectual standing in the practical fields of economics and politics than the left -- communist, environmentalists, or whatnot. This advantage comes from a single source. They believe in the undeniable fact at the center of human affairs: volition

The left's pretended superior intellectual standing on broader issues of culture and reason has always been that, pretended.

The religious and semi-religious conservatives are generally men who value some substantial subset of the ideals of Western Civilization. Implicitly, they have always been more committed than the left to reason and to something other than a totally irrational, nihilistic, homicidal, suicidal, and self-hating culture.

The only areas in which religious and semi-religious conservatives constistently fall short of all standards of reason -- even by comparison to today's "mainstream" left -- are medicine and biology.

The really interesting thing about the religious and semi-religious right's condemnation of the left for their animist religion of an environmentalist Gaia is that it undermines religion, as such.

[PhilO 0]

The religious and semi-religious conservatives are generally men who value some substantial subset of the ideals of Western Civilization. Implicitly, they have always been more committed than the left to reason and to something other than a totally irrational, nihilistic, homicidal, suicidal, and self-hating culture.

I agree with that, at least for some of the conservatives and only to a degree, since it represents a basic contradiction to their religion. I've met with, and need to deal with, fairly serious Christians who I would rather associate with than a half-tattooed chronically pot smoking neo-hippy; the tragedy is that they do want values but have been hopelessly brainwashed to consider them a gift from a (contradictory and vicious) God. And I do think that even the better of such people dislike competing religions as part of their disdain for environmentalism, based on inference from a number of accidental discussions with Christians on the subject.

The really interesting thing about the religious and semi-religious right's condemnation of the left for their animist religion of an environmentalist Gaia is that it undermines religion, as such.

True, but integration and acceptance of the law of non-Contradiction is not part of their standard mental processes, and very few will connect the dots that way. Acceptance of the arbitrary is a mind cancer. Note the pretzel-twisting that goes on by many religious conservatives, including the President, to dub the consistent Muslims (i.e. the fanatics) as exceptions rather than a natural by-product of the ideas of Islam and religion as such.

[Stussy88 0]

Thanks for providing the pointer to the DVD of the show.

Allan Chapman's Great Scientists DVD looks interesting. Do you know who are the five scientists that he focuses on?

Also, when the price is only in pounds, as it is for Great Scientists, I assume that is because the DVD is available for Region 2 only. Do you know if that is right?

Sadly not, I simply came across the site when I was searching for the original DVD

[Peter Brown 0]

I truly hope you are right, but, regardless, I would be interested in learning of the basis for your prediction.

I predict global warming hysteria will increase, the basis is something we learn in technical analysis of the financial markets.

There are no signs of a trend reversal, this mere documentary is like looking for an F117 Nighthawk on a radar of the current trend.

The trend I'd argue, started in the 1960s, and around the global cooling hysteria with the green movement. What wakes people up, what wakes up the people brought into environmentalism because they think it's a benevolent clean up the air movement is that the most consistent environmentalists are still lying in front of bulldozers, driving their boats around whales, and opposing every human effort to use the planet in the utmost observable fashion, and explicitly scorning at 'deniers' like us with such righteousness that the 'moderate' environmentalists wakeup to their contradictions.

I'd argue every time you hear an environmentalist be consistent, that 'man is a stain on this planet', 'that man must be destroyed' -- the arguments you heard at the start of the 60s will come back and discredit the movement from the inside out, not from the core, but from the outside [moderates] in.

I predict an increase in explicit calls to put people like us on Luxembourgs style trials and a move towards more violent environmentalist terrorist attacks, such attacks if they happen or not, are explicit, and would be televised, the sources of which will be known, and there will be that rare short term move in public opinion. Intellectuals will have their wakeup call and begin to ask themselves "do we want converging opinions like that of nazi germany?" -- but this should only happen after a world changing event.

The last world changing event was perpetrated by Environmentalism by large, the recent stock market 'correction' happened just two days after Al Gore won an oscar, on Monday the Chinese markets crashed because of rumors on newswires of a 20% capital gains tax in the works, but that didn't cause the US markets to slip at the end of February, Al Gore was on everyone's television Monday and Sunday night, on Tuesday Texas Energy, the largest electrical energy company in Texas had announced it will be the target of the largest private equity buyout in history. Later on in the day TXU energy announced that once and for all, the year long controversy over the 11 proposed coal plants was officially over, that they will not implement 11 new coal plants in Texas. The pressure from environmentalist concerns had risen so high, that Environmentalism had its first major physical victory, destroying $1.2 trillion in one day.

The New York Stock Exchange flooded with sell orders.. and the markets crashed at the end of February.. you can thank Al Gore and the whole atmosphere of environmentalism over that weekend into Tuesday.

[Ed from OC 0]

The last world changing event was perpetrated by Environmentalism by large, the recent stock market 'correction' happened just two days after Al Gore won an oscar, on Monday the Chinese markets crashed because of rumors on newswires of a 20% capital gains tax in the works, but that didn't cause the US markets to slip at the end of February, Al Gore was on everyone's television Monday and Sunday night, on Tuesday Texas Energy, the largest electrical energy company in Texas had announced it will be the target of the largest private equity buyout in history. Later on in the day TXU energy announced that once and for all, the year long controversy over the 11 proposed coal plants was officially over, that they will not implement 11 new coal plants in Texas. The pressure from environmentalist concerns had risen so high, that Environmentalism had its first major physical victory, destroying $1.2 trillion in one day.

The New York Stock Exchange flooded with sell orders.. and the markets crashed at the end of February.. you can thank Al Gore and the whole atmosphere of environmentalism over that weekend into Tuesday.

Jack, I wouldn't call the "correction" a "world changing event." And I think it's a real stretch to blame it on the environmentalists. The Shanghai index dropped 9% in a single day, and the US and other world markets responded by dropping as well (though not as far). As far as a I know, the Chinese market index drop had nothing to do with US environmental policy. The index was up over 100% in the past 1.5 years, so falling 9% wasn't catastrophic. As the International Herald Tribune puts it:

"The Shanghai Composite Index tumbled 8.8 percent to 2.771.79, its biggest decline in more than 10 years amid profit-taking and speculation of a fresh round of austerity measure from the Chinese government to slow sizzling economic growth.

Chinese share prices doubled last year as investors piled into the market following the completion of shareholding reforms that helped to reduce worries over a potential flood of shares entering the market."

[Ed from OC 0]

Jack, I wouldn't call the "correction" a "world changing event."

Excuse me. That should be addressed to Peter Brown, not Jack Wakeland. My mistake.

[Ed from OC 0]

The extreme irony, though, is that the commentators themselves have little intellectual standing, given their own religion. I wonder how much good it does to have the religionists promote the right ideas for the wrong reasons (e.g. because, in one scenario, they sense that their religion is being replaced by another, and they resent it. "My God is a jealous God" after all.)

I have the same concern. More than once I've heard Rush Limbaugh say that global warming isn't happening because God wouldn't allow it:

Rush Limbaugh: “I’m saying as a believer in a loving God and the God of creation that there is a complexity to all this that makes it work that we cannot understand, that we cannot really control, that we cannot destroy, and that we really can’t alter in its massive complexity… I believe in the God of creation and I believe as such [that] we’re insignificant in all this. I am, just as a human being, offended by the notion that the automobile I drive and the way I air condition my home and the way I barbeque outside… I refuse to believe that a loving god creates creatures able to do everything we are able to do, to solve various problems… that that is going to lead to an apocalypse.”

Source: The Secular Conservative

[oldsalt 0]

More than once I've heard Rush Limbaugh say that global warming isn't happening because God wouldn't allow it:

Source: The Secular Conservative

That's just sad. And dangerous.

[B. Royce 0]

In the middle of Ed's quote from Rush, Rush says, "...we're insignificant in all this." The "this" is "nature". Rush's belief is essentially the same as the enviros---we're insignificant, nature is all.

[Ed from OC 0]

In the middle of Ed's quote from Rush, Rush says, "...we're insignificant in all this." The "this" is "nature". Rush's belief is essentially the same as the enviros---we're insignificant, nature is all.

Well, Rush agrees with man's insignificance. He thinks what matters is God, they think what matters is nature. Both the difference and the similarity are important: in one way they are allies, in another, mortal enemies. A man can't have more than one master --i.e., one highest beneficiary of one's sacrifice.

[Thales 0]

Well, Rush agrees with man's insignificance. He thinks what matters is God, they think what matters is nature. Both the difference and the similarity are important: in one way they are allies, in another, mortal enemies. A man can't have more than one master --i.e., one highest beneficiary of one's sacrifice.

I don't think that's the right way to interpret what Rush said. What he means is that mankind is insignificant in the sense that we're too small to effect massively huge nature. We're a mosquito in a hurricane, so to speak. Rush definitely values mankind and capitalism. Still, he holds major contradictions in his thinking and the man/god one is the major problem. Overall he’s philosophically mixed, which is probably why Peikoff calls him a "zero" under his DIM system.

Rush is great in that he’ll point out scientists who disagree with GW and give them some publicity. However, on science-qua-science he can be embarrassingly wrong! I get the impression he’s never been taught how science really works.

I should add, in fairness, that sometimes Rush is refreshingly right about a scientific point, especially when countering the media’s propaganda!

[B. Royce 0]

I don't think that's the right way to interpret what Rush said. What he means is that mankind is insignificant in the sense that we're too small to effect massively huge nature. We're a mosquito in a hurricane, so to speak. Rush definitely values mankind and capitalism. Still, he holds major contradictions in his thinking and the man/god one is the major problem. Overall he’s philosophically mixed, which is probably why Peikoff calls him a "zero" under his DIM system.

Rush is great in that he’ll point out scientists who disagree with GW and give them some publicity. However, on science-qua-science he can be embarrassingly wrong! I get the impression he’s never been taught how science really works.

I should add, in fairness, that sometimes Rush is refreshingly right about a scientific point, especially when countering the media’s propaganda!

I think you're right in what Rush meant. His problem is that he does not distinguish what he means from what other people often mean by "insignificant".

[Thales 0]

Here is a response to the "Great Global Warming Swindle"

They are trying to undermine the data used.

The real global warming swindle

The Great Global Warming Swindle, was based on graphs that were distorted, mislabelled or just plain wrong. The graphs were nevertheless used to attack the credibility and honesty of climate scientists.

A graph central to the programme's thesis, purporting to show variations in global temperatures over the past century, claimed to show that global warming was not linked with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet the graph was not what it seemed.

Other graphs used out-of-date information or data that was shown some years ago to be wrong. Yet the programme makers claimed the graphs demonstrated that orthodox climate science was a conspiratorial "lie" foisted on the public.

I'm incredulous about this part:

The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention.

So, warming is caused by man's pollution and cooling is caused by man's pollution. Man is just terrible.

[ewv 0]

The last world changing event was perpetrated by Environmentalism by large, the recent stock market 'correction' happened just two days after Al Gore won an oscar, on Monday the Chinese markets crashed because of rumors on newswires of a 20% capital gains tax in the works, but that didn't cause the US markets to slip at the end of February, Al Gore was on everyone's television Monday and Sunday night, on Tuesday Texas Energy, the largest electrical energy company in Texas had announced it will be the target of the largest private equity buyout in history. Later on in the day TXU energy announced that once and for all, the year long controversy over the 11 proposed coal plants was officially over, that they will not implement 11 new coal plants in Texas. The pressure from environmentalist concerns had risen so high, that Environmentalism had its first major physical victory, destroying $1.2 trillion in one day.

How do you know the damage to the Texas company and/or Gore's PR were the cause of the stock market decline? Has anything else been written about this?

[ewv 0]

More than once I've heard Rush Limbaugh say that global warming isn't happening because God wouldn't allow it:

Source: The Secular Conservative

I have heard him say that before, and others say the same thing on other issues of the environment. But usually Rush says that humanity does not have the capacity to destroy the earth, not just in the sense of Globulwarming, but in any way, presented as an absolute primary. These mystical injunctions are not doing him or anyone else any good. He is undermining his own credibility and simultaneously misleading less educated people who don't know any better but who are relying on his otherwise generally good reputation for accuracy and insightful analysis. His appeals to religion against "liberal scientists" seem to be getting worse over the years as he becomes more and more an overt preacher of embarrassing, nonsensical religion.