Rush's environmental meltdown.

by **wyoboy** on 05/08/08, 8:54 pm

Rush is hilarious, but sometimes I wonder if he actually listens to what comes out of his mouth and whether the lips are attached to the brain. On the show today, he went on and on about how US oil production is down almost half from what it was in 1985. He also specifically noted that consumption during the same period is up about 40%. Then, inexplicably, he proceeded to bemoan the radical environmentalists who claim that the US is a major cause of global warming, pondering how this could possibly be the case with production down from 9 million barrels/day to 5 million. Uh, duh, Rush! The environmentalists are not arguing that it's production that contributes to the global warming, they are saying that it's the emissions from increased consumption that's the cause. And since he noted consumption is up, how does that refute them?! He did make a valid point by noting that there's a direct link between less production and current oil/gas prices--he should have stuck to that and left his increasingly distorted bile for the environmental agenda off the table.

by **paleocon** on 05/08/08, 10:34 pm

wyoboy wrote:Rush is hilarious, but sometimes I wonder if he actually listens to what comes out of his mouth and whether the lips are attached to the brain. On the show today, he went on and on about how US oil production is down almost half from what it was in 1985. He also specifically noted that consumption during the same period is up about 40%. Then, inexplicably, he proceeded to bemoan the radical environmentalists who claim that the US is a major cause of global warming, pondering how this could possibly be the case with production down from 9 million barrels/day to 5 million. Uh, duh, Rush! The environmentalists are not arguing that it's production that contributes to the global warming, they are saying that it's the emissions from increased consumption that's the cause. And since he noted consumption is up, how does that refute them?! He did make a valid point by noting that there's a direct link between less production and current oil/gas prices--he should have stuck to that and left his increasingly distorted bile for the environmental agenda off the table.

Wyoboy, you need to put down your green-tinted shades and think a bit. Neither Rush, nor almost anyone else on this forum, could care less what envirowhackos say about "emissions." There is NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING. Therefore, Rush doesn't care about "carbon footprints" and "greenhouse" gasses. There is nothing to refute. GLOBAL WARMING is a myth dreamed up in algore's addled brain.

by **wyoboy** on 05/08/08, 11:53 pm

Chill, paleo. You obviously didn't understand my post. My point was that Rush's diatribe agains the "envirowhackos" was an illogical argument, and he missed a good opportunity to focus on something that's more important to us right here, right now than the global warming argument: decreased production in the US and its relationship to oil/gas prices. My Senator from Wyoming, a supposedly good, conservative Republican, introduced legislation today to put 1.5 million acres in the state off limits to oil and gas exploration. The Senator from Lousiana, a supposedly good, liberal Democrat, questioned why we would do such a thing at the exact time our dependence on foreign oil is dangerously increasing. Republicans, and conservative pundits like Rush (and you, apparently) are wasting too much time and effort trying to refute global warming (with logical inconsistencies in Rush's case, knee-jerk reactionism in yours) and not enough time presenting compelling arguments to increase self-reliance. So, before you sling around your over-estimated intellect, please take off your dirt-tinted glasses, read the post your are responding to, and give some intelligent thought to your next response--no need to rant about emissions and carbon footprints to me.

by **SoldiersMum** on 05/09/08, 12:40 am

wyoboy wrote:Rush is hilarious, but sometimes I wonder if he actually listens to what comes out of his mouth and whether the lips are attached to the brain. On the show today, he went on and on about how US oil production is down almost half from what it was in 1985. He also specifically noted that consumption during the same period is up about 40%. Then, inexplicably, he proceeded to bemoan the radical environmentalists who claim that the US is a major cause of global warming, pondering how this could possibly be the case with production down from 9 million barrels/day to 5 million. Uh, duh, Rush! The environmentalists are not arguing that it's production that contributes to the global warming, they are saying that it's the emissions from increased consumption that's the cause. And since he noted consumption is up, how does that refute them?! He did make a valid point by noting that there's a direct link between less production and current oil/gas prices--he should have stuck to that and left his increasingly distorted bile for the environmental agenda off the table.

You're right. His argument was not about Global Warming or the enviroweenies, his argument was about the price of gas at the pump. He strayed. What he should have done was to identify the three liberal enviroweenies who are pulling Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's strings regarding drilling and new refineries. They are:

John Flicker of the National Audobon Society
Francis Beneki of the Natural Resources Defense Council
Trip Von Noppen of Earth Justice
(Forgive me if I spelled their names wrong.)

These three people are the ones who are preventing us from drilling our own oil and for building new refineries in that whenever someone does try, they sue the pants off them. Currently, there are over 800 regulations that have to be met to build a refinery. Pelosi and Reid are doing exactly what they want them to do and we can thank Congress for the situation we are in, primarily the Democrats. If we made a concerted effort to announce we are going to drill for our own oil in the US and on the coasts, and we made some noise about it, the price of oil would drop in a heartbeat. Instead, Congress is going to punish the oil companies. Geezo boy,

These three people are responsible for us being dependent upon foreign oil when we have more oil in the US than in all of the Middle East combined, and there is no reason that we should not be harvesting and refining our own product instead of being dependent upon our enemies and Canada and Mexico who sometimes I wonder where their allegiances lie.

So, Rush got off track unfortunately, but he could have made his point regarding the enviroweenies and gas prices but he had a Glenn Beck ADD moment and veered off course.

by **paleocon** on 05/09/08, 9:46 am

wyoboy wrote:Chill, paleo. You obviously didn't understand my post.

So, before you sling around your over-estimated intellect, please take off your dirt-tinted glasses, read the post your are responding to, and give some intelligent thought to your next response--no need to rant about emissions and carbon footprints to me.

I have heard Rush pound home the fact that we haven't increased domestic production or refining capacity for decades.  You evidently don't listen much if you haven't heard him frequently and repeatedly pound on that issue.

If Rush didn't make a point when you thought he should have, and didn't do it exactly like you thought he should have then I suggest you hop in your car and go and visit him and explain that he screwed up and that you know how to do it better.

Or better yet, start your own radio show and do it better than Rush.  I am sure you will have 12 to 15 million listeners a week in no time at all.  America is crying out for your illiteracy.  Please come and save us from Rush!

Darn, where is that SARC OFF key?

by **Eyas** on 05/13/08, 12:57 pm

Somewhat off-topic:

I don't expect perfection from Rush on any issue; and I daresay that any of us would have many more mistakes & mis-statements if we were asked to talk live for 3 hrs a day.

That being said, I have often had problems with some things Rush has said regarding environmental issues -- primarily Global Warming. He's got the right conclusion, but for the wrong reason. My very first post on this forum was in annoyance at Rush, Hannity, Beck, and all other talk radio hosts who don't believe in Global Warming, but who all simply concede the IPCC's (and AlGore's) claim that the Earth's temperature has, in fact, increased -- as if this were indisputable fact. Of course, they're all wrong on that point. (and I have tried to communicate this to Rush, Beck, & Hannity on more than one occasion via calling-in to the show and by e-mail as a subscriber to their websites .......... no luck)

What has bugged me this week is that both Rush and Beck (I don't listen to Hannity anymore) are both ga-ga over this new hybrid SUV (a Tahoe or something). What makes a hybrid SUV ok, but other hybrids silly? I don't get it.

by **Eyas** on 05/13/08, 12:58 pm

Eyas wrote:Somewhat off-topic:

I don't expect perfection from Rush on any issue; and I daresay that any of us would have many more mistakes & mis-statements if we were asked to talk live for 3 hrs a day.

That being said, I have often had problems with some things Rush has said regarding environmental issues -- primarily Global Warming. He's got the right conclusion, but for the wrong reason. My very first post on this forum was in annoyance at Rush, Hannity, Beck, and all other talk radio hosts who don't believe in Global Warming, but who all simply concede the IPCC's (and AlGore's) claim that the Earth's temperature has, in fact, increased -- as if this were indisputable fact. Of course, they're all wrong on that point. (and I have tried to communicate this to Rush, Beck, & Hannity on more than one occasion via calling-in to the show and by e-mail as a subscriber to their websites .......... no luck)

What has bugged me this week is that both Rush and Beck (I don't listen to Hannity anymore) are both ga-ga over this new hybrid SUV (a Tahoe or something). What makes a hybrid SUV ok, but other hybrids silly? I don't get it.

by **paleocon** on 05/13/08, 7:50 pm

Eyas wrote:Somewhat off-topic:

I don't expect perfection from Rush on any issue; and I daresay that any of us would have many more mistakes & mis-statements if we were asked to talk live for 3 hrs a day.

That being said, I have often had problems with some things Rush has said regarding environmental issues -- primarily Global Warming. He's got the right conclusion, but for the wrong reason. My very first post on this forum was in annoyance at Rush, Hannity, Beck, and all other talk radio hosts who don't believe in Global Warming, but who all simply concede the IPCC's (and AlGore's) claim that the Earth's temperature has, in fact, increased -- as if this were indisputable fact. Of course, they're all wrong on that point. (and I have tried to communicate this to Rush, Beck, & Hannity on more than one occasion via calling-in to the show and by e-mail as a subscriber to their websites .......... no luck)

What has bugged me this week is that both Rush and Beck (I don't listen to Hannity anymore) are both ga-ga over this new hybrid SUV (a Tahoe or something). What makes a hybrid SUV ok, but other hybrids silly? I don't get it.

So good you had to post it twice?  Uh, but isn't quoting yourself not an approved academic practice?

But, seriously, I have heard Rush say that we are coming out of an ice age and therefore a warming temperature is not a surprise.  He doesn't say this often but I have heard him say so.  But, I agree that he could be a lot stronger on this issue.

Hannity is much worse in these situations.  He all too frequently fails to reject the flawed assertion and argues an irrelevant tangent rather than attacking the flawed thesis at the root of the matter.  I have a hard time listening to Hannity.  I like Levin much better.

And I heard Rush going on about the hybrid SUVs today and Hannity was on about them yesterday.  I think there is an aura of "cool" associated with hybrids.  Again, most people haven't yet realized it takes more energy to make them and they end up with batteries and other stuff that may present disposal/recycling problems later on.  But, we haven't had to face the impact of disposing of tons of batteries yet.  Long term, I wonder if they are as "eco-friendly" as people say.  Downstream costs never really go away....

by **Eyas** on 05/14/08, 10:59 pm

Sorry, the double-post was an accident.

Yeah, I stopped watching O'Reilly when I realized that, though I agreed with many of his conclusions, for the life of him, he couldn't rationally/logically explain how he arrived at those conclusions. I stopped listening to Hannity when I realized that he was doing the same thing. On most occasions, when either of them try to explain the rationale of how they arrived at certain conclusions, they actually provide reasons that make no sense or are flat out wrong. It's as if someone else told these guys what they should think & say, but not why they should think it or say it.

The funny thing about hybrids is not the just the downstream effects, but the upstream effects. Hybrids put together in this country use batteries manufactured in Japan and shipped east across the Pacific to get them here. The nickel in these nickel hydride batteries comes primarily from Canada and is shipped west across the Pacific to get the nickel to Japan where the batteries are made. The nickel in Canada comes mostly from the mine in Sudbury, Ontario (the second largest nickel deposit in the world). The area around the Sudbury mine is a moonscape of toxicity with an area of 128 square miles and this discolored blotch is visible from space.

Don't get me wrong, I don't bemoan uncontrollable damage caused by necessary industries, or even the economic realities which require two trips across the Pacific to get a product here; but, then again, I'm not one of the schmucks who think they're saving the planet by driving a Prius.

by **paleocon** on 05/14/08, 11:17 pm

It all goes back to your long-standing issues. Most people, and all liberals, do not understand economics. They seem to have little understanding of markets, and frankly, even cause and effect. Want free, unlimited energy? No problem! Liberals will legislate it into existence. How, you ask? Well, only a racist, capitalist, exploiter of the masses would say that, they answer! Every time I see the "Think globally, act locally" bumper sticker I realize I am driving behind a moron.

Polution is something evil capitalists cause. Never mind capitalists produce it because people demand it. Your batteries are making a mess of Ontario? Your batteries take 100 times the amount of energy to make as a gallon of gasoline? Well, that is your problem. My car runs on electricity so I can't be at fault. Just tax those evil polluters out of business. How long did you say my electric car will last?

Oh, and by the way, you can delete your duplicate post. There is a delete key here. If it only worked on some of the other posts....

Rush's environmental meltdown.

Rush's environmental meltdown.

Re: Rush's environmental meltdown.

Re: Rush's environmental meltdown.

Re: Rush's environmental meltdown.

Re: Rush's environmental meltdown.

Re: Rush's environmental meltdown.

Re: Rush's environmental meltdown.

Re: Rush's environmental meltdown.

Re: Rush's environmental meltdown.

Re: Rush's environmental meltdown.

Conservative Videos

Rush Limbaugh Graphics

Right Resources

Sites We Like