How is this helping? The drooling nutjobs who hang on to Rush’s every word are either going to repeat the bogus story as gospel or they’re going to take whatever defensive stance he takes, and blast the other side for spreading disinformation, claiming that this incident proves it’s all a bunch of bullshit. The rest of us know better, and we don’t need yet another demonstration of how stupid he is. It would have been far, far better to have used his own arguments against him, than to have simply fed him something made out of whole cloth.
It’s fun to watch him get humiliated, though. 
Nothing we can say will convince him or his listeners of anything they don’t want to be convinced of, so we might as well fuck with him and have a laugh.
Oh, indeed, if the revelations in this article are any indication, the “Bacteria are the real cause of GW!” meme, like the “Barack Obama was schooled in a madrasa!” canard, will live on in self-replicating spam e-mails long after it has been publicly debunked.
So, as you say, we might as well get a laugh out of it while we can.
“A lie can run around the world before the truth can get its boots on.”
– Lord de Worde
Rush seems to have no trouble making lies up on his own, so I don’t see why we should be helping him, even if some of us do find it funny.
Am I the only one who thought this thread was a revelation that Geddy Lee was not particularly bright, as if that needed its own thread?
Sadly, no.
I am fearful that a stunt like this in no way helps. It is nice to see Rush made a fool of, but did any of us need more proof that he is a fool? Will his faithful followers change their opinion about him or AGW?
Enjoy your laugh, at least there is that.
Jim
Rush & Co. can now say and be 100% accurate about it, “They are willing to lie to support their cause. If they’re willing to do this once, they’re willing to do this a thousand times.” See that mountain in the distance? That’s the moral high ground, and we just lost it.
I disagree. Anyone who thought global warming was a bunch of lies would have continued to think so regardless of whether this happened. I think this stunt has value as an object lesson: if you don’t understand the science you’re trying to cherry pick to support your predetermined position, you deserve to look like an idiot.
I’ll never understand the people who can simultaneously dismiss the near-unanimous conclusions of highly trained scientists while still trying to use scientific arguments to support their own nutball theory. Creationists making geological arguments for evidence of the Flood, homeopathy proponents making molecular chemistry arguments for how the atoms that aren’t in their medicine can cure people – it’s such strange anti-logic.
To anyone with a grasp of reality, Rush already looks like an idiot. At best, this was a masterbatory exercise for the anti-fanboy crowd, at worst, it was more ammunition that those who accept Global Warming are willing to say or do anything to support their cause, even when they know what they’re saying is a falsehood. While this incident won’t change anyone’s minds, what it will do, is give more footing for the weakwilled out there to continue on their stance of denying that humans are responsible for it.
It’s not that bizarre, really. You’re shaping your argument to match your audience. What would be bizarre is if you had scientific types arguing against Creationism using only myths of Baal or something.
Meh, I just don’t agree. It was too much of an obvious joke to damage anything. Now, if a scientist was caught falsifying data, that could be potentially damaging to winning over the dim and unconvinced. But I think something like this has somewhere between no effect and a slightly positive effect in poking holes in the “science as buffet” crowd.
What’s bizarre to me is it shows that they value scientific proof on one hand even as they’re dismissing scientists as a whole on the other. The only way to know something is true is to prove it scientifically, unless it sounds wrong in which case it’s all lies.
If Rush didn’t have so many dittoheads or was willing to admit he’d been pawn3d, you’d be right.
Heh. I’d like to see someone ask one of these IDers if evolution is bunk, then how do they explain antibiotic resistant bacteria? And if science is such bunk, would they like to give up everything that science has given them, like antibiotics, modern medicine, cellphones, etc., etc.? 
(And IMHO, a perfect experiment to prove or disprove evolution would be for IDers be denied antibiotics, etc.)
Exactly; they don’t value facts or logic; they value faith. They “know” that what they believe is true, and they see nothing wrong in using whatever tactic is necessary to convince others; they don’t see any contradiction in using scence to bolster one argument and demonizing science in the next breath. Consistancy isn’t the point; spreading the faith is. To them, science, like everything else, is only a tool to convince people of the One True Faith, whatever One True Faith that happens to be.
God made them. Or they don’t exist and are a Satanic lie by atheistic scientists.
Rush Limbaugh is an idiot.
Reminds me of this incident.
And baiting Rush with the phoney story is different from this, how?
The difference looks pretty clear to me. Deliberately trying to deceive people into adopting your beliefs, by bamboozling them with scientific misrepresentations that you hope they never see through, is simply fraud. Baiting somebody who claims to rely on science with a fake scientific paper, that you fully intend to immediately expose as fake if the object of your hoax is too ignorant to detect it, is a trick.
It’s kind of like the difference between airport security hackers on the one hand circumventing screening measures in order to expose flaws in the security system, and actual terrorists on the other hand circumventing airport security in order to smuggle weapons aboard a plane to kill people.
The problem is, however, you’ve not only handed your enemies a club to beat you over the head with (“See! They’re willing to lie to back up their position!”), you’re also dealing with people who are unwilling to put too much thought on the issue to begin with, so they’re likely to not even pay attention when you explain to them that they’ve been had, and will repeat the lie as the truth.
Much better, IMHO, would be to point out that by not endorsing things like higher CAFE standards Rush & Co. are showing that they’re all for wastefullness, which should be the anti-thesis of conservatism. If they drive high mileage vehicles they can then invest the savings into other industries besides the oil companies, and other products besides oil (thus boosting the overall economy). Instead, they advocate doing nothing, thus proving they’re drooling slackjaws, because even if there’s no such thing as AGW, by putting money into things other than oil, they’ll be driving technology forward and opening up new economic possibilites, which is what the conservative movement is supposed to be about.
An odd comment, especially since there is no proof of the A in AGW. No evidence, even. But that’s been hashed over in many other threads.
I had a good chuckle when I read the article.
But the AGW proponents weren’t lying to back up their position.
ETA: They were lying against their own position, which wouldn’t have been noticed, of course, if Limbaugh had an ounce of skepticism.
The real target here, I’d expect, isn’t the dittoheads but the media - the pundits and reporters who treat Howard Dean as some sort of raving radical, but treat Rush almost like a GOP elder statesman, and don’t say boo when Dick Cheney goes on his radio show.
Things like this do have a better-than-average chance of making headway with that group.