# Haw! Rush, yew is HOZED! (Swallows AGW-denial hoax, line & sinker) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 10, 2007, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/haw-rush-yew-is-hozed-swallows-agw-denial-hoax-line-sinker/425876 "2007-11-10T05:27:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2007, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/haw-rush-yew-is-hozed-swallows-agw-denial-hoax-line-sinker/425876/61 "2007-11-10T22:13:34Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Because an argument should live or die on its own merits. [/QUOTE] It is dying, despite the best efforts of the oil and gas lobby and their shills to keep it on life support. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2007, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/haw-rush-yew-is-hozed-swallows-agw-denial-hoax-line-sinker/425876/62 "2007-11-10T22:41:09Z")
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan] 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. [/QUOTE] I hate to break up the love-in, but I don’t see how this is any better of an idea than the fake paper - IMHO, this approach is just a variant on the old “how can a conservative be against conservation?” argument that conservatives have been ignoring for a generation or so. In contemporary conservatism, there’s _nothing_ wrong with wastefulness. If the free market assigns a low cost to waste, then waste away, they’d say. If you want to drive a high-mileage vehicle because it makes you feel good, then fine - though we’ll probably laugh at you anyway because you’re a liberal hippie granolahead. Besides, there will be enough oil for a long time to come, and when it gets scarce, the market will work its magic then, to bring about new technologies. Regulation is dumb, the market is better. That’s their retort. You may have a counterargument, but by then they’ve stopped listening to you anyway. This gets you nowhere with anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2007, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/haw-rush-yew-is-hozed-swallows-agw-denial-hoax-line-sinker/425876/63 "2007-11-10T23:23:54Z")
[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane] It is dying, despite the best efforts of the oil and gas lobby and their shills to keep it on life support. [/QUOTE] That’s fine. But if it’s dying, it isn’t because so-and-so has worked for an oil company. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2007, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/haw-rush-yew-is-hozed-swallows-agw-denial-hoax-line-sinker/425876/64 "2007-11-10T23:33:16Z")
[QUOTE=Quartz] ??? Then any Christian would do well to avoid anything uttered by St. Paul. Mr Macintyre’s background is out there in the open. Tell me, of all the scientists who promote AGW, how many are significantly funded by AGW research? Don’t they have a vested interest in promoting AGW? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. But you read both sides with appropriate regard for the authors. And you follow the data. Anyway, I find the whole business an utter mess. There is simply no evidence at all one way or the other. Neither side has me convinced. People have noted the increase in CO2 levels but correllation does not equate to causation. There is no evidence linking the two. None. So I’ll read ClimateAudit, and I’ll read RealClimate, and I’ll read more. And I’ll continue to question. [/QUOTE] [http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11652](http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11652) > [@](#): > > A simplified summary is that about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder. > > Water cycle > So why aren’t climate scientists a lot more worried about water vapour than about CO2? The answer has to do with how long greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere. For water, the average is just a few days. > > This rapid turnover means that even if human activity was directly adding or removing significant amounts of water vapour (it isn’t), there would be no slow build-up of water vapour as is happening with CO2 (see Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are tiny compared with natural sources). > > The level of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined mainly by temperature, and any excess is rapidly lost. The level of CO2 is determined by the balance between sources and sinks, and it would take hundreds of years for it to return to pre-industrials levels even if all emissions ceased tomorrow. Put another way, there is no limit to how much rain can fall, but there is a limit to how much extra CO2 the oceans and other sinks can soak up. > > Of course, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas emitted by humans. And many, such as methane, are far more powerful greenhouse gases in terms of infrared absorption per molecule. > > While methane persists for only about a decade before breaking down, other gases, such as the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), can persist in the atmosphere for hundreds or even tens of thousands years. Per molecule, their warming effect is thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide. (Production of CFCs in now banned in most of the world, but because of their ozone destroying properties, not greenhouse properties.) > > Double up > But the overall quantities of these other gases are tiny. Even allowing for the relative strength of the effects, **CO2 is still responsible for two-thirds of the additional warming caused by all the greenhouse gases emitted as a result of human activity**. > > Water vapour will play a huge role in the centuries to come, though. Climate models, backed by satellite measurements, suggest that the amount of water vapour in the upper troposphere (about 5 to 10 kilometres up) will double by the end of this century as temperatures rise. [http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659](http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659) > [@](#): > > The ice ages show that temperature can determine CO2 as well as CO2 driving temperature. Some skeptics – not scientists – have seized upon this idea and are claiming that the relation is one way, that temperature determines CO2 levels but CO2 levels do not affect temperature. > > To repeat, **the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature** , which tells us nothing about cause and effect. And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of interglacials can only be explained by rising temperatures, the full extent of the temperature increases over the following 4000 years can only be explained by the rise in CO2 levels. ---
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2007, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/haw-rush-yew-is-hozed-swallows-agw-denial-hoax-line-sinker/425876/65 "2007-11-10T23:57:10Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Because an argument should live or die on its own merits. [/QUOTE] If it’s an argument from authority (as \*\*brazil84’s \*\* was–indeed, as all of his are, since he has no knowledge or expertise of his own) then the bona fides of the so-called authority are highly relevant. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2007, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/haw-rush-yew-is-hozed-swallows-agw-denial-hoax-line-sinker/425876/66 "2007-11-11T00:50:31Z")
[QUOTE=Quartz] Why don’t you try attacking his arguments instead of trying an ad hominem? [/QUOTE] Tell you what, Brazil made a false statement that is a typical talking point of people like Macintyre. I refuted it, he challenged me to show the newer studies and I did provide 3 separate studies and so he avoids the studies I show by linking to Macintyre’s Blog. I strongly believe the fact that Macintyre is not a climatologist and in the employ of the oil development industry is very relevant in this case. Further it was Brazil that as usual tried to change the argument. Jim ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2007, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/haw-rush-yew-is-hozed-swallows-agw-denial-hoax-line-sinker/425876/67 "2007-11-11T00:54:30Z")
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion] If it’s an argument from authority (as \*\*brazil84’s \*\* was–indeed, as all of his are, since he has no knowledge or expertise of his own) then the bona fides of the so-called authority are highly relevant. [/QUOTE] Agreed and acknowledged. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2007, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/haw-rush-yew-is-hozed-swallows-agw-denial-hoax-line-sinker/425876/68 "2007-11-11T00:55:12Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Because an argument should live or die on its own merits. [/QUOTE] **Liberal** , would it be relevant to know that a person that was blogging to support the increase of national health care and to transfer administration to private insurance companies actually worked as a consultant for United Health Care? [QUOTE=Liberal] Agreed and acknowledged. [/QUOTE] Oh, okay nevermind. ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2007, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/haw-rush-yew-is-hozed-swallows-agw-denial-hoax-line-sinker/425876/69 "2007-11-11T01:03:47Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] That’s fine. But if it’s dying, it isn’t because so-and-so has worked for an oil company. [/QUOTE] Nor because of Al Gore, or George Clooney, or NBC or the New York Times. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2007, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/haw-rush-yew-is-hozed-swallows-agw-denial-hoax-line-sinker/425876/70 "2007-11-11T02:39:19Z")
I just heard the latest news. Rush Limbaugh has just apologized to his listeners and taken full responsiblity for failing to properly check his facts. He said that because of the value he has always placed on his reputation for accuracy and because he knows that his audience will accept nothing less that the complete truth, he feels that he has no choice except to resign as both a broadcaster and an author. I’m kidding of course. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2007, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/haw-rush-yew-is-hozed-swallows-agw-denial-hoax-line-sinker/425876/71 "2007-11-11T02:53:32Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] I hate to break up the love-in, but I don’t see how this is any better of an idea than the fake paper - IMHO, this approach is just a variant on the old “how can a conservative be against conservation?” argument that conservatives have been ignoring for a generation or so. [/quote] Because it’s honest. I realize that the concept of honesty is a bit out of fashion these days, but it does have it’s merits. > [@](#): > > In contemporary conservatism, there’s _nothing_ wrong with wastefulness. Then you can tell them to STFU when they start bitching about government wastefulness. Removing the log from your own eye to get the mote out of your neighbor’s and all that. > [@](#): > > If the free market assigns a low cost to waste, then waste away, they’d say. In Nevada, the market says that prostitution is legal, yet Rush & Co. are no doubt more than happy to call that “immoral.” If they truly believed in the free market, they’d be willing to legalize prostitution. So their argument is crap. > [@](#): > > If you want to drive a high-mileage vehicle because it makes you feel good, then fine - though we’ll probably laugh at you anyway because you’re a liberal hippie granolahead. Besides, there will be enough oil for a long time to come, and when it gets scarce, the market will work its magic then, to bring about new technologies. Regulation is dumb, the market is better. > > That’s their retort. You may have a counterargument, but by then they’ve stopped listening to you anyway. This gets you nowhere with anyone. Well, they’re sure as shit not going to listen to you when you tell them it’s a phoney story about bacteria causing global warming. And the fake story isn’t going to get you anywhere with anyone, either. The people who hate Rush are most likely going to say, “Ha! Told you so!” While his fapping fanboys are going to come up with excuses, or weasel worded defenses, so you’ve gone to a lot of work to accomplish nothing. Much better, IMHO, for you to fight assholes with the truth. You may not accomplish anything, but you’ll still have the moral high ground. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2007, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/haw-rush-yew-is-hozed-swallows-agw-denial-hoax-line-sinker/425876/72 "2007-11-11T03:03:32Z")
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan] In Nevada, the market says that prostitution is legal, yet Rush & Co. are no doubt more than happy to call that “immoral.” If they truly believed in the free market, they’d be willing to legalize prostitution. So their argument is crap. [/QUOTE] No, here you miss the boat. Only the most staunch libertarians argue that the market, and only the market, should control our every law. You could argue that because hit men exist, the market must accept murder. Moreover, if the “market” says the prostitution is legal in Nevada, it’s because people on both sides of the issue were permitted to not only vote, but argue their respective viewpoints. By this measure, “the market” in 49 other states wants to keep prostitution criminalized, so no one’s doing anything against “the market.” There’s no question that there is a market for prostitution. Social conservatives don’t claim to look to the market for all issues, though - in the same vein, their is clearly a market for pornography, and social conservatives genewrally wish to see it outlawed, notwithstanding. You’re using the failure of a social conservative to live up to a libertarian claim to casll him a hypocrite - that’s simply not accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2007, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/haw-rush-yew-is-hozed-swallows-agw-denial-hoax-line-sinker/425876/73 "2007-11-11T03:21:23Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] No, here you miss the boat. Only the most staunch libertarians argue that the market, and only the market, should control our every law. You could argue that because hit men exist, the market must accept murder. Moreover, if the “market” says the prostitution is legal in Nevada, it’s because people on both sides of the issue were permitted to not only vote, but argue their respective viewpoints. By this measure, “the market” in 49 other states wants to keep prostitution criminalized, so no one’s doing anything against “the market.” There’s no question that there is a market for prostitution. Social conservatives don’t claim to look to the market for all issues, though - in the same vein, their is clearly a market for pornography, and social conservatives genewrally wish to see it outlawed, notwithstanding. You’re using the failure of a social conservative to live up to a libertarian claim to casll him a hypocrite - that’s simply not accurate. [/QUOTE] I don’t think so. I’m pointing out that even they must admit that some times the market is not always the best way of determining what a society should and should not do. You can also point out that it’s rather stupid of them to bitch about being required to save money. After all, don’t we all want _more_ money? Then there’s the extra taxes that they’re paying to the government, every time they fill up. At least $.40 of the price of a gallon of gas goes to taxes, so driving a gas guzzler is funding the massive government machine that they claim to hate so much. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2007, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/haw-rush-yew-is-hozed-swallows-agw-denial-hoax-line-sinker/425876/74 "2007-11-11T04:28:05Z")
But Rush doesn’t look like an idiot to the folks who listen to his show. They listen to Rush Limbaugh for gossakes! No one looks like an idiot after a couple of months of doing that. I spent twenty minutes explaining that there isn’t any evidence of global warming on Mars to a guy who simply dismissed my point as “one opinion” and ignored that fact that I could give him links to the same articles he said supported his bushwah, and show him that the actual research he thinks proves that Mars is getting warmer is not saying that at all. He has no source at all other than . . . wait for it . . Rush Limbaugh. Tris ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2007, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/haw-rush-yew-is-hozed-swallows-agw-denial-hoax-line-sinker/425876/75 "2007-11-11T04:45:14Z")
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan] I don’t think so. I’m pointing out that even they must admit that some times the market is not always the best way of determining what a society should and should not do. You can also point out that it’s rather stupid of them to bitch about being required to save money. After all, don’t we all want _more_ money? Then there’s the extra taxes that they’re paying to the government, every time they fill up. At least $.40 of the price of a gallon of gas goes to taxes, so driving a gas guzzler is funding the massive government machine that they claim to hate so much. [/QUOTE] I’m saying that your first point is a strawman: no one in the circles we’re discussing is saying: “The market is always the best way of determining what a society should and should not do.” ---
**Author:** ![Mayo\_Speaks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c57346/32.png) [@Mayo\_Speaks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mayo_Speaks)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2007, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/haw-rush-yew-is-hozed-swallows-agw-denial-hoax-line-sinker/425876/76 "2007-11-11T05:44:20Z")
[Ban DHMO!](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide) ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2007, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/haw-rush-yew-is-hozed-swallows-agw-denial-hoax-line-sinker/425876/77 "2007-11-11T07:55:59Z")
It’s late, and I’m tired: is **Tuckerfan** saying that his approach is more sound because conservatism somhow implies conservationism? 'Cos I don’t think that’s a particularly strongly supportable assertion, on it’s face. Be nice if it was the case, of course. And if that misses the point of what **Tuckerfan** was saying, well, as I said, it’s late, and I’m tired. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2007, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/haw-rush-yew-is-hozed-swallows-agw-denial-hoax-line-sinker/425876/78 "2007-11-11T09:12:09Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] That’s fine. But if it’s dying, it isn’t because so-and-so has worked for an oil company. [/QUOTE] But it is indeed at least in small part because so-and-so has been **exposed** as working for an oil company. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2007, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/haw-rush-yew-is-hozed-swallows-agw-denial-hoax-line-sinker/425876/79 "2007-11-11T10:06:01Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Tell me, where’s this big pot of money that funds pro-AGW research, provided by people with an economic interest in publishing pro-AGW results? [/QUOTE] Around here it’s called the taxpayer. They’ve got to keep us believing in it so we’ll keep funding them. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2007, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/haw-rush-yew-is-hozed-swallows-agw-denial-hoax-line-sinker/425876/80 "2007-11-11T10:09:49Z")
[QUOTE=What Exit?] Tell you what, Brazil made a false statement that is a typical talking point of people like Macintyre. I refuted it, he challenged me to show the newer studies and I did provide 3 separate studies and so he avoids the studies I show by linking to Macintyre’s Blog. [/quote] I have no problem with that. > [@](#): > > I strongly believe the fact that Macintyre is not a climatologist and in the employ of the oil development industry is very relevant in this case. Again true, but to attack him for it when his associations are out in the open is another matter. Were he secretly funded, then you’d be spot on, but there is no secret to reveal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/haw-rush-yew-is-hozed-swallows-agw-denial-hoax-line-sinker/425876.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/haw-rush-yew-is-hozed-swallows-agw-denial-hoax-line-sinker/425876.md?page=5)