Limbaugh: The Killer 116° Heat Index Is ‘Manufactured By The Government’

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Pleas note that I use the word entertainer, in the following paragraph very, very loosely. I think both Rush and other personalities (such as Hannity, Stewart, et al) are far from entertainers but they are businessmen(women) that play to their audience.

Well, who is more brain dead...those that don't take what an entertainer says with some tongue in cheek (in which a multitude on this site nearly require when John Stewart makes a off the wall comment in the name of entertainment) -- or -- those still pushing his junk he is saying, thus giving him more publicity (there is no bad publicity anymore) by even posting this?!?

How the hell do you compare Rush Limbagh and Jon Stewart? Do you think Picasso and Bach are the same thing too, because ultimately someone was entertained by them. One is a comedian on a comedy show making jokes. The other one is a voice many look up to in his position of talk radio demigod and he is just saying stupid things.

Originally posted by Crapspackle
How the hell do you compare Rush Limbagh and Jon Stewart? Do you think Picasso and Bach are the same thing too, because ultimately someone was entertained by them. One is a comedian on a comedy show making jokes. The other one is a voice many look up to in his position of talk radio demigod and he is just saying stupid things.

Easily when there are throngs of young adults that take his [John Stewart] political satire (this was the comparison I was making in terms of Limbaugh and Stewart) as political truth. The satire is just in a different humor. One is more brazen, the other dry.

Instead you felt the need to protect John Stewart rather than address my post. Paints a picture that I have seen on this site many times over.

I think Rush finally had a good thought in his head. And of course the title makes it seem like Rush is embracing HAARP technology which of course he's not. He's just saying they are manipulating the numbers with the weather just like they are with the economy, is that really so hard to see? it's like how they manipulate the terror threats with colors, they show a picture of a sun and a +9 like we're in some World or Warcraft temperature heat index ++.

I think Rush is just saying the real reported temperature is not as high when you don't factor in the "feels like" which seems suspiciously unscientific to me (but most likely benefits global warming).

Kudos to Rush.

Originally posted by BlindSided
reply to post by Misoir

 

The man is an idiot. Always has been, always will be!

He makes a lot of money screaming nonsense into a mic.

Who is the idiot now?

reply to post by DontTreadOnMe

Another thing, I remember the summer of 1988, it was brutal, and I don't remember all the government/media hype for that.

I remember that summer too. It was when I still lived in Massachusetts. It was so hot that the motherboard in the lab's computer literally MELTED! (That is why I remember it)

Forget Limbaugh, If you want a REAL scare then read these from the actual scientists.

TPTB is not going to tell you the truth. We are at the end of the interglacial and an Ice Age is a LOT more problem than Global Warming. I wonder if that is why they are abandoning the USA and moving their money and industry to Brazil, India and China???

New report in the Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy suggest solar forcing is six times that used by IPCC.

A new approach to the long-term reconstruction of the solar irradiance leads to large historical solar forcing

Abstract

Context. The variable Sun is the most likely candidate for the natural forcing of past climate changes on time scales of 50 to 1000 years. Evidence for this understanding is that the terrestrial climate correlates positively with the solar activity. During the past 10 000 years, the Sun has experienced the substantial variations in activity and there have been numerous attempts to reconstruct solar irradiance. While there is general agreement on how solar forcing varied during the last several hundred years – all reconstructions are proportional to the solar activity – there is scientific controversy on the magnitude of solar forcing.

Aims. We present a reconstruction of the total and spectral solar irradiance covering 130 nm–10 μm from 1610 to the present with an annual resolution and for the Holocene with a 22-year resolution.

Methods. We assume that the minimum state of the quiet Sun in time corresponds to the observed quietest area on the present Sun. Then we use available long-term proxies of the solar activity, which are 10Be isotope concentrations in ice cores and 22-year smoothed neutron monitor data, to interpolate between the present quiet Sun and the minimum state of the quiet Sun. This determines the long-term trend in the solar variability, which is then superposed with the 11-year activity cycle calculated from the sunspot number. The time-dependent solar spectral irradiance from about 7000 BC to the present is then derived using a state-of-the-art radiation code.

Results.
We derive a total and spectral solar irradiance that was substantially lower during the Maunder minimum than the one observed today. The difference is remarkably larger than other estimations published in the recent literature. The magnitude of the solar UV variability, which indirectly affects the climate, is also found to exceed previous estimates.We discuss in detail the assumptions that lead us to this conclusion.

The really interesting point is the "Global Warming Craze" started with the Elite puppet, Maurice Strong at the 1972 Earth Summit.

This is what ALSO happened in 1972....

George Kukla, together with Robert Matthews of Brown University, convened a conference in 1972 entitled “The Present Interglacial: How and When will it End?”, and reported it in Science magazine... [note the date cv]

Kukla and Matthews alerted President Richard Nixon, and as a result the US Administration set up a Panel on the Present Interglacial involving the State Department and other agencies. None of us knew then that the mid-century cooling was about to be punctuated by a warming spell from the late 1970s to the mid 1990s.... [again note the dates cv]

A more definitive confirmation of Milankovitch came in 1976, in a paper by Hays, Imbrie and Shackleton, using Shackleton’s data in the figure above. But long before either that paper or my own, there was widespread behind-the-scenes acceptance of Milankovitch, and Kukla, for one, was concerned about the implications.....

George Kukla: Well almost all of us have been pretty sure that there were only four ice ages, separated by relatively long warm intervals. But now we know that there were twenty in the last two million years.

And the warm periods are much shorter than we believed originally. They are something around 10,000 years long. and I’m sorry to say that the one we are living in now has just passed its 10,000 year birthday. That of course means that the ice age is due now any time.

calderup.wordpress.com...

First Gleissberg (1939 & 1971) identified an 88 yr cycle in the weather patterns www.agu.org...

Gleissberg's work meant you could predict the next warming spell. What was interesting was that in 1972 the world was STILL in a cool phase and would not start warming for another couple of years! So how come Maurice Strong was already hyping "Global Warming" in 1972?

The second really interesting point was the Milankovitch Cycles that predict Ice Ages.

Milankovitch published “Astronomical Methods for Investigating Earth’s Historical Climate” in 1938. His work was of great interest especially during the 1963 International Geophysical Year.


NASA on cycles:

NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records

March 19, 2007

Long-term climate records are a key to understanding how Earth's climate changed in the past and how it may change in the future. Direct measurements of light energy emitted by the sun, taken by satellites and other modern scientific techniques, suggest variations in the sun's activity influence Earth's long-term climate. However, there were no measured climate records of this type until the relatively recent scientific past.

..... Now, however, a group of NASA and university scientists has found a convincing link between long-term solar and climate variability in a unique and unexpected source: directly measured ancient water level records of the Nile, Earth's longest river....

Study of Dust in Ice Cores Shows Volcanic Eruptions Interfere with the Effect of Sunspots on Global Climate

University at Buffalo scientists working with ice cores have solved a mystery surrounding sunspots and their effect on climate that has puzzled scientists since they began studying the phenomenon.

The research, published in a paper in the May 15 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, provides striking evidence that sunspots -- blemishes on the sun's surface indicating strong solar activity -- do influence global climate change, but that explosive volcanic eruptions on Earth can completely reverse those influences.

It is the first time that volcanic eruptions have been identified as the atmospheric event responsible for the sudden and baffling reversals that scientists have seen in correlations between sunspots and climate....

Connection between Solar Minimun and earthquakes (& volcanoes)

Relationship between global seismicity and solar activities

Abstract
The relations between sunspot numbers and earthquakes (M≧6), solar 10.7 cm radio flux and earthquakes, solar proton events and earthquakes have been analyzed in this paper. It has been found that: (1) Earthquakes occur frequently around the minimum years of solar activity. Generally, the earthquake activities are relatively less during the peak value years of solar activity, some say, around the period when magnetic polarity in the solar polar regions is reversed. (2) the earthquake frequency in the minimum period of solar activity is closely related to the maximum annual means of sunspot numbers, the maximum annual means of solar 10.7 cm radio flux and solar proton events of a whole solar cycle, and the relation between earthquake and solar proton events is closer than others. (3) As judged by above interrelationship, the period from 1995 to 1997 will be the years while earthquake activities are frequent. In the paper, the simple physical discussion has been carried out.

YEAR 2003:

Solar activity reaches new high - Dec 2, 2003
" Geophysicists in Finland and Germany have calculated that the Sun is more magnetically active now than it has been for over a 1000 years. Ilya Usoskin and colleagues at the University of Oulu and the Max-Planck Institute for Aeronomy say that their technique – which relies on a radioactive dating technique - is the first direct quantitative reconstruction of solar activity based on physical, rather than statistical, models (I G Usoskin et al. 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 211101)

Solar Cycle 24

NASA - Eve Measuring Suns Hidden Variability.html
...SDO is going to launch during the deepest solar minimum in almost 100 years....

...All stars are variable at some level, and the sun is no exception. We want to compare the sun's brightness now to its brightness during previous minima and ask: is the sun getting brighter or dimmer?"

The answer seems to be dimmer. Measurements by a variety of spacecraft indicate a 12-year lessening of the sun's "irradiance" by about 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at EUV wavelengths. These results, which compare the solar minimum of 2008-09 to the previous minimum of 1996, are still very preliminary...

The end of the Holocene interglacial and the beginning of the next glaciation????

Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception (2007)

"Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which [headlines]proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started...."[/headlines]

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Crapspackle
How the hell do you compare Rush Limbagh and Jon Stewart? Do you think Picasso and Bach are the same thing too, because ultimately someone was entertained by them. One is a comedian on a comedy show making jokes. The other one is a voice many look up to in his position of talk radio demigod and he is just saying stupid things.

Easily when there are throngs of young adults that take his [John Stewart] political satire (this was the comparison I was making in terms of Limbaugh and Stewart) as political truth. The satire is just in a different humor. One is more brazen, the other dry.

So you're actually trying to claim Beck is playing a 'satire' of a wing nut alex jones figure?

performance art?

REALLY?

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
Easily when there are throngs of young adults that take his [John Stewart] political satire (this was the comparison I was making in terms of Limbaugh and Stewart) as political truth. The satire is just in a different humor. One is more brazen, the other dry.

So you're actually trying to claim Beck is playing a 'satire' of a wing nut alex jones figure?

performance art?

REALLY?

So you are going to take my previous posts along the above quoted and take it out of context? Specifically, radio show hosts and even some television personalities are just that, personalities. I say entertainer, you play games with words and put "performance art" into my mouth. Interesting.

No where have I made claim that Beck is playing satire. I did however say that they are entertainer's first, whatever else second. Except maybe a few such as Alex Jones. But even that, he entertains his audience with what he says. He continues what he says, to maintain that base to continue to make money.

I am not sure what the heck you guys are arguing about in regards my comparison here. I will say though, putting words in all caps doesn't impress me or make me think harder. Just shows me that I touched some sort of sore spot that has lit a fire under your ass. Which makes me wonder; if comparing entertainers such as Limbaugh (playing a political satirist) to Stewart (playing a political satirist) gets you riled up, I think you need to direct that energy into other things.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by soaringhawk
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

The increase of harsh weather has been on the rise. The severity of natural disasters have increased over recent years. This is not natural and you are assuming. Anyone that denies the two above facts are in denial or purposefully lying and makes them self an enemy to mankind.

I am the one assuming? Can give me an accurate detailed account of the Earth's weather and natural disaster history to back up your claim that things are going unnatural?

We humans are shortsighted creatures. Our past experiences and current knowledge (or ignorance) dictates our ability to critically think about a current situation. You are claiming that harsh weather is on the rise, as if there have never been hot summers; or cold winters; or earthquakes that happen every day?

Can you show me how the severity of natural disasters has increased? You made the claim so this burden of proof falls to you. Are tornadoes becoming more destructive? Hurricanes have been relatively anemic and the Climate Change scare mongers have gotten the past few years wrong in regards to their increased frequency and power. Are earthquakes becoming more violent? Compared to what?

Answer those and I will take your reply to me with serious consideration, until then, you offer nothing.

Ok then..
According to property and casualty reinsurer Munich Reinsurance America, the number of U.S. natural disasters has tripled in the last 20 years and 2010 broke records with about 250. Average thunderstorm losses have increased five-fold since 1980. For the first half of 2011 there have been $20 billion in thunderstorm losses, double the previous three-year average of $10 billion, NOAA said.

www.microfinancemonitor.com...

Natural disasters alone caused a loss (so far) of $35 billion in 2011

FIVE TIMES the past record set in 2008.