Rush Limbaugh 12 years ago

UNDENIABLE???????? That means they cannot be arugued with. They are trueisms. But since we are arguing over them, that is prima facie evidence that they are not undeniable.

 

Actually, I agree with most of his statements. I just disagree with a number of them. Rush is no dummy and should not be underestimated, but he tends to view some things too simplisticly. In addition he is extremely partisan, which he intends to be. As a result, he is a very polarizing figure. I would say he and Molly Ivan share a lot in common, not in their political philosophies, but in their style.

 

saying that doesnt make it true.

it is next to impossible to tie together cause and effect when the system you are dealing with is as chaotic and unpredictable as global weather. to make a statement liek you just made, you would obviously have to know that the earth would not be doing what it is doing without the interference of man, which is hard to know. especially since the earth changes temperature without our intervention, as i mentioned earlier.

if we are going into or leaving an ice age, it isnt necessarily because we caused it. ice has been freezing and melting long before we came along. why did the previous ice ages end, if there were no humans to warm the earth? cant we reason that the earth will warm without our intervention?

wouldnt you tend to beleive that the earth can warm without human intervention? how can you tie human activity to the warming if we already know the earth will warm and cool without our help?

how do we know that the warming of the earth is caused by people, and not just the same cycle of warming and cooling that has been happening for however many zillion years?

furthermore, even if humans are causing global warming, should we care? yunno there are places that are far too cold to live or grow anything, they could use a little warmth. farmable lands could develop where there was only ice before. have we examined all of this to the extent that we are sure a little warmth is bad?

 

i think the main thing to recognize about global warming is that conclusions are hard to come by. and we shouldnt be trying to make rules or force kyoto protocols on each other, because conclusions are too hard to draw with the sort of short-term evidence we have about a system so wildly chaotic as climate.

but as i always argue about various topics, people badly want there to be answers when there are non, and they will do their best to put a conclusion in a place where there isnt one. and even scientists. they want to justify their existence. thats why many people become scientists, to find important conclusions so they can change the world. nobody likes a scientist who says the evidence is inconclusive.

plus, people tend to want to regulate and fix things and worry, and their solutions are often so poorly considered that they are not fixing anything.

plus humans are self-important and want to worry about themselves and claim the sky is falling at every opportunity.

 

i think we are taking that list way too seriously. rush is a joker, he doesnt mean that crap. for example, red, calls number 8 demonstrably false. number 8 says that the most beautiful things trees can do is be made into something. but that isnt demonstrably false, it is totally subjective! rush is fooling around. we are arguing his points as if he means them to be taken at face value.

 

well, redick is a pussy. he wrote some poetry and it was on espn.com. man, poetry is for pussies, and this poetry in particular was embarassing. in general a person who writes poetry is not a man, but a child or a woman.