Thread: Rush talks about Dinosaur farts leading to extinction

Originally Posted by Slon

Except you're wrong since I used his own words when I ridiculed him (around 5:30-5:45). Looks like you're taking a page out of Rush's tactics book and making shit up.

I listened to the recording, and without using any other evidence, pointed out how retarded and dishonest his argument was.

his argument to think for yourself was retarded.......Okay what ever floats your boat.

Originally Posted by Slon

Reality or not, Rush is still a lying scumbag. Actually, I don't know if that's entirely accurate since Rush's own statements during the same session show his statements to be false. Perhaps "raving lunatic" is a better description of him than "dishonest."

you still have yet prove anything as normal other than act the fool.

Originally Posted by Slon

his argument

As a guy who listened to Rush for over 7 years, his argument is based on a study that "SUGGESTS".
The key word of Rushes POV on the subject of Libs funding a "scientific" study that leads to a "SUGGESTS" in order to condone legislation to control our habits.

I HATE Rush concerning Globalism, but I agree with him on this issue.
NOBODY is going to pass tax-sucking, life-controling legislation on me because a "scientific" study "SUGGESTS".

Yes, I know Rush gives NO details about the study.
That his MO; he NEVER details the opposition.

I hate pollution, but stop telling me every two years to change my lighting fixtures.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

his argument to think for yourself was retarded.......Okay what ever floats your boat.

What are you smoking? I didn't say his argument to think for yourself was retarded. I said his misrepresentation of the study was retarded. Better ask someone to translate from English to your native language for you since you're no good at it.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

you still have yet prove anything as normal other than act the fool.

Like I said, get someone to translate for you if you don't understand English.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

As a guy who listened to Rush for over 7 years, his argument is based on a study that "SUGGESTS".
The key word of Rushes POV on the subject of Libs funding a "scientific" study that leads to a "SUGGESTS" in order to condone legislation to control our habits.

I HATE Rush concerning Globalism, but I agree with him on this issue.
NOBODY is going to pass tax-sucking, life-controling legislation me because a "scientific" study "SUGGESTS".

Yes, I know Rush gives NO details about the study.
That his MO; he NEVER details the opposition.

I hate pollution, but stop telling me every two years to change my lighting fixtures.

That's not my problem with what he said. My problem is that he INVENTED information relating to the study. Untrue information even based on his own statements earlier in the recording. That invention is the topic of this thread and it's what I'm discussing.

Originally Posted by Slon

My problem is that he INVENTED information relating to the study. Untrue information even based on his own statements earlier in the recording. That invention is the topic of this thread and it's what I'm discussing.

What information?

If Rush could come up with a counter argument for the results of the initial study other than mocking sarcasm then I might give him a chance but at the moment it's a radio show host arguing against a scientist on a scientific subject and I know who my money is on to be right in that scenario.

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

If Rush could come up with a counter argument for the results of the initial study other than mocking sarcasm then I might give him a chance but at the moment it's a radio show host arguing against a scientist on a scientific subject and I know who my money is on to be right in that scenario.

You know you'd lose that bet more than once, right (via email scandals, false & wrong predictions, etc)?

What, a bet that Rush knows more about science than a scientist?

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

What, a bet that Rush knows more about science than a scientist?

No, that the scientist is more motivated by politics than science.

Oh right, so you'll happily tar the entire scientific community because some things were done badly will you? We have hundreds of studies that point towards climate change being man made and you concentrate on and put all your faith in the few that disagree or the odd misdeed. It's strange how the most ardent claims of scientists being biased are from the right and those who think everything is peachy and we should just keep using fosil fuels rather than changing towards a more efficient and less polluting alternative.

I also assume that you think Rush has no political affiliation and that he's not doing exactly what you're accusing the scientists of doing in misleading the public to get what he wants.

Originally Posted by Slon

What are you smoking? I didn't say his argument to think for yourself was retarded. I said his misrepresentation of the study was retarded. Better ask someone to translate from English to your native language for you since you're no good at it.


Like I said, get someone to translate for you if you don't understand English.


That's not my problem with what he said. My problem is that he INVENTED information relating to the study. Untrue information even based on his own statements earlier in the recording. That invention is the topic of this thread and it's what I'm discussing.

I listed it earlier in the thread. He read an article about the research, then promptly misrepresented it. It looks silly, frankly, but what more can you expect from Rush?

Originally Posted by PeterUK75

Oh right, so you'll happily tar the entire scientific community because some things were done badly will you? We have hundreds of studies that point towards climate change being man made and you concentrate on and put all your faith in the few that disagree or the odd misdeed.

No, I do not tar the entire scientific community, only those that advocate AGW. I follow the money. The supposed 100's of studies were paid for by the entity that has most to gain by world-wide control of energy by force, government. Perhaps you are unaware of the IPCC's reports that claimed the support of the top climatologists in the world where these top climatologists never even saw the political summaries that their name was attached to AND DO NOT AGREE. Some went out of their way to ask that their names be removed from the report, at great peril to their future funding. Some went so far as threatening to sue before their names were removed.

Here is how the top climatologists in the world said it works:
1. they are hired by the government to do some legitimate study, say wind speed changes across a region.
2. they report their legitimate findings on wind speed (in the technical part of the report that no one reads).
3. A politically motivated bureaucrat writes a politically motivated "summary" of all these reports that the actual top climatologists in the world never see nor do they agree with.
4. The top climatologists in the world have their names on reports where the summary is AGW is real.

This process happens, as you've pointed out 100's of times. Perhaps you are also unaware of various email scandals (more than one) that PROVED other scientists hid the global warming decline, falsified data or failed to conclude where the data took them - to refute AGW? Why do you supposed they would do that by the way? Better chance of more funding. Scientists know who butters their bread!

Perhaps you are unaware of the "scientist" in one IPCC report claiming the snow capped mountains of the Himalayas would be gone by 2005? The scientist turned out to be an economist. Perhaps you are unaware the IPCC never retracted the report or explained how they credited a non-field scientist with such a outlandish claim?

Perhaps you are also unaware of so many AGW predictions that have already proven false, e.g., Polar caps melted by 2008, coastal region under water by 2010, animal extinctions, world unrest, food shortages, dramatic increases in cancer and hurricanes increasing in frequency and intensity, and on and on and on?

Originally Posted by thanatos144

I saw this today and would have laughed it wasn't so sad that this is what passes for science today.

Rush: Dinosaurs farting themselves into extinction doesn’t pass the smell test » The Right Scoop -

Typical of Rush. He takes something that was not quoted in context and uses that to discredit ideas that he doesn't like. The article in Current Biology did not say that the dinosaurs farted themselves into extinction. The synopsis of the article is:

Mesozoic sauropods, like many modern herbivores, are likely to have hosted microbial methanogenic symbionts for the fermentative digestion of their plant food [1]. Today methane from livestock is a significant component of the global methane budget [2]. Sauropod methane emission would probably also have been considerable. Here, we use a simple quantitative approach to estimate the magnitude of such methane production and show that the production of the greenhouse gas methane by sauropods could have been an important factor in warm (emphasis added) Mesozoic climates.

It doesn't say that it lead to their extinction, it says that it was an important factor in WARM climates.

You can read the whole article for yourself: http://download.cell.com/current-bio...ermediate=true


Rush uses one example of researcher misconduct as an excuse to dismiss the preponderance of scientific data that supports the facts that:
1) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up with a strong correlation to the start of the industrial era.
2) CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas

No one has a computer simulation that shows that continuing to increase CO2 will not lead to an increase in average global temperature. Computer simulations aren’t perfect but they are pretty good. Look at the simulations for hurricane forecasts for example. The simulations are not all in perfect agreement but we don’t see simulations where the hurricane goes in a completely different direction. We also have:

Former Global Warming Skeptic Makes a 'Total Turnaround' - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - NBCNews.com

As I watch Rush expound on how expert he has become in global warming science, it is obvious that he’s the dinosaur fart stinking the place up.

Don't let Rush filter the information for you. He is not interested in you knowing THE truth. He just wants you to belive his truth (and that is a lower case "h"). He is selling his political agenda while lamenting that everyone else is corrupted by their political agenda. The facts and physics are there for you to come to your own conclusion. Don't take Rush's word for anything.