Climate Change on Mars?
September 28, 2015
Listen to it Button
Windows IconWindows Media
RUSH: Here's Cory in Wichita. Glad you called, great to have you on the program, Cory, hi.
CALLER: Hey, it's great to be here. Thank you very much. Giga dittos, Rush, Mega isn't enough. Once again your prescience has paid off. At the noon news hour here in Wichita, I heard ABC interviewing the NASA scientist talking about the water on Mars --
RUSH: Yeah, yeah.
CALLER: -- and how it could lead to proof that there was life or something.
RUSH: Right, right.
CALLER: So the ABC reporter, I can't remember her name, did come on and say, "Mars may have been more like earth at one time," but she basically related it to climate change may have brought about its desolate condition now. She didn't say those words, but pretty much they were equating climate change to Mars' condition now. And I was just floored when I heard them say that.
RUSH: Well, wait a minute, wait a minute. You said that the ABC infobabe did that in her question. What did the NASA guy say in response?
CALLER: Oh, no, it wasn't even an interview. She was just playing his sound bite, talking about it.
RUSH: Oh! You mean this infobabe journalist offered her opinion in the story?
CALLER: Oh, yeah.
RUSH: Oh! That's why I misunderstood. Journalists don't do that very much. That's why I was confused.
CALLER: Yeah, that's why I had to get a hold of you, I had to call in. I've been trying for almost 30 years to call you. I had to get in on this one. I could improve your percentage of being right, because this one did it in minutes, not weeks, days, months --
RUSH: Yeah, but we have to honest. This is just an infobabe doing it, and I'll take being right. I mean, I'm never gonna throw that out. But until the NASA people say it -- we know the Drive-Bys. That's why I was curious. She wasn't interviewing the NASA guy. She was doing a report on the NASA guy, and she said, she just opined, she just offered that it could well be that there had been climate change on Mars. Imagine that. And equating it to, of course, what's happening.
There's climate change every freaking place in the universe, for crying out loud. There's climate change on Jupiter. The climate's changing everywhere. Everything everywhere is always changing. Nothing is static. Everything changes always. But I will not be proven right until some NASA guy -- and it'll happen. Even if he's led to it in questioning by a Drive-By journalist, until an actual scientist makes the claim I will not actually say I've been right yet.
RUSH: Well, I think we can proclaim that I have been right. US News & World Report today, quote, "Eons ago, ancient Mars had 'an extensive atmosphere,' along with 'an ocean two-thirds the size of the northern hemisphere and a mile deep,' said Jim Green, director of planetary science at NASA said during a press conference on Monday." Okay, now, look, how do they know that? How do they know that there was an ocean two-thirds the size of the northern hemisphere and that it was a mile deep? We haven't been there. We haven't probed a mile down on Mars.
You may not remember this. Folks, I'm sorry if you think I'm a natural skeptic. It's not that I distrust as a matter of course. I've learned this. And it really hasn't taken any more than the propaganda and the phony science of global warming to make me doubt. I mean, we've had people claiming, starting in '88, that we had 10 years to clean the oceans or we were gonna die. Or in 1982 that we had 20 years to stop global warming or that was gonna be the end of this or the polar bears were dying. The North Pole was supposed to have melted by now. None of it's come true.
These are all predictions about many, many years in the future, minimum 20 years, most likely 50 to a hundred years, and there's safety in a prediction like that because nobody's gonna be alive to know whether it came true or not. It doesn't take any courage to predict what something's gonna be 50 years from now or a hundred. It does take courage to predict what climate's gonna do in the next three years, and you note we never hear that, do we? You ever hear a climate prediction for 2017. Have you heard a climate prediction, sea levels, arctic ice, any other aspects of global warming or climate change, do you hear any predictions of the next two years or three? No.
The only predictions we get are for 30 years from now, 50, 100 years from now. But never tomorrow, never next month, never next year. Which do you think would be easier to predict? Next year or a hundred years from now? And then realize all this stuff is not based on any data whatsoever. It's all based on computer models predicting things. This guy, Mr. Green, Jim Green at NASA, may be a perfectly nice guy, but, I'm sorry, the days where I listen to some scientist come out and say, "Yeah, two-thirds of Mars used to be covered with water and it was a mile deep," because what comes next, he's the director of planetary science at NASA, and he said, "After an unknown catastrophe, 'Mars suffered a major climate change and lost its surface water.'"
Now, doesn't that fit amazingly well with the scaremongering they are engaging in about planet Earth? Was it Mars' version of Hurricane Katrina, do you think? Was there a President Bush on Mars at the time? (interruption) No, no, no, Mr. Snerdley, I'm not joking here. I'm really serious about this. An unknown catastrophe, unknown. How do we know that? If we're gonna admit that it was an unknown catastrophe, how in the name of Sam Hill do we know what it was and that it was brought on by climate change? Yes siree bob, that's what it was, folks. After an unknown catastrophe, Mars suffered a major climate change and lost its surface water.
Well, of course that's different than what they're saying here. The unknown catastrophes here are known, and they're gonna cause us to be flooded by surface water. In 2007, February 28, National Geographic, "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says." This is National Geographic eight years ago saying that data that we had collected on Mars now tends to indicate that it's the sun, and not man, that's causing changes on earth. Do you think anybody today is gonna go back and revisit that story in light of the discovery of flowing water on Mars?
This is no different than a five-year-old girl being rehearsed and programmed to walk out to visit the pope in the middle of the street in Washington and hand him a note asking him for his support on illegal immigration. Sorry, folks, I'm not buying any of it. The evidence suggests that you shouldn't either. National Geographic had a long story just eight years ago, same scientists discovered that solar activity is what destroyed Mars. But now today it's climate change, unknown catastrophe brought on by climate change. I think this is -- word for this -- not "criminal." But this is dangerously incompetent. This is the attempted manipulation of people. To me this is hideous, to try to make something like this certain without doubt.
I don't know. It just irritates the heck out of me. Unknown catastrophe. We know that an unknown catastrophe some years ago brought about by climate change destroyed all the water on Mars. And you watch how many people are gonna be running around talking about it now. "Yeah, it was really bad on Mars. Did you hear what happened on Mars?" Why couldn't they have discovered a Starbucks up there so half of the Looney Tunes on this planet would want to leave. Why couldn't this falling water they've discovered be a Starbucks or something or a giant Nike store?
RUSH: Bob in Pensacola, Florida, up next on the phones. Hi, Bob. How are you, sir?
CALLER: Hey, Rush. When you had that first segment and you were talking about the news about the events on Mars --
CALLER: -- it struck me right off the bat: When a scientist is describing what happened to make the water disappear as "catastrophic," I don't know. To me the word "catastrophic" implies some sort of qualitative judgment, good or bad. In my opinion, in the absence of any human activity or man at all on the planet out in the middle of nowhere, geologic events are neither good nor bad. They just are.
RUSH: That's exactly right. It's a great point. How can something be "catastrophic" when there aren't any people around to feel the catastrophe?
CALLER: Exactly. That tells me that science is corrupted when they're using terms like that about just a purely scientific observation, about something that happened who knows when.
RUSH: Exactly. Not just corrupted, but politicized.
CALLER: Well, it seems that way.
RUSH: It's a politically charged term. "Climate." "Catastrophe." "Mars used to be two-thirds covered by water and it's all gone! It was a half mile deep or a mile deep" or whatever it was. I don't know how they know it, but that's exactly right. The Mars guy and the scientists said the catastrophic event related to climate change. How does anybody know that? How can anybody possibly...? You won't remember this, folks. It was the 1969 moon landing.
Do you know why Armstrong was so careful in putting that first step on the moon? Because back in that day -- and I'm not making this up -- there were some who believed that the moon was quicksand. Honest to God. Look this up. There were some who thought that the surface of the moon was so soft that it would not support the weight of a lander or a human being. They really did. I remember reading this in the weeks leading up to the landing, and I thought it was a crackpot belief then.
"How in the world can anybody know?" So they were just studying this from their telescope data and whatever from the moon. It was just a bunch of madcap scientists theorizing, but that's why... I mean, there was a serious contingent. I don't know how large it was, but there was a serious contingent at NASA that believed that that was possible, and that's why there was such trepidation when they landed. There would have been trepidation anyway.
It's a brand-new place. Nobody's ever been there. But that's why, and there was no way anybody could have known. Now, it might have been wise to take precautions, but this is absurd. "Catastrophic" events when nobody lives on Mars? Until they're gonna tell us they did. "Yep, and global climate change destroyed them!" Don't rule it out, folks. We're dealing here with desperate leftists who will do anything to advance their agenda here on earth. I know, but don't laugh.