A Tribute to Rush Limbaugh

February 17th, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

As most you you know by now, Rush Limbaugh’s death from cancer was announced this morning. I suspected he would work right up to the end, and we would learn of his death when we least expected it. That was just Rush.

I don’t know when I started listening to him. I suspect it wasn’t long after his radio show became nationally syndicated in 1988. Like many of his life-long listeners, Rush was able to articulate things we were feeling at the time, but could not express very well.

As a tribute, I thought I would share some personal anecdotes about the man. There are so many things that his detractors get wrong.

It’s been over 10 years since I called into the show to talk about global warming. I wanted to support his views at the time. It was late in the 3-hour show that day, and he liked what I was saying, and asked if I could continue the conversation the next day.

They investigated my background overnight, and the next day he was excited to have an actual climate scientist on his side. That night we had a long e-mail conversation talking about how similar our backgrounds were growing up.

Within days he was calling me the “Chief Climatologist of the EIB Network”. An unpaid position, but he knew that mentioning my name on the radio was plenty payment enough; it led to many speaking opportunities in the years that followed. He provided me with his “super-secret” email address, and that’s how we would correspond from then on.

He immediately suggested I write my first book, and when it came out he plugged it on the show quite a few times. Within a couple weeks, his influence got the book on the NYT bestsellers list. When I told him the news, he had a typically funny response, “Watch out, Oprah!”

Over the last 10 years, he has always read my emails to him, and responded when appropriate. I could usually tell when it was something he would use on the air (and it was usually not related to climate). It took years before I got used to the idea that he was actually interested in what I had to say.

Not long after all this started, my family and I were visiting my daughter who was in law school in Miami, and Rush found out I was in the area. He invited us over to his house in Palm Beach on a Saturday, where his extended Missouri family was visiting for an annual sports weekend for a Missouri football game. Rush was a very gracious host, and his family and relatives are very friendly. He showed me around his palatial estate, showed me how his new cochlear implant worked, and gave me a tour of his climate-controlled cigar room. I was struck by how “average” of a guy he was on a personal level.

But my favorite memory of that visit was of David Limbaugh and my daughter (the law student) having a discussion about law while standing around the pool table. Rush was listening in (he would stroll from room to room to make sure all of his guests were being taken care of).

I was marveling at the whole experience: here was my daughter discussing law with David Limbaugh while Rush listened. I will never forget the surreal feeling I had in that moment.

He then entered the conversation (I don’t recall the specific subject) to explain about how the Bush administration had sent people down to Palm Beach more than once to change his mind on some issue. But he wouldn’t budge.

But that was Rush. He wasn’t a ‘political’ animal in the usual sense. He had specific conservative principles, and if the current Republican president violated them, Rush would not hesitate to call them on it.

Rush was the same person, on the air and off the air.

In the intervening years I would have hundreds of discussions with Rush, usually not on climate-related issues. I always marveled at his boundless energy… he always took time to find out what I wanted to say to him. Several times he would remember things I told him that I had forgotten I had told him!. Once I asked him, “How do you remember so much stuff?”. His silly answer was, “It’s the booze”.

Rush had a a unique combination of talents that probably won’t come together again. In addition to his unabashed conservativism, he could articulate those principles in a way that resonated with his listeners. He had a quick mind, perfect timing on the radio, a great radio voice, and he knew how to run a business. He had a great sense of humor; many of Paul Shanklin’s parody songs came from Rush’s ideas, and one even came from me, and one from my wife. I also gave him some advice on how to make the show better (something that I told him was confusing for listeners), which he actually took and implemented.

But the most important talent that distinguished Rush from the pack of radio personalities who sought to emulate his success was that he was genuinely kind to his callers, even if they disagreed with him. He let them speak. He praised them when there was merit to the points they were making, even if it seemed to be a stretch to praise them. Every liberal viewpoint that was called into the show was used as a teachable moment.

We are sorry we lost you so early, Rush.

Well done.


312 Responses to “A Tribute to Rush Limbaugh”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. mick says:

    I couldnt stand the guy because the media told me that he was bad.
    One day I listened to his show with a friend while driving to work. Much to my surprise he was articulate and his political commentary was brilliant. RIP Rush.

    • fonzie says:

      (William Raspberry made a similar observation)…

    • Ward Oliver says:

      I am reminded of a song from the musical “South Pacific”, “You’ve got to be Carefully Taught”, which said that we have to be taught to hate. The media, as well as much of academia, has tried to teach us to hate Rush, and more recently, Trump.

  2. mick says:

    I couldnt stand the guy because the media told me that he was bad.
    One day I listened to his show with a friend while driving to work. Much to my surprise he was articulate and his political commentary was brilliant. RIP Rush.

  3. CO2isLife says:

    I am so thankful that there are a few University Professors that still listen to all sides. Dr. Spencer, you are unique and we need far more open-minded people like you at our universities.

  4. Celeste Payton says:

    I’m so envious you knew Rush personally. He and I shared so many things in common I believe we would’ve been great friends. When 24 started I couldn’t believe he wasn’t talking about it. When he discovered it I so enjoyed hearing his take. He’s irreplaceable. I’m sad for your loss, and for everyone who loved him.

  5. Wendell Davis says:

    All of us feel like we have lost a close friend. Thank you for this intimate look Dr. Spencer. A common saying is that no one is irreplaceable, but in this case, Rush is.

  6. JASMIN SINCLAIR says:

    My dad listened to Rush in the 1980s. That was my first introduction to Rush. Thanks so much, Dad! Truly! After reading your tribute, Dr. Spencer, it just dawned on me that both my dad and Rush were from Missouri. This is a duh moment for me. My dad died too young in 1998. Now with Rush’s passing, my touchstones to my dad are dwindling more and more. You are missed, Rush. As are you, Dad.

  7. It’s a minor point, but I wish you had used a picture that didn’t show Rush smoking.

  8. Roy W. Spencer says:

    BTW, I posted that NYT photo of Rush because I know he loved it. He circulated it to his friends before the article came out.

    • Paul Fraser Davis says:

      In 1991 was a Captain at a USAF base and my junior enlisted set up a “Rushroom” while we were running Asbestos samples. First I heard of him. I soon became an avid reader of his books starting with “The Way Things Ought to Be”. My sons and I listened to him on road trips all across the USA from East to west and north to south as we made a mini-vacation of driving to numerous military training sessions from Spokane to New Hampshire and Michigan to TX. I only missed him while deployed overseas. Farewell old buddy

      • rah says:

        I remember when I was stationed at Flint Kaserne, in Bad Tolz the Armed forces radio cut Rush’s program coverage from 3 hours to two. We weren’t happy.

  9. I am in awe of the courage that Rush showed as he faced death.

  10. Bill Xenakis says:

    Thank you Chief Climatologist of the EIB Network, Dr. Roy Spencer, for this excellent tribute to Rush. I wish I could have met him also. My morning commute will be emptier now without Rush to listen to on the radio. Keep up your Excellence in Climate Science work please, as we depend on you to help us know the difference between real and fake science. Warm Regards, Bill Xenakis

  11. Stephen Paul Anderson says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    My condolences for the loss of your good friend Rush Limbaugh.

  12. Hornblower says:

    I had no use for Limbaugh and the awful nonsense he promulgated over the years. I think climate change is exaggerated. That does not in any way give legitimacy to that fellow.

    • Strop says:

      Roy’s blogs are open to discussion and differing opinions. But I think you’ve shown poor judgement to offer a differing opinion on a post that’s a tribute to a friend Roy jas just lost.

      It’s nice that you had at least one point of common ground with Rush. That does not in any way give legitimacy to you.

    • Nate says:

      Strop, Thats a fair point.

      But IMO, right now is an opportune time to discuss his legacy.

      Right now we have just seen where misinformation, demagoguery and fomenting of hate can lead.

      Rush Limbaugh was a pioneer of right-wing media of the sort that feeds people’s grievances and hatreds. When ratings are paramount, Rush and others gave people more of what they wanted to hear.

      And what they wanted to hear was that they’ve been cheated. That, for example, their man Trump was cheated out of a landslide election victory. That there was massive fraud.

      But this is misinformation, propaganda. And, and it led people to the inevitable last option, violence and insurrection at the capitol.

      It has led to the deeply divided, hate-filled country we have right now, IMO. That is part of his legacy.

      • Strop says:

        Yes Nate, now …. or in a couple of weeks, is an opportune time to discuss Rush’s legacy. Hornblower wasn’t doing that and, in my opinion, there are better places/forums to have the discussion. (not that discussing it is likely to alter opinions already held going into it)

        I’m sure Roy is under no illusions about whether Rush was or wasn’t liked by everyone. It just didn’t need to be made obvious again in this particular blog.

      • John Boland says:

        I never heard anything hateful so I guess we need a theory of hate relativity.

        • Don says:

          Unfortunately we now consider “hate” to be the same thing as being made fun of. As multiple comedians will say, we have lost our ability to laugh at ourselves.

          Rush made fun of people, groups and organizations. Who can forget “The NAGS” (The National Organization of Gals.)

          Find what Tammy Bruce had to say in her tribute. It will open your eyes about the “hateful” Rush.

          • Butts says:

            Rush had a ‘comedy’ bit where he read off the names of people who had died of AIDS. That’s it. That’s the bit.

            The only tragedy in his recent death is that it didn’t happen 60 years earlier.

      • Nate says:

        But lots of disinformation, recently all about Dominion, Smartmatic, Venezuela, Chavez, etc. that are easily shown to be False and defamatory to the tune of $Billions.

        https://www.mediamatters.org/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaughs-election-lies-about-dominion-voting-systems-reached-millions-listeners

        But, no matter, it works to make people feel cheated and mad as hell. Thats what propaganda is for.

        • Bob says:

          Nobody is always right about everything Nate. You can find tons of examples of every single news station being blatantly wrong about things. Sometimes they are purposely promulgating propaganda, sometimes they are simply wrong. This stuff about Dominion and Smartmatic was reported by a great many news agencies, and Rush simply offered commentary on it. All political commentators do this. They cannot constantly fact check all their sources. It does not help that you cite an extreme left-wing organization like Media Matters to try and make your point. If Rush said the sky was blue they would produce an article refuting it and calling Rush a liar.

          • Nate says:

            “Smartmatic was reported by a great many news agencies”

            Yes all of which were Right-Wing Media, quoting other Right-Wing Media without any of them doing the most basic journalistic due diligence.

            Thats exactly the problem.

      • rah says:

        Anyone the writes or says that kind of thing never listened to Rush!
        And don’t lie an try to say you were a regular listener because we that were, will know your a liar.

  13. RStephen Richards says:

    Rush was at the top for 30 years … and WAS the voice of conservatism, articulating a simple explanation on complex issues. He became a man of faith and approached death as he understood his plight, declaring, just like Lou Gehrig, he was the luckiest man alive. Rush was not bitter but showed the world his gratefulness for being able to live the American dream, and as a Christian, a hope for tomorrow. Rest in Peace, Rush. You done good.

  14. Kirt Griffin says:

    Roy, I remember the first time I heard Rush mention your name. Having been investigating the climate change scam for a while, it was good to see that a sceptic was getting public exposure. I do envy your association with Rush. That had to be a definite highlight. The closest I ever got was talking to Snerdley one day. That will have to be enough now. All of his followers will miss him and revere his memory for all he has done for Conservatism. RIP Rush.

  15. Mervyn says:

    Very interesting, Roy. Thanks for writing this article. Rush was the radio king… and now I pray may he rest in peace.

  16. David Leslie Gray says:

    Are there fewer and fewer conservatives out there, or just fewer people who can articulate conservative values? Rush will be missed on many levels. Thank God for him. RIP Mr. Limbaugh – you deserve your reward.

    And thank you Dr. Spencer for your thoughtful and moving tribute.

    • rah says:

      There will never be another Rush. His act is one that will be impossible to follow and every possible candidate to do so knows that. Mark Steyn would be my choice.

  17. Agree or not Rush was the best at what he did and I am very sad he passed away.

  18. Rush was not the first conservative talk show host. His greatest accomplishment, in my opinion, was to convince advertisers, such as Snapple, that advertising on his show would bring good returns from conservative listeners.

    And Rush was right. The mainly conservative listeners had a lot of purchasing power, and used it to support companies that advertised on Rush’s show. Many companies discovered a new marketing forum they had never even considered before: A nationally syndicated conservative talk show on the radio.

    Rush opened the door for all of the current nationally syndicated conservative and libertarian talk shows on the radio, quickly rose to the top of his profession, and stayed there for decades, which is another huge accomplishment. He demonstrated how NOT to get cancelled by leftists, although they sure tried over the years.

    Before Rush, a conservative radio talk show was typically on one station, in one local market, and not on the biggest radio station in town.

    As I type this, I am listening to a mainstream TV news show finding fault with Rush (“divisive” … “controversial” … “racist” … etc.) after he died, with no details about his politics (except the word “conservative”), his love for our country, and it’s constitution.

  19. Sarah Cody says:

    Thanks for your wonderful tribute, Roy. I remember listening to Rush starting when I was in my preteens with my dad. My husband and I talked about Rush a lot. Listened to him often and I bought your book from hearing about it on his show. He (Rush) will be sorely missed by us as humble devout listeners. Thanks again, Roy. How cool you got to know the guy he truly was on and off the air.

  20. Bad Andrew says:

    I remember when Rush introduced to me the concept of the “Seminar Caller” wayyyy back in my youthful listening days.

    Until then I had some naive notion that everyone expressed their own opinion or original thoughts when they put it “out there.”

    That was one of the many illusions Rush blew up over the years.

    Andrew

  21. john sawruk sawruk says:

    Beautiful piece Roy. Can tell U had a strong personal relationship founded on mutual respect. What a loss to our country.

  22. Julie P says:

    I remember your first call to Rush, it was a breath of fresh air every time you came on, and I have visited this blog often in the interim years to get the “real” facts on climate change.

    This was a very nice tribute to a legend, both on the radio and in life.

    Having listened to Rush since 1989, I do feel like I have lost a friend so I can only imagine how my greater the loss feels to those that actually were friends with this great man.

    It has saddened me to see the vitriol that is being spewed by many of those “tolerant” haters.

    I have been encouraged reading the tributes from those that knew the real Rush.

    Thank you for yours.

  23. Tom Waeghe says:

    Roy,

    Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge of and friendship with Rush. When he first was on the radio in the late 80s and early 90s I had a coworker who wanted to listen to his show in the afternoon in my laboratory. This coworker/associate scientist was a very strong personality and a major PIA. Maybe the difficult person he was made me not want to listen to Rush at that time. Over the years I grew to like Rush and appreciate him and his values and principles, as opposed to the secularism and idealism of the Clinton crime family. He espoused and promoted conservatism and real Americanism. Now it is imperative that we fight against progressivism and socialism. Hopefully others will step up to try to fill the large shoes that Rush wore. Your recounting was a kind insight to a real American hero. RIP Rush. You have truly earned it.

  24. Scott Owen says:

    Hey Roy,

    I am deeply saddened not only by the loss of an incredibly talented person, but the hateful responses of so many people.

    I never met Rush, but listened often to his clear, witty, and educated commentaries. He was a respectful listener and a talented orator. His support of conservative values and the disassembly of liberal attempts to refute his positions will be greatly missed, leaving a huge void in our world.

    Reading your tribute and memories really moved me, making me unexpectedly emotional. Thank you so much for posting such a great reflection on Rush the person. It’s indeed a sad day for conservatives, and a sad day for our Nation.

    Rest peacefully Rush, you did your best, and your influence reached more than you know. You are already greatly missed.

  25. Darwin Wyatt says:

    Yesterday was a tearful day. I’ve been listening to rush since Septmber of 1988 on keni 650 am radio out of Anchorage when my state truck for doing creel survey only had an am radio. He was a great man and nobody will ever take his place. Thank you Rush. May God bless you.

  26. Tom Tucker says:

    We’ve now had two major blows to Conservatism and rational thought; the death of Charles Krauthammer and now Rush.
    Roy, what a real pleasure it must have been to actually know Rush,thank you for sharing.
    I miss him so much,RIP.

  27. Event Horizon says:

    Once I asked him, How do you remember so much stuff?. His silly answer was, Its the booze.

    That’s funny. I wondered if the booze also made Christopher Hitchens such a brainiac as well.

  28. Eben says:

    RIP Rush, the man who could outwit any liberal with half his brain tied behind his back

  29. leon tesla says:

    Yup, gotta love the guy; such unflinching, incontrovertible wisdom:

    “There is no conclusive proof that nicotine’s addictive… And the same thing with cigarettes causing emphysema, lung cancer, heart disease.”

    “Columbus saved the Indians from themselves.”

    “He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He’s moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act… This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting.”

    “[African Americans] are twelve percent of the population. Who the hell cares?”

    “Kurt Cobain was, ladies and gentlemen, a worthless shred of human debris.”6. “Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.”

    To a black caller: “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.”

    On torture at Abu Ghraib: “This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation. And we’re going to ruin people’s lives over it, and we’re going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I’m talking about people having a good time, these people—you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of need to blow some team off?”

    • Clint R says:

      Yeah, Rush really knew how to get to you spineless snowflakes, didn’t he?

    • Alick says:

      Good reason to believe we are saved by God’s grace alone. Heaven would be a lonely place if we were all judged on insensitivity we’ve displayed at some point in our life. It probably doesn’t make a difference to leon tesla if Rush apologized for any of these offenses.

      Thanks for the tribute Dr. Roy.

  30. Rob Mitchell says:

    Dr. Spencer, I have been an operational marine-aviation weather forecaster for 40 years. I retired last year. 40 years of shift work was taking a toll on my body.

    I’ve listened to Rush since the late 1980s. I first learned about who you are from the Rush Limbaugh show. This shows you how important conservative media is because the mainstream media sure as hell will not permit you to have a voice. Anything that counters the democrat-socialist narrative gets squelched by the establishment media.

    I very well remember when you were announced as the EIB climatologist. I also learned about John Christy and Fred Singer from Rush as well. After your names were mentioned on Rush’s show, the hateful democrat-socialists came after you all with a vengeance. They viciously did all they could to discredit you. I will never forget what Sheldon Whitehouse tried to do to you during a Congressional testimony. He actually tried to discredit you because you dared to believe in a superior reasoning power in the universe. How can you be a scientist if you believe that?

    Rush Limbaugh exposed the leftists for who they are. He pulled back the curtain and revealed to the public 3 hours a day the destructive nature of those who want to destroy America’s foundation. I was an operational weather forecaster. But I did not really get interested into climate science until Rush revealed how it had become a political tool of the left. Like Sean Hannity said, we lost “Babe Ruth” a few days ago. But Rush paved the way forward, and the momentum of challenging the establishment will not be stopped.

  31. Kathleen Benedetto says:

    Beautiful. I was listening the first time you were on and the next day as well. We will miss Rush dearly and deeply.

  32. Michael says:

    I started listening to Rush, I think, while a student in your department at UAH decades ago.

    He will surely be missed by myself and so many others.

    Glad to have been a student there and also a climate change skeptic.

  33. Hazelder says:

    Hello gentleman, you are looking to relax And have a good time I am waiting for your DiCck Booty african babe Dimples with flabby juggs twat is pumped so hard. Pleasing japanese. So come find out what I’m all about!!!

    heraldfortune.com/stat_google-ru.html

    Top tasks Find out about Rushmoor, support and advice, Hot sexy Taunton women. The participants expressed themselves differently, with some writing in poetic Crewe escort chloe around one theme and other producing eclectic s briefly covering a variety of themes. No alcohol No smoking Free dating search Derby and recently passed a Yum yum chinese Bootle day emergency 1st aid course.

  34. Stevek says:

    What I always liked about Rush is he would say outrageous things but you could tell he was joking and just saying it to get a rise out of people. Nowadays people are so sensitive and you cant say a thing in jest without offending someone.

  35. Nate says:

    “his love for our country, and its constitution.”

    On inauguration day Limbaugh was NOT showing love for the Constitution when he tried to delegitimize Biden as President.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/media/535288-limbaugh-falsely-says-biden-didnt-win-legitimately-while-reacting-to

    “Limbaugh, a vocal supporter of former President Trump, said he believed Democrats, ‘know that this is something thats been arranged rather than legitimately sought and won.’

    Limbaugh later stated: ‘They have not legitimately won it,’
    referring to the presidential election.”

    https://www.newsweek.com/rush-limbaugh-says-no-way-biden-won-fairly-1546499

    • Rob Mitchell says:

      Nate, how much “love for our country, and its constitution” did you see from democrats when Trump was elected?

    • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

      Biden didn’t legitimately win it. The decrements in the Georgia data haven’t been explained. It will eventually out.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      nate…knew nothing about what Limbaugh said about Biden. Based on your quotes, he was dead on. Biden is a cheating SOB who stole the election. He is also revealing himself to be a total idiot over shutting down the Keystone Pipeline while preaching alarmist climate change propaganda.

      The other day, another idiot, Kerry warned us about catastrophic climate change. It chagrins me when uninformed politicians bray about science they know nothing about.

      • Bindidon says:

        Even alongside a tribute to a person Roy Spencer manifestly appreciated and honored, Ignoramus Robertson manages to insult:

        ” Biden is a cheating SOB who stole the election. ”

        Disgusting.

        *
        Apart from that, Biden didn’t steal any election.

        Trump started losing the election when he began to intentionally discredit and denigrate what he himself had been doing for decades: voting by mail (he did 2016 for the last time).

        J.-P. D.

        • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

          Neither did Hitler. He won all his elections fair and square.

          • Bindidon says:

            Stephen Paul Anderson

            Only psychopaths write such things.

            Oddly enough, you don’t understand that Hitler’s mob (and Trump’s, if they ever came to a similar level of power) don’t like people like you.

            Your way of thinking is too suspicious for them, they don’t trust you.

            And one day, before they understand what happens, people like you end up in one of these beautiful GESTAPO-like dungeons and are tortured just like those they hate.

            J.-P. D.

    • Nate says:

      His quotes are accurate, and are not consistent with conservative principles, nor love of country or the Constitution.

      They are simply intended to keep people inflamed and tuning in.

      The country is deeply divided and full of hate, as you guys illustrate.

      And that is, in large part, his legacy to the country.

      • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

        The hate emanates from the left. Your four years of vitriol while Trump was in office, hasn’t stopped. The refrain from the left is, “now we can heal.” So, we have to conform so you can heal? B.S.

      • Nate says:

        Stephen you HATE the LEFT so much that you want to blame them for everything bad that occurred over the last 400 years. Right media’s goal is to feed your hatred, and keep you tuned in. It works.

        • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

          Yes, I do HATE the left. You are mentally deranged and will ruin this great Republic to advance your utopianist agenda.

        • Nate says:

          Real conservatives, like the 17 Republicans in Congress who voted to impeach or convict Trump, understand that their party needs to stand FOR something other than ‘HATE the LEFT’ or looney conspiracies.

          Unfortunately they are all being CANCELLED by their party.

          Though Im Center-Left, I think we need a functional two party system, with Republicans who still have principles and want to govern pragmatically, like my Rep governor in Massachusetts.

        • Nate says:

          “pragmatic
          /praɡˈmadik/
          Learn to pronounce
          adjective
          dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.”

          Theoretical in this context means = conspiracy theories or culture wars.

          It means keeping the lights on, clean water flowing etc.

          IOW not like Texas.

        • Nate says:

          Pragmatism vs Conservative theory here:

          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/urban-heat-island-effects-on-u-s-temperature-trends-1973-2020-ushcn-vs-hourly-weather-stations/#comment-621622

          Another example is the 2nd amendment. Conservative theory says it is sacrosanct and no regulation of weapons allowed.

          Pragmatic conservative governing means common sense gun laws, permits required, etc.

      • Hornblower says:

        Good post. Amazing that some folks believe that nonsense. His legacy is hate.

      • Jim Clarke says:

        Nate, you are arguing that if someone says something that you hate, they are responsible for your hatred and any action you take based on your hatred is their fault. This idea is completely irrational, childish and totally incompatible with civilization, yet is quite the rage (pun intended) in leftist groups and media publications these days. ‘Disagreement’ is now considered ‘hateful’ and ‘divisive’, which conveniently absolves leftists from engaging in actual debate. (The science is settled and if you disagree you are a Nazi and must be silenced!) Hateful words and violent actions from the left are sanctioned because someone, somewhere was offended by something.

        I invite you to watch an old Abbot and Costello routine called ‘Niagara Falls’. You are arguing that Lou Costello deserved to be pummeled because he should have known not to say ‘Niagara Falls’! The aggressor was innocent, of course, because Costello was ‘insensitive’ to his needs.

        If conservatives behaved like leftists, the nation would have burned to ashes a long time ago, because we are ‘offended’ by leftists constantly and have been for years. We much prefer to be the adults in the room.

        • Nate says:

          “you are arguing that if someone says something that you hate, they are responsible for your hatred and any action you take based on your hatred is their fault.”

          Doesnt resemble anything I’ve argued.

  36. Gordon Robertson says:

    Roy…thanks for putting a face on the guy. Like others commenting here I only knew the little I had heard.

  37. Steve Case says:

    I was struck by how “average” of a guy he was on a personal level.
    And:
    Rush was the same person, on the air and off the air.

    I wouldn’t call is on air persona average. It was way way way above average (-:

    But the most important talent that distinguished Rush from the pack of radio personalities who sought to emulate his success was that he was genuinely kind to his callers, even if they disagreed with him. He let them speak.

    BINGO! He said he put liberals to the front of the line. He did, and gave them a generous amount of time to express their views. He thanked them and said good bye. And then he dissected their comment.

    In all the time since the ’80s I listened off and on, I think it was recorded when I heard it, and I never tried to call in.

  38. Bruce Kay says:

    It is fascinating to see Roy Spencer and others here speak fawningly of Rush Limbaugh as an icon of Conservatism. Particularly fascinating this being allegedly a blog by a scientist presumably capable of respect for the scientific process over his own not particularly competent gut hunches as to exactly who and what Rush Limbaugh was and spoke for.

    Rush Limbaugh was a right wing authoritarian. This is obvious to those familiar with authoritarianism as a personality type, well studied since the second world war for obvious reasons and not particularly controversial as psychological theory, it being well replicated and predicted around the globe for decades now. It is obvious by his long public record in radio, the closest parallel in style and content being similar talk radio in Rwanda just before the genicide not to mention Nazi Germany, the intention always to demonize “the other”.

    So is right wing authoritarianism synonymous with Conservatism? Not at all which indicates your lack of knowledge in either and the same gross ignorance in America generally in speaking of what is currently the Republican party as Conservative. Anybody who glorifies or even defends Rush Limbaugh as a political force is not a Conservative. Any “Never Trumper” Conservative would agree – they are authentic traditional political Conservatives.

    Those who appreciate Rush Limbaugh almost assuredly do so because Rush spoke their language. He jerked their dog chain just right

    Right Wing Authoritarianism

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjufYwIbITw

    • Clint R says:

      Bruce, you’re being “authoritarian” by attempting to define people so you can then demonize them.

      • Bruce Kay says:

        Clint, If I am “authoritarian” there are ways to scientifically determine that, just like there are ways to determine alcoholism or psychopathy or a poison oak rash and I’m sure you wouldn’t leap to the conclusion of “demonization” when such a diagnosis occurs.

        Just as Donald Trump can be confidently diagnosed from a huge amount of publicly available observation as narcissistic, Rush Limbaugh can also be defined as right wing authoritarian personality. Any scientific blog that strays from its own scientific expertise into error ought to be able to appreciate and aknowledge the correction to its repeated definition of Rush Limbaugh as “Conservative”.

        Only if you consider Conservative to be synonymous to Right Wing Authoritarianism can you hope to defend it, and to do so is to reject all and any skill in the subject, both political and psychological. Here is a good place to start, with numerous links and citations to follow if you have any doubts.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

        • Clint R says:

          As I stated Bruce, you’re being “authoritarian” by attempting to define people so you can then demonize them.

          • Bruce Kay says:

            And as I clearly stated Clint, you don’t have a clue.

            But really this isn’t directed at you, it is directed at Roy Spencer who as I said ought to have some semblance of respect for other scientific skill domains even if his fan club does not.

            The single most reliable predictor of support for Trump is the Authoritarian personality, not conservatism. While globally authoritarian personalities account for about 1/4 of the population, they account for a majority of Republicans and 80% of white christian evangelists – no coincidence that that is the percentage of evangelicals that voted for Trump.

            The Republican party is now the party of Right Wing authoritarianism, not Conservatism. This trend began with the civil rights act of 62 and accelerated to the present era, all very much thanks in large part to Rush Limbaugh. We know who he is and who venerates him.

            https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/2020/08/25/authoritarian-tendencies-in-the-american-electorate-part-1/?fbclid=IwAR3pQGTyJhrnCuMLy1ZU1h8TCtkpnhLEEw4IS9JOrHHHaLTJz0PaChsS7yc

          • Clint R says:

            Bruce, you’re still trying to be an “authoritarian”. You don’t understand the issues, so finding links you can’t understand don’t help you.

            We see such nonsense all the time.

          • Nate says:

            Bruce, well put.

            As you can see here, Clint is a big fan of making repetitive declarations without evidence, with ad-homs tossed in for dessert.

          • Clint R says:

            Nate demonstrates his distain for reality, again.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          bruce kay…” If I am “authoritarian” there are ways to scientifically determine that, just like there are ways to determine alcoholism or psychopathy or a poison oak rash and I’m sure you wouldn’t leap to the conclusion of “demonization” when such a diagnosis occurs”.

          Oddly enough, there is no scientific way to isolate the covid virus, yet look at the mess we are in based on pseudo-science passed off as science. Covid theory is based on HIV theory, invented by Dr. Luc Montagnier, the scientist credited with discovering HIV. Montagnier freely admits he could not isolate HIV as required by the method laid down by the Louis Pasteur Institute, he had to infer HIV using indirect means.

          Even more oddly, a member of his team, Dr. Barre-Sinoussi, sat on the panel in the 1970s that laid out the method for isolating and identifying a virus. Montagnier tried to follow the method, but when the team reached the stage where it was required that HIV been seen on an electron microscope, they could see no virus.

          So, tell me something. If you were looking at a specimen that revealed no virus on an electron microscope, would you not conclude there was no virus there? Why would you go looking for further evidence?

          Over the years, Montagnier has revised his opinion and now claims that HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system and that it does not cause AIDS. He does not appear to have gone far enough. Dr. Stefan Lanka, a German microbiologist, has convinced two German courts that insufficient scientific evidence exists to claim a viral cause of HIV or measles. Of course, Dr. Lanka claims the same about covid.

          The first scientist who presented a paper claiming the SARS virus on an electron microscope had her paper rejected. The reviewer(s) claimed the micrograph was inconclusive, that whatever was seen could have come from cellular particles. However, such an inconclusive image is still used today as physical proof of covid.

          They don’t need the electron microscope anymore, they have invented their own criterion for the isolation of a virus. They simply redefined ‘isolation’. It no longer means ‘separate’, it means ‘consensus’. Many scientists simply agree that a virus can be isolated using indirect means, which are agreed upon by consensus, not the scientific method.

          The tests are based on the same nonsense, and now the vaccine is based on it.

        • Jim Clarke says:

          Right-wing authoritarianism is well-studied and understood. I have no doubt, Mr. Kay, that you have studied 1930s Germany thoroughly. I seriously doubt that you have studied Rush Limbaugh at all, for he didn’t have an authoritarian bone in his body! He was a great advocate of the Liberal principles expressly enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.

          Left-wing authoritarianism, on the other hand, has been largely neglected by academia for decades, despite it being even more cruel and deadly than it’s right-wing counterpart over the last 120 years.

          Rush was a huge advocate of personal sovereignty, which is the antithesis of any kind of authoritarianism. People who believe Rush Limbaugh was authoritarian in any way, are people who have never listened to him and only to listen to his enemies spinning lies. They might also be actual authoritarians projecting onto anyone who threatens their power and control. Which one are you, Mr. Kay? Of course, they are not mutually exclusive. You could be both ill-informed and a tyrant-in-training.

    • Bindidon says:

      Bruce Kay

      Thank you for your comment.

      J.-P. D.

    • hornblower says:

      I read this website because I think climate change is exaggerated. To be subjected to this pro-Limbaugh nonsense makes make me concerned about whether the readers appreciate the science or are just ranting.

      • Bindidon says:

        hornblower

        This website suffers of a thorough lack of moderation: this is the reason why so many people appear here with no goal else than to push up with their contrarian blah blah.

        For all these people doubting about everything (the existence of viruses, Einstein’s relativity, even Moon’s rotation about an internal axis, etc etc), this is probably the one and only blog ready to accept their nonsense.

        They all know that the only way to get banned off this site is to repeatedly discredit the blog’s owner himself.

        Even Jo Postma would ban all them within hours, Anthony Watts within days.

        J.-P. D.

        • Geoff Sherrington says:

          Bindidon,
          On the last monthly temperatures post here you showed a graph of annual global temperatures over time since 1978. It was in actual, absolute temperatures rather than anomaly temperatures. Can you contact me please about this? I am seeking annual data in absolutes for the “Australia” part of the grid cell clusters. sherro01 at outlook dot com
          If you prefer not to contact me, can you please say, so I know you get this message?

      • Jim Clarke says:

        Let me help you, hornblower. When someone presents a rational argument, and/or data that supports their scientific position, that is scientific debate. When someone insists that only comments supporting their preferred narrative be available to the public, that is ranting.

        Of course, this post is neither. This is a human story that is not scientific or a rant, and the comments are largely in response to the human story. The only rants I have seen are from a small band of
        very vocal people, of which you and Bindidon are members.

    • Strop says:


      “It is fascinating to see Roy Spencer and others here speak fawningly of Rush Limbaugh as an icon of Conservatism.”

      That’s because Rush IS an icon of Conservatism.

      Icon – a person or thing regarded as a representative symbol.

      Rush might not represent your ideal “authentic traditional political conservative” but it’s not your call whether Rush is an icon. Society determines whether he is regarded as such and whether you look up Wikipedia or any dozen articles about Rush he is described as a conservative.


      “So is right wing authoritarianism synonymous with Conservatism? Not at all …”

      I would agree that right wing authoritarianism is not necessarily synonymous with conservatism because right wing authoritarianism is a term that doesn’t necessarily depict a person’s political beliefs despite the words right wing, authoritarianism is not a defining feature of conservatism, and authoritarianism finds itself associated with various forms of ideology. However, I would also say that right wing authoritarianism and conservatism are not mutually exclusive.

      So how does this relate to your critique of Roy’s “hunches” and being a scientist?

      Roy said that Rush had “had specific conservative principles”.

      Roy said that Rush had “unabashed conservatism”.

      Those are the only references to conservatism Roy made and whether or not Rush was a “right wing authoritarian” does not alter whether those assessments are true or not. Simply because a “right wing authoritarian” can have predominantly conservative principles and a couple of differences that you perceive in Rush that make you want to define him as “right wing authoritarian” does not alter those predominant principles.

      You refer to Roy being a scientist and his gut hunches. Given you posted a link to a 1hr 25min video to support your argument and that video is of someone who (I assume) you think represents the “science” of “psychological theory” and his findings are based on his observations of people then you should be able to accept Roy’s observations of Rush based on Roy having listened to him for years and having observed Rush in person for many years. Unless you too have done both and see the opposite. As for “science”. Roy is in a science that has many defined measurables and experiments that can be replicated with controls etc. You and Jonathan Haidt may like to think you’re dealing with “true” science but it is not. At least it’s not as reliable given the controls and replication ability are very difficult to exact. Another person could observe the same group of people as Haidt did and potentially have differences based on many factors such as level of understanding of the culture, preconceived ideas, ones own emotions and personality, powers of observation etc.


      “Those who appreciate Rush Limbaugh almost assuredly do so because Rush spoke their language. He jerked their dog chain just right.”

      Jerking their chain to me suggests getting someone riled or provoking a reaction …. in a negative way. Whether my interpretation is correct or not doesn’t matter because Roy had already explained Rush’s appeal. “Rush was able to articulate things we were feeling at the time, but could not express very well.”
      i.e. Rush was a voice for many conservatives.
      Whether Rush was a right wing authoritarian or not does not change that, and it does not change that he is an icon of conservatism even if he doesn’t fit your perfect definition of your ideal “authentic traditional political conservative”.

      Roy also said that something that distinguished Rush “was that he was genuinely kind to his callers, even if they disagreed with him. He let them speak. He praised them when there was merit to the points they were making, even if it seemed to be a stretch to praise them. Every liberal viewpoint that was called into the show was used as a teachable moment.” If that’s a good assessment of his radio style then it doesn’t sound very right wing authoritarian.

      I wonder what Haidt would make of your unnecessary put downs in your statements rather than just stating your case.

  39. Entropic man says:

    Lots of talk here about Left and Right, libertarian and authoritarian.

    Looks as though everyone here can be classified as Right Authoritarian.

    Test yourselves here before you look at the rest.

    I scored -3,-3.

    https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

    and then look at how Biden and Trump rated on the test.

    https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020

    • Bruce Kay says:

      No, not “everyone” can be classified as authoritarian.

      roughly 30% of Americans can be. That is the rock solid Trump / Nixon base, the sort of loyalty that stays or even gets firmer “even if he shot someone on fifth ave” or in Nixon’s case, he gets caught red handed with his pants down around his ankles.

      there is nothing scientific about your compass test. This on the other hand has stood the test of time and place across the globe and since the fifties.

      https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/RWAS/?fbclid=IwAR1UteCpLK0raPv_e0nbN-wgs7D-ULL8wMwWy5L9NHp2GHUz5az2N1KIlYo

      • Entropic man says:

        23.6%

        I score low for Right Authoritarian on both scales.

        • Bruce Kay says:

          yeah but correlation isn’t causation as they say. Maybe the compass test has some validity in a particular political context but the jury is out (see wiki criticism’s below) whereas the decades old RWA has a really uncontroversial validity track record spanning decades and across the globe, and it specifically looks for authoritarianism as a personality, not a politic.

          Which is critical to understanding how that personality can be “harnessed” for just about any politic. For example, the RWA personalities that exist in the east european block countries are shown to favour the traditional conventions and iconography of Stalinist Russia along with the homophobia, misogeny and xenophobia of the centuries old russian orthodox christianity which Putin has cleverly brought on board…… not too dissimilar to Trump and Christian evangelism. So while the notion of communist ideals may seem incongruous with anything “right wing”, it really has more to do with the 3 factors that appeal to the RWA personality which is conventionalism, authoritarian submission and authoritarian aggression.

          Essentially, weather you are talking about Russia, Texas or Afghanistan, exactly the same personalities occur in roughly the same proportion of population and are available for “activation’ by the traditional / conventional political forces, be it the Taliban or Trump Republicans. They are exactly the same, by personality traits, no matter what differences of language or dress or economic status.

          Which brings us back to Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram or any other radio / TV propagandist in America. By the measure of the 3 factors of right wing authoritarianism they all score high, just as high as similar propagandists in Rwanda before the 80’s genocide, Nazi germany, present day Russia or any other Authoritarian regime like China. Their role, among other things, is to activate the “base” of RWA personalities that exist in any country with appeals to their strong sense of conventionalism, authoritarian submission and authoritarian aggression.

          This isn’t Conservatism, this is right wing authoritarianism

          • Bruce Kay says:

            Entropic man – forgot to attach the link.

            rereading your comments, i may have misunderstood your intent a bit, apologies if so. For instance its possible that more than 30% of people here (on this blog comments section) are RWA personality. Thats statistically likely as climate change “skeptic” or “denial” blogs are heavily weighted with RWA personalities, that being one of their stronger “activations”.

            anyway, My only point is that while numerous tests exist to measure “authoritarianism”, most are variations of Altmeyer’s RWA test for good reason – his is the longest and broadest in validation. John Dean relied oh Altmeyer heavily for his original book (Conservatives without Conscience) and his more recent update, Authoritarian Nightmare, both being highly recommended to understand the decades old shift toward authoritarianism in the modern day Republican party.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Political_Compass

          • barry says:

            “Your score for right-wing authoritarianism was 26.14%.”

          • barry says:

            Economic Left/Right: -5.0
            Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.82

            I’m quite the lefty, or so it says on the political compass. I did the same test more than a decade ago and was much more centrist than left, and about the same for libertarian.

            Some of the questions didn’t have an option I could tick – neither agree nor disagree. I’m pleased to see that I’ve bucked the usual aging trend and become more radical. If only my cells would go back in time, too.

          • Jim Clarke says:

            Bruce…is there no such thing as left-wing authoritarianism? Did tens of millions of innocent people in China, the Soviet Union and Cambodia die and hundreds of millions more suffer over the last 100 years from too much personal freedom? Were those people actually free and prosperous and they just didn’t know it? Were the Gulags and the Killing Fields really luxury resorts?

            History shows us that authoritarianism from the right or the left is is a horrible thing. In the world today, authoritarianism from the right pales in comparison to authoritarianism from the left, and both pale in comparison to authoritarianism from the elites, who seem to come from the entire political spectrum.

            Can we agree that the antidote to all authoritarianism is individual sovereignty protected by the law? Can we agree that the Constitution of the United States is the most powerful document for individual sovereignty ever put in effect by humans? Can we agree that Rush Limbaugh was an emphatic supporter of the Constitution and of individual sovereignty?

    • Robert Austin says:

      Entropic,
      So did Biden and Trump take the test or was the test someone’s idea of how these two figures would answer the test? Anyway, I hit it almost on the cross hairs but I never considered Trump nor Biden to be authoritarians. Maybe my understanding of “authoritarian” is different than that of the test’s creator. But there does seem to be a penchant for those scoring to the left to label those they disagree with as “authoritarian” just as there is the tendency to equate “far right” and “national socialist”.

  40. Ugo Bardi says:

    Hello, Roy.

    This is Ugo Bardi from Italy. I think we disagree on a lot of things about climate, but I have been following your blog and I appreciated your story about Rush Limbaugh described as a human being, not the bogeyman he used to be considered on the other side of the political spectrum. So much that it inspired a post on my blog that you may like to take a look to it: https://thesenecaeffect.blogspot.com/2021/02/honoring-fallen-enemy-death-of-rush.html. And all the best!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ugo…at a link provided at the link above a climatologist, Peter Gleick claimed…

      ““Well, actually, it’s one degree for the whole planet, which is a pretty big place. That means we’re trapping a lot of heat, but that heat is not equally distributed. Some places are going warm quite a bit, others not so much.”

      ***

      No Ugo, heat cannot be trapped by anything in the atmosphere. A lot of people claiming to be climate scientists continue to make the same basic mistakes. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms, or in the case of air, the kinetic energy of air molecules. The glass in a real greenhouse can trap the atoms/molecules but nothing in the atmosphere can.

      The confusion with such scientists is mistaking heat for infrared energy. A tiny part of the atmosphere can absorb IR and convert it to heat but that is not heat trapping. The moment a molecule absorbs IR it radiates it away.

      Climate scientists like Peter Gleick are confused and in their confusion they are spreading pseudo-science and propaganda. Gleick is not a climate scientist other than in the most generic meaning of that term. John Christy of UAH is a real climate scientists, he has a degree in climate science.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        There is a lot of nonsense here, but let’s address just one clear example. “The moment a molecule absorbs IR it radiates it away.”

        No, the moment it absorbs and IR photon, it start to vibrate with larger amplitude and with more energy. Most of the time, that extra energy is transferred to other molecules via collisions and ‘thermalized’. It is rare that the energy is radiated back to space directly.

        If your statement were true, then IR radiation literally could not warm anything up, because no energy would be absorbed.

        • gbaikie says:

          –Tim Folkerts says:
          February 24, 2021 at 6:09 AM
          There is a lot of nonsense here, but let’s address just one clear example. “The moment a molecule absorbs IR it radiates it away.”

          No, the moment it absorbs and IR photon, it start to vibrate with larger amplitude and with more energy. Most of the time, that extra energy is transferred to other molecules via collisions and ‘thermalized’. It is rare that the energy is radiated back to space directly.–
          Well “it” I assume is CO2. And in terms greenhouse gases, it is assumed water vapor is the major greenhouse gas.
          And one might ask where does water vapor ‘thermalize” the most?
          And “where” can be what elevation and where in terms of the area it’s on the Earth surface.
          In terms of geography, 70% of earth surface is the ocean and so 70% of Earth’s atmosphere is above the ocean. This simple fact indicates ocean larger portion of world’s total area controls global surface air temperature. And if you apply the word, hot to something, one can’t say the ocean surface is hot. But if want use word warm, the ocean is the warmest surface.
          Roughly the average ocean surface is about 17 C and average land surface is about 10 C and the average of both ocean and land is about 15 C.

          If you want to say where does most sunlight reach the surface, the tropical zone gets most of sunlight reaching it. And about 80% of tropical zone is ocean surface area. And the region which has most water vapor is the tropical ocean. And average tropical ocean temperature is about 26 C or around “room temperature”.
          It should also be noted the ocean skin surface absorbs very little sunlight and a large portion sunlight absorbed in top 1 meter. Or if think the skin is 1 cm, then it’s 1/100th of most of sunlight.
          Above the tropical ocean which getting most of sunlight that reaches Earth, and always warm water, one most amount air mass due to it’s sea level elevation, having most the greenhouse gases, sea salt, and water droplets in the air which are “thermalizing”.
          And then we get elevation, what elevation above the tropical ocean is where the most and/or most important “thermalizing” occurring?
          Within first 1000 meter? Or is above 2000 meter {where all clouds are}.

      • Nate says:

        Yes.

        Another false claim is “The glass in a real greenhouse can trap the atoms/molecules but nothing in the atmosphere can.”

        The atoms/molecules in the atmosphere are trapped by gravity.

        All except for Helium atoms are unable to escape to space.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          Nate, I think his point was that a glass roof in a greenhouse physically prevents convection from the areas (inside the greenhouse) to the cool areas (outside the greenhouse).

          GHGs do not physically prevent convection from warm areas (near the surface) to cool areas (near the tropopause). In this way the two are different in the mechanisms, so I am OK with “The glass in a real greenhouse can trap the atoms/molecules but nothing in the atmosphere can” within that context.

        • Nate says:

          Ok. Though the atmosphere has a top that only lets out radiation, like a greenhouse, I guess the main blocking ‘effect’ in the GHE is radiative for the atmosphere, and not radiative for a Greenhouse.

      • Ugo Bardi says:

        Gordon, hello. Thanks for taking the time to read my post. About your comment, well, I think that Roy can explain to you better than me the mechanism of what we call the “greenhouse effect.” It is a misnomer, actually, but a perfectly real physical phenomenon.

        I think we should separate the physics from the politics. It makes little sense to discuss atmospheric physics in the comments to a blog post. But politics, intended as policy, is (or should be) a consequence of physics. And that we can and we should discuss.

  41. Entropic man says:

    Bruce May

    Regardless of the method of measurement, the RWA personality type seems to distorting the US political system.

    When RWAs disrupt the normal functioning of Congress they cease to become a personality type and become a problem.

    When RWAs produce a state in which profit comes before resilience to bad weather and a Mayor can advocate social Darwinism they become a problem.

    When RWA politicians promote a system which benefits their wealthy donors ahead of the populations for whom they have taken responsibility, they become a problem.

    The system Benjamin Franklin designed is not working well. I look forward to seeing your solutions.

    • Clint R says:

      Well this is interesting. Ent and Bruce have joined up to further their perversion. They use a questionnaire to identify those that don’t agree with them. If you don’t agree with their perversion, then they label you a “RWA”!

      They reject reality, as they appoint themselves “authorities”. They have no clue about their own hypocrisy.

      • Nate says:

        You think informing people about unfamiliar ideas and facts is appointing “themselves ‘authorities'”?

        Who appointed you as the chief censor?

        • bruce Kay says:

          really no idea who this Clint guy is but it hardly matters, if he can’t understand at this point that the “authorities” on authoritarianism are no more you or me than he is any authority on climate science. Climate science has its body of institutional work and so does the psychological study of personality. He has been given plenty of links to this work to follow up on, not our problem if he fails to do the job.

          Entropic man – I highly recommend a read of John Deans books to see how the RWA personality has been “activated” and harnessed by one particular political party, where before the Johnson civil rights act RWA personalities were more evenly distributed between the two parties and thus less a “polarizing” force in politics.

          You’ve heard of the southern strategy I’m sure. That was the clarion call to a near third of the population that the democrats had abandoned them completely and their only hope of maintaining social economic dominance lay with the republicans. The Republicans sealed their fate with this gamble and you can see the desperation now as demographics force them to double down on their authoritarian base because democracy is increasingly less opportune to their desires. Its no coincidence that the level of delusion and myth is accelerating. That is the fundamental epistemic foundation of any authoritarianism.

          Which is why an actual science professional such as Roy Spencer needs to cease his silence on this. We know he is not shy to join the conversation when it shuts him. What about when it makes him uncomfortable? No real scientist would shrink away from that.

      • Bruce Kay says:

        Same place you got your Phd in molecular Trollology Clint.

        Prager U

  42. Entropic man says:

    From Ugo Bardi’s website.

    ” It would be some consolation for the feebleness of our selves and our works if all thing should perish as slowly as they come into being; but increases are of sluggish growth, but the way to ruin is rapid. Lucius Anneaus Seneca (4 BCE-65 CE) ”

    Go carefully, America. You are struggling to cope with your own Right, struggling to cope with your own climate and rapidly being overtaken by a new rival.

    None of this will help.

    As an Englishman I watched our own rapid collapse from a major power to a minor player. I trust you have strategies in place to avoid going the same way.

    • Bad Andrew says:

      Entropic Man,

      I’m afraid you are suffering from some misconceptions.

      It’s the leftists who are trying to finish taking over that are struggling to cope with the right.

      If we are a minor player it is because our leftist government is tearing America down.

      I’m sure you watched the same thing happen in England.

      Andrew

      • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

        BA,
        Correct. America is only as strong as the one in charge. Now, we have a nincompoop.

        • gallopingcamel says:

          A nincompoop who is going to destabilize the middle east as he and Obama did in 2014.

          Look out for crude oil at $150 per barrel which implies $5 per gallon at the pump. Stupid government is back in style!

    • Nate says:

      We were not a minor player 4 y ago. Trump took us down several notches in the eyes of the world. Exiting treaties, alliances, international cooperative efforts, cozying up to dictators. Its going to be hard to rebuild respect and trust.

      • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

        In your deranged and leftist brethren opinions only. The bad actors have already started taking advantage of the nincompoop in office. Dimwit.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      entropic…”As an Englishman I watched our own rapid collapse from a major power to a minor player. I trust you have strategies in place to avoid going the same way”.

      How about the collapse of the UK democracy under Boris? I am reading a book by Churchill on WW II and what he and other Britons feared most has come to fruition under Boris.

      I would not be casting stones at the States when your own Right is holding you virtual prisoners. Take care of your own backyard first.

      Boris has been influenced by a wanker by the name of Neil Ferguson, a mathematician who programs models and tells lies about covid. How stupid can a leader be?

      • Entropic man says:

        ” How about the collapse of the UK democracy under Boris? I am reading a book by Churchill on WW II and what he and other Britons feared most has come to fruition under Boris.

        I would not be casting stones at the States when your own Right is holding you virtual prisoners. Take care of your own backyard first. ”

        My point exactly. The UK has already been there and got the T-shirt. We started down the slippery slope after WW2 and the tipping point was the Suez Crisis in 1956. Now we are an unimportant wee country on the edge of Europe, run by a Right of centre buffoon that nobody takes seriously.

        You are not as far down the slope, but you are definitely slipping.The centre of the world before WW2 was Europe. After WW2 it became the US. Now it is Asia and China that most countries look to for trade, aid and leadership.

        The recent isolationist America First approach lost you a lot of ground that you won’t make up. Prepare to become a wee country on the Eastern edge of the Pacific.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          entropic…”Now we are an unimportant wee country on the edge of Europe, run by a Right of centre buffoon that nobody takes seriously”.

          Glad to hear that but the buffoon is making life miserable for Britons. Ironically, in the US, it will be Biden making life miserable. It’s not clear to me where the Democrats stand in the political spectrum, they seem to be a nowhere party bent on making life miserable for others.

          Don’t forget that pre-WW II, other than their Navy, the UK was an unimportant we country who stood up to the Nazis and prevailed. I am currently reading Churchill’s explanation of the era and how they tried to prepare for a Nazi invasion.

          It needs to be remembered that the US played a pivotal role under Roosevelt in keeping the UK afloat till the US were forced into WW II by the Japanese. After Dunkirk, the UK army had literally no field guns, tanks, or even many rifles. They did have a good Air Force and an excellent Navy, which made the Nazis afraid to attack. Roosevelt saw to it that the UK got the supplies and munitions they needed to defend themselves.

          Roosevelt was a Democrat and Churchill a Conservative, even though he was alienated from the Conservative party. During WWII he was Prime Minister but his relationship with the Tories was frosty. He admits in his book that the Labour party were the one’s who applauded him as he entered Parliament.

          When the chips are down, Left and Right seem to forget their differences and work together. There is no way anyone can call Churchill a left-winger.

          Unfortunately, liberals steered the UK away from defending itself and as a result they were completely unprepared for the Nazis. If the Dems have their way, that’s what will happen to the US, they will trade away military spending for looney Green initiatives.

          They have to be stopped.

          • Entropic man says:

            In 2019 China’s military spending was 1.9% of its GDP.

            The US spent 3.4%.

            Which gained more in the Great Game?

          • Nate says:

            “Unfortunately, liberals steered the UK away from defending itself and as a result they were completely unprepared for the Nazis.”

            Both liberals and conservatives were in charge when those policies were implemented.

  43. Gordon Robertson says:

    bruce kay…” I highly recommend a read of John Deans books to see how the RWA personality has been activated and harnessed…”

    I have had a deep interest in psychology since I was in my teens but it is completely obvious to anyone with half a brain that psychology in general is a lost cause. Anyone who writes a book on how personality works is nothing more than a dreamer.

    A psychologist I did admire, Carl Rogers, did a study on the effectiveness of psychotherapy. His conclusion was that no therapy, including his own, Clint-Centred Therapy, was any more than 60% effective. He concluded that psychoanalysis was no better than no therapy at all.

    One of his students, Eugene Gendlin, dug into the matter further. He concluded that people who benefitted from therapy had some insight into what was expected of them in a therapy session. That’s why they were successful. Others, lacking that insight, gained no significant benefit from therapy.

    If therapists have very limited success with real clients suffering from neurosis, how can anyone write a book on the subject with any degree of accuracy?

    It was actually a non-psychologist, non-scientist, Jiddu Krishnamurti, who discovered the reason why. The human mind is locked in a process of conditioned thought and cannot see that he/she is conditioned. In Bhuddism, that is called the Cosmic Joke. At least, he/she is not aware of the conditioning. The solution is to become aware of the conditioning, and in that awareness alone, the situation becomes resolved.

    To become aware of the conditioning, according to Krishnamurti, the person must be very serious about ‘seeing’ it. That means distancing himself/herself from the conditioning, which is the very essence of personality itself. That means observing the world without a centre…a me…because the centre is conditioned thought. No one can assess himself/herself from within that conditioned centre.

    The person writing the book to which you refer is obviously locked in that centre, otherwise he would not write about personality as if it is a sane process. Personality is actually nothing more than a collection of conditioned thoughts.

    A good part of personality may be handed done through genes but which part of that is conditioned by the previous owner? There is no doubt a natural personality but I doubt that many people allow it to come forth. It’s too easy to be ridiculed for being different than the expected norm.

    Krishnamurti was accompanied in several discussions by the physicist David Bohm. Many high profile people sought K. out for discussion because what he discussed was the very essence of who we are…or are not. Fascinating stuff.

    Unfortunately, psychology is still stuck, for the most part, in the conditioned mind. Not many psychologists are able to see past their own conditioning. I have likened therapy to psychologists trying to fit people back into a society that is already mad.

    • Bruce Kay says:

      Gordon, whatever your boyhood interests, I’ve got a sneaking suspicion there is already a fair body of psychological work done on you

      https://www.amazon.ca/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bruce…another book of garbage by a garbage peddler.

        From the Amazon quote: “Its concern is not merely to portray the scorners of intellect in American life, but to say something about what the intellectual is, and can be, as a force in a democratic society”.

        Intellect is human created intelligence, a form of pseudo-intelligence. There is no such thing as an intellectual other than in the opinions of those observing and messing up what they see.

        Intellect is not intelligence. True intelligence is what runs you body and with which the conditioned mind specializes in suppressing. You’ll never begin to understand intelligence till you shut of the noise and observe it with a choiceless awareness.

        True intelligence is something no one can understand because the conditioned human conscious mind needs to shut up and get out of the way in order for intelligence to operate through insight. It’s origins are not apparent, and unknown. It is beyond the ability of human consciousness to comprehend it. Anyone who writes about it under the guise of intellectualism is seriously misguided.

        • Bruce Kay says:

          Well you ought to know. You’re neither

        • Entropic man says:

          ” Intelligence is just a tool to be used toward a goal, and goals are not always chosen intelligently. ”

          Larry Niven

          • Beuce Kay says:

            The only useful part of Gordon’s musings are that it clearly reveals him as a fairly common believer in the reliability of his own intuition, otherwise known as “common sense”. This is indeed the very foundation of Anti Intllectualism or for the purposes of this Blog, anti science, the two being practically synonymous.

            Not surprisingly, Intuition has long been studied – scientifically of course – and to conflate the role and value of this long and well substantiated basic scientific research with some blathering wild guesses by some random “psychotherapist” reveals in spades the gross unreliability of Gordons very own common sense. Again, this is where Roy Spencer could school him as this gross error is replicated in climate change denialism where for years people rely on the opinions of incompetents who appear to have some plausible peripheral skill ( TV weathermen, such as the comical John Coleman) because thats what their own woefully unskilled common sense gives them the thumbs up. The world of “psychotherapists is as rife with snake oil charletans as any TY news room is crawling with “climate experts”.

            You literally have to believe that intuition as reliable knowledge is “magic” to believe that the older you get, naturally the wiser you get to the point any retiree can discern truth wherever they direct their gaze so long as you just trust your confidence. It dosn’t matter that 500 years of scientific process has conclusively destroyed this fallacy, it only matters that the hil billies just cling to the magic.

            Maybe for their sense of self esteem not a bad idea, that faith in magic generally being all they got after all those years

          • Clint R says:

            “Beuce”, now your “authoritarianism” has taken you to “babbling idiot”.

          • BK says:

            Coming from a man capable of nothing more than a standard Trump tweet, I’ll take it as a compliment.

            At least Judith Curry’s Blog has some authentic intellect manning the cannons. Roy must be jealous….. and perhaps a bit sensitive to this fact. The quality of ones own self inflicted exile is reflected in the company you keep and so far Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carleson, Gordon and Clint are the bests he’s got

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            BK…”The only useful part of Gordon’s musings are that it clearly reveals him as a fairly common believer in the reliability of his own intuition…”

            And your inability to understand what I am talking about, while a renowned physicist like David Bohm does, labels you as a horse’s ass. You’re in good company, most of the world lives with your ignorance of reality.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bk…”The quality of ones own self inflicted exile is reflected in the company you keep and so far Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carleson, Gordon and Clint are the bests hes got…”

            No…Richard Lindzen is a friend and Roy works with John Christy who has a degree in climate science. No one in the field has more integrity than John Christy and John has no problem with Roy.

            Roy is a guy who thinks for himself and that quality seems to grate your kind who expect everyone to cow tow to authoirty and paradigms.

            Tucker Carlson is the only major journalist I have seen who is willing to speak out on the robbery of our democratic rights by nobody’s pretending to do it for our own good.

            You are yet another of the idiots who must use an appeal to authority or an ad hominem attack to represent your understanding of science.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            bk…”…this is where Roy Spencer could school him as this gross error is replicated in climate change denialism…”

            Talk about blather. What exactly is climate change denial?

          • bk says:

            Denial / Denialism.

            A term used to describe a psychological condition. Not that you care – as far as you’re concerned psychology is some sort of delusion.

            Which is convenient, considering your denialism

            Ask Roy. He’ll tell you. He has the greatest respect for all domains of science

          • Entropic man says:

            “What exactly is climate change denial? ”

            It is a variety of Morton’s Demon.

            http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html

            You accept only evidence which agrees with your beliefs and reject the rest.

  44. Tim says:

    Thank you for your kind tribute to a great man. I also listened to Rush starting in the late 80’s. Like any other significant event in life, I can remember where I was and the time of day when I first heard him.

  45. Entropic man says:

    “Capitalism writhes in its internal decision concerning whether to destroy Earths biosphere or change its rules. Many argue for the destruction of the biosphere, as being the lesser of two evils”

    Kim Stanley Robinson

    • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

      Kim Stanley Robinson-another delusional leftist.

    • Clint R says:

      “Communism Kills.” — Rush Limbaugh

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      entropic…wiki on Kim Stanley Robinson…

      “Kim Stanley Robinson is an American writer of science fiction. He has published nineteen novels and numerous short stories but is best known for his Mars trilogy”.

      Did you take that quote from one of his science fiction novels or from a regular fiction of his?

      • Entropic man says:

        From his novel 2312 set mostly in space and including a post-global warming Earth.

        In context it was historical, but it struck me as apposite to our present situation.

        The Right see capitalism and controlling climate change as opposites and prefer to give up great chunks of habitable land rather than give up capitalism.

        • Clint R says:

          Ent, maybe the reason you like science-fiction so much is that you reject both real science and reality.

          • Entropic man says:

            Reading science fiction requires a certain flexibility, an ability to step outside your own worldview and understand a different one.

            That’s not a talent common among conservatives.

          • Clint R says:

            It takes no talent to live in a fantasy-world, Ent. Any child can do that.

            But, you’re correct, Conservations prefer reality. Rush used to always say he “lived in Real-ville”.

          • Entropic man says:

            “Real-ville”?

            Such a limited and narrowly bounded reality inhabited by such limited and parochial people.

            Glad I don’t live there!

          • Clint R says:

            Yes Ent, you don’t “want” to live in reality, because you can’t

            It’s called “sour grapes”.

          • Entropic man says:

            Reality is a Tower of Knowledge.

            You start out at ground level. You don’t know much, but your horizons are so limited that you think you know everything.

            As you learn, you climb the tower and your horizons expand even faster than your knowledge.

            For many of us that is a delight to be savoured. For the Right it is a horror to be avoided.

          • Clint R says:

            See what I mean, Ent? You can’t face reality.

            What you described is NOT reality. It’s your perversion of reality.

          • Entropic man says:

            Reality- the limited set of comforting certainties that Clint R so desperately defends.

          • Clint R says:

            See what I mean, Ent? You can’t face reality.

          • Entropic man says:

            Clint R

            I’ve described some aspects of my reality.

            “a certain flexibility, an ability to step outside your own worldview and understand a different one. ”

            “As you learn, you climb the tower and your horizons expand even faster than your knowledge.

            … that is a delight to be savoured. ”

            Can you rise above insults long enough to describe your reality?

          • studentb says:

            Entropic – you are wasting your time arguing with a truculent teenager such as CR. Logic and common sense go out the window.

          • Entropic man says:

            studentb

            There are others out there who will read the exchange and might learn from it. Clint R is serving a useful function acting as Simplicio to my Salviatus.

          • Clint R says:

            Reality is the hand in front of your face, Ent. It’s the truth you try to ignore/distort/pervert. Like your being unable to admit the ball-on-a-string is not rotating about its axis.

            You can’t accept reality because it doesn’t fit your bogus beliefs.

          • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

            Unfortunately, we all have to face the reality of President Nincompoop and Vice President Psychopath.

          • Nate says:

            The sad reality is that the majority of Trump voters believe right-wing propaganda, over what is plainly visible with their own eyes:

            “Asked to describe what happened during the assault on the Capitol, 58% of Trump voters call it ‘mostly an Antifa-inspired attack that only involved a few Trump supporters.’ That’s more than double the 28% who call it ‘a rally of Trump supporters, some of whom attacked the Capitol.’ Four percent call it ‘an attempted coup inspired by President Trump.’

            https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/21/exclusive-trump-party-he-still-holds-loyalty-gop-voters/6765406002/

          • Stephen` Paul Anderson says:

            It was a protest modeled after Antifa and BLM.

          • Nate says:

            Blame whoever you need to. Feeling good about your team is whats important.

  46. Gordon Robertson says:

    entropic…”“What exactly is climate change denial? ”
    ….You accept only evidence which agrees with your beliefs and reject the rest”.

    That describes exactly the origins of ‘climate denial’. It’s a belief system where jargon replaces reality. Generally, we define climates based on precipitation and solar input, at least, the effects those parameters have on the locale. There is also wind effect. Some people call that weather in the short term and climate as a long-tern average.

    Tony Heller made an excellent point that climate has no concrete definition in science because it is far too complex and dynamic to define. It’s parameters are far to elusive and variant to define any real climate.

    The term climate denial infers a universal climate, that does not exist. I definitely deny that a global climate exists, just as I deny the concept of a global temperature. I do not deny the concept of climate. I do deny that a trace gas in the atmosphere can in any way affect any climate locale. There is no hard, physical science to back the theory that such a minor atmospheric gas can affect climates. The only science backing the theory, which I fail to recognize as science, is climate model theory.

    It’s a sad state of affairs when unvalidated models can form the basic of a pseudo-science which many claim as verifiable science. It has gone so far, this pseudo-science, that our democratic freedoms are not based on idiots programming medical models.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      correction…last sentence in post above…”…our democratic freedoms are not based on idiots programming medical models”.

      Should state: “…our democratic freedoms are now based on idiots programming medical models”.

      • Entropic man says:

        You jumped from “climate change denial” which rejects AGW to “climate denial” which rejects the concept of climate.

        As I biologist I’ve always been quite content with the concept of climate because you see it in the communities that result.

        Plot average temperature against annual precipitation, (both measures of climate) and add the biome that results.

        https://schematron.org/whittaker-biome-diagram.html

        You may not believe in climate, but vegetation certainly does.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          entropic…”You jumped from climate change denial which rejects AGW to climate denial which rejects the concept of climate”.

          Climate change denial is an idiotic term aimed at shaming people who reject AGW. That’s why the term was coined, AGW is too easily disproved and it’s not obvious in any way. It’s hard to disprove what has no meaning.

          That’s why I keep asking what it means. It obviously means nothing.

          • BK says:

            to the anti intellectual, just about anything that rubs them the wrong way is a “idiotic term aimed at shaming people” which is pretty convenient when you consider that they exemplify that very term.

            Fortunately this is a blog that is respectful of the dominance of the scientific process in determining material facts of our reality. Denialism is a term of the psychological sciences.
            Climate change denial is a description of a psychological phenomena, not a random in substantive insult.

            Ask Roy if you have any doubts. He has the greatest respect for all the domains of science not just his own

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

          • Entropic man says:

            I use Neil deGrasse Tyson’s definition of denial.

            “A sceptic questions claims and then embraces the evidence. A denier questions claims and then rejects the evidence. “

          • Entropic man says:

            “Thats why I keep asking what it means. ”

            Not a difficult definition.

            Anthropogenic Global Warming is a forced increase in global average temperature due to human activity.

      • Entropic man says:

        our democratic freedoms are now based on idiots programming medical models

        Your democratic freedom not to wear a mask has biological consequences.

        The statistics aren’t in yet, but I predict that more registered Republicans per 100,000 will die of Covid-19 than registered Democrats.

        Think of it as evolution in action.

        • Billy Bob says:

          Entropic you may not want to make any bets on your prediction.

          Not sure how they would track that anyway. Not something you typically find on a death certificate. However, I did a tally of deaths by 2020 election results.

          Population Deaths Deaths/100,000
          Red States 141,865,361 206,815 145.8
          Blue States 178,717,572 274,131 153.4

          Data Source
          https://covidtracking.com

          This website suggests that blacks are 1.4 more likely to die from Covid19.

          • Entropic man says:

            Comparing Red states and Blue states is too coarse a measure.

            I chose a comparison between individual registered Republicans and registered Democrats because of their differences in individual behaviour.

            Republicans are more likely to express their democratic freedom by ignoring Covid-19 precautions such as masks and social distancing. This makes them a population more likely to catch, spread and die of Covid-19 than their Democrat equivalents.

          • Billy Bob says:

            Yes obviously that would be better, but as I said political affiliation data is not collected at death. Further, Blacks who are more likely to be registered democrat also have a higher likelihood of death from Covid19 over whites. And given that blue states are at a higher rate in aggregate why would one think this would change with more detailed information. Unless of course you think Joe Biden did steal the election.

            Anyway, my observation is that political affiliation is irrelevant to Covid19 deaths. Covid19 deaths appear to be a function of 3 main demographics, 1)age 2)comorbidity and 3)mobility. The USA tops in all of these and is no surprise to me that we would have the highest death rates.

            But if you want to believe that political afiliatioin is correlated to Covid19 deaths, don’t let me stop you.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          entropic…”Your democratic freedom not to wear a mask has biological consequences”.

          Although Churchill is not a favourite of mine, I am interested in his views on conditions in WW II. Thus far, in the book, he has been good. As I read last night, his written words revealed his worry about people crowding into the underground (Tube) stations where they were packed in close proximity. He worried about the spread of influenza, diphtheria, etc.

          He pointed out as well, that none of that became a concern. He put that down to something mysterious in the human constitution but it’s obvious that the human immune system has preserved us as a species from such dilemmas.

          Idiots are preventing the human immune system from doing its job with covid. When Canada had reached the level of 500,000 tests, only 3% tested positive. And that’s with a dumb test that does not test for a virus. No one really know that they test for.

          It’s obvious that the immune system is doing the job, yet idiots like Boris think they know more than the human intelligence underlying the immune system. Boris is reliant on a major idiot programming an unvalidated model and he has been abysmally wrong with his predictions for SARS (2002), mad cow disease, bird and swine flu, and now covid.

          Masks are a totally unproved entity. They are intended to absorb water molecules expelled from the lungs as spittle but there is no evidence whatsoever that a cloth mask can stop a virus. There is no proof that viruses are floating free in air, just conjecture. The weave in any cloth mask is inadequate for blocking something as small as a virus.

          The 6 foot ROT for social distancing is 120 years old and has no basis in science. Some guy, 120 years ago, suggested it and no science has been done since to see if it’s true.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          entropic…”The statistics arent in yet, but I predict that more registered Republicans per 100,000 will die of Covid-19 than registered Democrats”.

          How can you make any prediction, as a biologist, when you have no idea what covid is or what the tests are testing for? There is no precedent for covid and absolutely no reason to claim it as a serious pandemic. The only evidence that it is serious involved a tiny fraction of 1% of any population.

          I have been asking this question and receiving no answers. Why is it that covid cannot be isolated using the protocol set out by the Louis Pasteur Institute in the 1970s? That issue began with HIV. When Luc Montagnier’s team tried to isolate it using the LPI protocol they could see no virus on an electron microscope. Montagnier has admitted he has never seen the actual physical HIV virus, that he inferred it.

          As a biologist, does it not raise your skepticism that HIV was proclaimed without having been seen, or without peer review? Don’t know about you, but in electrical engineering, if I looked at a specimen under an electron microscope and nothing could be seen, I’d say there’s a damn good chance there’s nothing there.

          When they could not find HIV under an EM, people like Anthony Fauci and David Ho tried to develop a method for amplifying what could not be seen. They converted RNA believed to be from HIV into DNA and used the PCR method to amplify the DNA. They treated the DNA with a fluorescent material and counted the number of amplification cycles till a fluorescent glow appeared.

          That became the criterion for a positive HIV test and was referred to as a viral load. Today, it is called the RNA-PCR test. At the time, the inventor of the PCR method, Kary Mullis, opposed the viral load theory. He stated the obvious: that PCR is not a diagnostic test, that it amplifies everything in a lump sum, and that it cannot amplify a virus that cannot be seen in an unamplified state.

          Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, did not use such a method. He knew the proof was in the alleged virus killing uninfected cells. So, he got a specimen from the lympth nodes of a person with AIDS and mixed it in with infected cells. The cells died.

          Recently, microbiologist, Stephan Lanka, convinced a German supreme court that the uninfected cells would have died anyway. He knew that to be a fact but he commissioned an independent study for use in the court to test whether the uninfected cells would have died anyway. The lab tested the situation and concluded it was true, the cells died due to their preparation in the lab. The cells are pre-starved to make them more amenable to infection and treated with antibiotics to prevent bacterial infection.

          Montagnier ran no control tests to determine that and according to Lanka, no virus that has been claimed at any time has run a control test.

          Here’s the point. Montagnier now claims HIV does not cause AIDS and that it is harmless to a healthy immune system. Since covid is based on the same inference created by Montagnier, it is likely to be the same with covid. No one will know that till we boot the charlatans out who are predicting disaster based on unvalidated medical models.

          If anyone challenges covid theory, or the current approach, they are fired from their jobs. Google, Twitter, et all are blocking any articles, videos, etc., that are skeptical of the current paradigm.

          Science is being stifled.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            error…”So, he got a specimen from the lympth nodes of a person with AIDS and mixed it in with infected cells. The cells died”.

            Should read…

            “So, he got a specimen from the lympth nodes of a person with AIDS and mixed it in with uninfected cells. The uninfected cells died.

        • Nate says:

          Agree Billy Bob, as far as mortality goes, would need to control for comorbidities of population.

          But as far as Cases/Million people, N. and S. Dakota are at the top.

          Of the top 20 states, only 1 is a Blue state: Rhode Island. Most are Red and a couple are Purple, according to worldometer

          • Billy Bob says:

            Nate,

            Entropic Man seem interested in deaths rather than cases.

            Anyway, these are the numbers of Covid19 listed deaths that I downloaded from

            Data Source
            https://covidtracking.com

            I saw no correlation to states that voted republican in latest election. Since SD was #11 I listed the top 11. The last election as proxy has issues but it was readily available.

            state Population death deaths per 100000
            NJ 8,936,574 23,192 259.5
            RI 1,056,161 2,502 236.9
            MA 6,976,597 16,024 229.7
            MS 2,989,260 6,638 222.1
            AZ 7,378,494 15,897 215.5
            CT 3,563,077 7,622 213.9
            SD 903,027 1,879 208.1
            LA 4,645,184 9,587 206.4
            AL 4,908,621 9,869 201.1
            NY 19,440,469 38,321 197.1
            ND 761,723 1,472 193.2

          • Nate says:

            Another problem is when the pandemic hit different regions. The NE region was hit first and hardest, before best medical treatments or public health practices were learned, and had very high mortality during the first wave.

          • Billy Bob says:

            Nate

            Virus hit West first, Midwest (Illinois), Florida/Georgia.

            See animation in wikipedia if link works.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States_(2020)#/media/File:Spread_of_COVID-19_in_the_United_States.gif

          • Nate says:

            Top 11 mortality States from worldometer in rank order

            New Jersey
            New York
            Rhode Island
            Massachusetts
            Mississippi
            Arizona
            Connecticut
            South Dakota
            Louisiana
            Alabama
            North Dakota

            again, the NE states New Jersey, NY, Rhode Island, MA, CT were hit hardest and had the most deaths in the first wave, before we learned what to do.

            Outside these we have:

            Mississippi
            Arizona
            South Dakota
            Louisiana
            Alabama
            North Dakota

            Being black, poor, with obesity as they have in Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama explains why they are ranked highly.

            N. Dakota, S. Dakota has none of that, and a low population density, but had the most lax public health measures. Not sure about Arizona except that the gov relaxed measures too early prompted by Trump.

          • Nate says:

            “Virus hit West first, Midwest (Illinois), Florida/Georgia.”

            It reached community-spread-levels FIRST in densely populated NE.

            In NYC it was thought have been spreading well before it was noticed, due to visitors from Europe. It peaked April 1. Hospitals were overwhelmed. There was no widespread mask-wearing in March.

            In my state MA, a Biogen meeting in late February was a super spreader event, that led to hundreds of cases by early March.

          • Stephen Paul Anderson says:

            I’m glad we got that professional opinion from Nate that blacks in Mississippi and Alabama are poor and fat, and that’s why they’re dying from COVID.

          • Nate says:

            It is what it is. Theyve been hit hardest for various reasons, BMI is one.

      • Entropic man says:

        A very old and silly joke which illustrates my point.

        Why is it dangerous to go into the jungle at night?

        Because the elephants are falling out of the trees.

        Why are crocodiles flat?

        Because they exercise their democratic freedom to go into the jungle at night.

    • studentb says:

      Anybody see an old man shouting at the clouds?

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        stupid…”Anybody see an old man shouting at the clouds?”

        No…but I see an idiotic clown (you) who can toss ad homs and insults but cannot rationally discuss science.

  47. Bindidon says:

    COVID 19 in the US: Billy Bob vs. Entropic man

    Billy Bob published a death toll comparison between red and blue:

    Red States 141,865,361 206,815 145.8
    Blue States 178,717,572 274,131 153.4

    I made a similar job last summer, and updated it with the most recent data, coming from

    https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nytimes/covid-19-data/master/us-states.csv

    1. Total deaths per 100000:
    Red 151.8
    Blue 154.1

    2. Total cases per 100000:
    Red 9437.6
    Blue 8011.1

    Cases are imho more relevant than death toll because they tell you more about what will happen in the near future.

    *
    Here you see the graphs (caution: numbers per million):

    Deaths

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bLYTPFXrNE9n4DtuQ52F8rSfLxW-Fd8x/view

    Cases

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_nw25HiI_OB2asm5LG-1oSjoLEcLcrNV/view

    *
    And here you see cases & deaths — not in the sum, but in a centered, weekly running mean of the daily numbers.

    Deaths

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MMbPJKpHCN16oIiOug_2JXd954ZnTFzz/view

    Cases

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sx4yW2JEGHBSk5n-qSFryqGY_luuPqrK/view

    J.-P. D.

    • Entropic man says:

      You are still using state data.To do the job properly you need to control for racial makeup, variations in medical provision and economic factors, especially poverty.

      • Bindidon says:

        Entropic man

        Are you sure I’m not aware of this evidence?

        Give me a per-state info combining the three factors, and you’ll see the result.

        J.-P. D.

    • Billy Bob says:

      Good Morning Bindidon,

      I am not a big fan of case numbers. Estimates have ranged from 6 to 10 times confirmed cases to actual cases. Who knows what they really are.

      As far as I know, my whole family may have had Covid19 in February 2020. My wife works where she is in contact with travelers from China. Since our illnesses were before Covid19 was assumed to be in the US, doctors dismissed it has Corona Virus (the common one). We were tested for Flu (negative).

      We all got better within a few weeks but my daughters were given antibiotics (pneumonia symptoms), wife and I just took OTC drugs. Later we thought of getting the test to see if we had the antibody for Covid19 but never had the time. Good news is that we have not even had a much of a cold since. Hope this does not impact future immunity by avoiding common viruses.

      Hope you and your family are staying safe and healthy.

      • Bindidon says:

        Billy Bob

        ” Hope you and your family are staying safe and healthy. ”

        Thank you very much for your message, and for your interest in our situation.

        Everything OK, we are retired since a few years, and above all managed to avoid any unnecessary contact.

        Please take the matter seriously, ALL those who doubt the existence of Sars-COV-2 live light years away from any risk of contagion.

        Recently, the situation got so dramatic in Portugal because of the British variant, that Germany sent doctors, nurses and material (ventilators etc) to them.

        You write: ” Estimates have ranged from 6 to 10 times confirmed cases to actual cases. ”

        No idea where you have that from. The lagged correlation between cases and fatalities is irrefutable, at least in Europe.

        Best wishes to you and family!
        J.-P. D.

        • Billy Bob says:

          Dr. Scott Gottlieb gives those ranges (confirmed to actual case ratio). Also the C-D-C has provided similar numbers as well. And if I recall correctly Dr. Fauci directly.

          If Europe has a method to count all non-symptomatic cases accurately, I wish we would adopt that here if compatible with our situation. It could provide better insight to policy effectiveness.

          The latest projections are that we should have a relatively good spring/summer as far as low new cases. But may tick up again in Fall. Hopefully with the combination of existing cases/vaccine, the spread will be contained. So I do see the light at the end of the tunnel. Stay safe and cautious.

          Thanks for your wishes.

          • Bindidon says:

            Billy Bob

            Your first paragraph sounds definitely convincing, a lot more than all what I heard/read from different sources in Germoney.

            Thus I retract what I wrote above.

            Rgds
            J.-P. D.

  48. Entropic man says:

    Bindidon

    Sorry, I’m getting too picky.

    • Bindidon says:

      Oh! Don’t worry!

      We all got kinda PhD in that discipline…

      J.-P. D.

      • Entropic man says:

        I’m a bit twitchy on the subject at the moment. Seven of my scattered family have had Covid-19 so far and my son-in-law is currently in hospital on oxygen because of it.

        • Entropic man says:

          Billy Bob

          Roll on the end of the nightmare.

          The UK have an ongoing survey of a large population sample, monitoring exposure to Covid-19 using antibody testing. This allows you to deduce the total exposure and the proportion of asymptomatic cases.

        • Bindidon says:

          Entropic man

          Sorry for you and your family.

          My lady Rose and I we manifestly had more luck than you all, at least… until now.

          J.-P. D.

          • Entropic man says:

            Thanks. I shouldn’t be dumping my troubles into this debate. Unfortunately the two options regarding Covid-19 are infection and vaccination. Very few people will be lucky enough to avoid it completely.

        • bobdroege says:

          A friend of mine died yesterday.

          I am a little twitchy as well.

  49. Entropic man says:

    When it started about 85% of cases went unreported. Now it’s probably about half.

    There is a problem in the UK with people who have symptoms but do not seek a test. They are on low incomes and/or in the gig economy so they can’t afford to self-isolate and lose two weeks income.

  50. Tomer says:

    Listened to him a lot on a long daily commute the 90’s. He was entertaining, funny, vulgar, and deeply insecure. He was above all a tribalist and an eliminationist with a deep authoritarian streak. I’m not sure how much he believed any of it himself, but he needed an enemy, needed to see himself at the head of an army. And he wanted to make a lot of money. He took out his venom on certain groups of “others” (often weak groups–like gays dying of AIDS) and inflamed his audience to do the same–and to see about half the country as the enemy, to be caricatured, hated, and eliminated. The more effectively he did this, the more slavishly his listeneres licked his rear and bought his books and the wares he advertised. His influence goes a long way toward explaining how we got from Reagan/Kemp brand of conservatism to Trump (and beyond). Truly one of the most destructive forces in recent American history.

    • Clint R says:

      Tomer, I doubt you listened to him at all. If you did, you were only “hearing”, not “listening”.

      Your distorted version of Rush tells all.

    • Bindidon says:

      Tomer

      Thanks for this sober, instructive comment, which imho distorts nothing.

      J.-P. D.

  51. TechnoCaveman says:

    Very sad to see Rush go. Thank you for your Tribute Dr.

    I loved his sense of humor. He kept things real and engaging.

    Now its our turn to keep the fires lit and lights shining. No, there will not be another Rush (the guy is famous like Cher, Bono or Lady Gaga just a single name is all that is needed)

    May we keep on using facts and brain cells to make the world better.

    Ice T said something like “Facts make the world go round. Love makes it safe” [can not believe I quoted a rapper, but credit where credit is due. Knowledge where knowledge flows from.]

    Dr. Spencer please keep telling the truth and educating others and you will not be alone. Students will arrive.

    Ben Davidson (Suspicious Observers) does the same.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      techno…”there will not be another Rush (the guy is famous like Cher, Bono or Lady Gaga just a single name is all that is needed) ”

      Goof grief, why would you praise the man then denigrate his name by comparing him to that trash?

  52. Joseph Bastardi says:

    Great stuff Roy Thank you for sharing, You confirm what many of us suspected just by listening

  53. Nate says:

    Trum appointed FBI director testified today on the Jan 6 insurrection:

    “We have not to date seen any evidence of anarchist violent extremists or people subscribing to antifa in connection with the 6th,” Wray said in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    Yet a new poll shows:

    “58% of Trump voters call it mostly an Antifa-inspired attack that only involved a few Trump supporters.”

    How is that so many, who presumably consume Right-wing media, believe something like this, that has no factual basis? Something that is quite literally Fake News?

    • Dan says:

      Nate should read Dr. Peter Navarro on election fraud.
      I wonder what Nate thinks of the one year delay in accepting hydroxychloroquine as a treatment of covid/ccp virus.

      • Bindidon says:

        Dan

        ” I wonder what Nate thinks of the one year delay in accepting hydroxychloroquine as a treatment of covid/ccp virus. ”

        Keep wondering, good idea.

        All studies in Germany and France have clearly demonstrated that the effect of using hydroxychloroquine as a COVID19 treatment is EQUAL TO ZERO.

        Even the French pro-hydroxychloroquine doctor Raoult had to admit that his studies in the domain were totally biased. He retracted.

        The US problem is that there are in this country (too) many gullible believers of nonsense like hydroxychloroquine or… election fraud by the Dems.

        Why, do you think, did Trump vote by mail on every election, 2016 included, nut NO LONGER in 2020, and suddenly started to claim that mail election is a fraud?

        Are you so NAIVE ?

        J.-P. D.

        • Dan says:

          If Hydroxy’ is 0% effective, why is it now an approved treatment for covid/ccp virus by the FDA? I’m not naive. Neither am I willfully ignorant of the facts on the ground. You reputation in your specialty is diminished by your refusal to investigate the facts before making an ass of yourself. Your unfounded personal attacks are an unacceptable response in an arena populated by clear headed scientific minds.

          • bobdroege says:

            Not approved for covid

            No. Hydroxychloroquine sulfate and some versions of chloroquine phosphate are FDA-approved to treat malaria. Hydroxychloroquine sulfate is also FDA-approved to treat lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.Mar 1, 2021

        • Nate says:

          ‘clear headed scientific minds’

          You mean like Peter Navarro, an economist, who claims to be an expert on every other field.

          He seems to think he knows more about public health and medicine than Fauci.

          Now he seems to think he knows more about legal matters and criminal investigations than Attorney General Barr or FBI director Wray.

          In reality he has little credibility in these areas, and not even in economics.

      • Dan says:

        And one more thing. Ive read a number of your posts on a wide variety of subjects in these threads. Ive read Dr Peter Navarro reason through complex statistical analysis. And from my limited view I can state without reservation that you are not competent to carry Dr Navarros lunch box. Your criticism of his many and varied skills is adolescent.
        And the clear headed scientific minds I referred to were your intellectual betters who populate these threads with coherent thought and analysis.

      • Nate says:

        Hes not an idiot, he is just biased, often wrong and arrogant.

        He is not a lawyer, a journalist, or a criminologist, or a doctor. But he does have a political agenda.

        Thus his claims about election
        fraud that are contrary to what state election officials, governors, courts, SCOTUS, the AG, the FBI have stated, should be eyed with skepticism.

        Critical thinking applies here. If your source for info:

        1. Is a political hack.
        2. Is not an expert, but claims to be.
        3. Has a poor track record of accuracy

        then you should get info from another source.

      • Nate says:

        See above article discussing Navarro ‘analysis’ of election fraud.

        For one thing, he simply ignores the logical reasons for the vote count lead changes in states.

  54. Strop says:

    Nate,
    John Sullivan was arrested and is in the Capitol Hill videos advocating burning the place down or similar phrases.
    He is a left wing activist.
    Im not saying he is or isnt part of Antifa, but it indicates that not all there were Trump devotees.

    • Nate says:

      a. Did you hear what FBI director said?
      b. 1 dude becomes ‘Mostly Antifa’?

    • Nate says:

      “He is a left wing activist.”

      Possibly, or…

      “Sullivan was treated with suspicion in left-wing activist circles. Labor activist Talia Jane said he is “reviled throughout the activist space”, and noted he had been escorted from a December 12 event at Black Lives Matter Plaza after he was identified.[3] Many suspected him to be a double agent working for law enforcement. An activist from Portland warned people not to trust him, after he got local activists arrested in September 2020 by leading them down a wrong route and into a police kettle. Anonymous activists from Seattle published a memo in November 2020 accusing him of being an agent provocateur, pointing to his getting activists arrested or exposing their identities. Activists noted that his brother is a pro-Trump supporter, a supporter of the “Blexit” movement and speaking at a Proud Boys rally. After a man was shot in Provo during the protests in summer 2020, a right-wing militia started appearing to police Sullivan’s group. During one of his rallies, Sullivan handed the microphone to a Proud Boys member….
      Others believe Sullivan exploited the racial justice movement for self-gain.”

      Wiki

  55. Strop says:

    I saw the director’s quote you posted. My reply didn’t ignore or contradict that and my reply didn’t claim that it was “mostly Antifa” and the claim by others that it was Antifa was made before Sullivan was identified.
    So both your a. and b. are irrelevant.

  56. Bob says:

    And which news outlets do you believe actually do a good job. As near as I can tell, the main stream media is just the propaganda arm if the Left. Their complete lack of journalistic integrity is exactly what gave rise to right wing news. Of course, any news media that actually reports facts that do not for the Left wing narrative is immediately denounced as Right wing news. So stop pretending the problem is Rush and Right wing news. If the mainstream media did their job properly, we might actually have an intelligent conversation over a common set of facts.

    • Entropic man says:

      “Left”

      Any person or organisation not as far Right as Bob.

    • Nate says:

      Yep.

      Both the NYTimes and the Wall Street Journal uncovered and reported the recent misdeeds of DEM NY Governor Cuomo.

      And prior to that the misdeeds of Donald Trump.

      Many other mainstream media outlets covered both extensively.

      Facts are facts. If they support the left wing narrative, oh well too bad for you. If they support the right-wing narrative, oh well too bad for me.

      Media doing solid journalism and informing us about the real facts are not the enemy of the people…the opposite.

      • rah says:

        “recent”? LOL! I knew Cuomo was fudging the numbers terribly before he got his Emmy. Now the “Me too” types flood forward and the left and their press focus on that because if Cuomo gets nailed for seeding the nursing homes with COVID positive patients there will be four other democrat governors exposed for doing exactly the same thing.

        Nate, you and the left are not fooling anyone that doesn’t want to be fooled.

      • Nate says:

        So the NYT and WSJ didnt report on Cuomo?? Sure looks like they did.

        • rah says:

          Way late to the party. And besides my point was what his party and the DOJ is going after with the support of the press. It is all misdirection.

          Cuomo was scum, they knew it and supported him and heaped praise upon him even as they knew he was seeding the nursing homes. Period! And he did it after screaming for resources which Trump provided in the form of a huge hospital put together in record time, and that he didn’t use. And there was also the underutilized hospital ship. And after that the next thing he started screaming about wanting, with the support of the democrats and the press, was the American Tax Payer to bail out NY after years of fiscal mismanagement.

        • Nate says:

          Load of BS. Its pretty clear that you dont read the NYT or the WSJ.

  57. gallopingcamel says:

    Dr. Roy,

    Thank you for a moving tribute to Rush Limbaugh. Most of us here would give teeth to have known him as well as you did.

    Sadly there are a few hyenas left here who tried to disrespect you along with Rush Limbaugh. They should hang their heads in shame but they are shameless.

    People like “Bindidon” and “Bruce Kay” are “Poison Dwarfs” who can’t be reasoned with yet they blather on endlessly.

  58. Nate says:

    The more I read about Rush Limbaugh, the more clear his legacy becomes.

    He made hating your gay, black, brown, female or liberal neighbor acceptable.

    This sums it up well:

    “he persuaded people to embrace their worst selves”

    https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/rush-limbaugh-s-true-legacy-how-he-persuaded-people-embrace-ncna1258297

    • rah says:

      Tribute of Rush from Bo Snerdley. One of those black people that you and NBC says Rush hated so much. https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2021/02/19/mr-snerdley-pays-tribute-late-great-rush-limbaugh-only-he-could

      Snerdley was Rush’s call screener and so much more. Very accomplished man even outside of the EIB.

      And BTW, it is always good for me to see demonstrated once again, as so many times before, that those that claim to be the most tolerant are actually the least among us.

    • Nate says:

      “actually the least among us”

      least tolerant of what?

      • rah says:

        Ok, I’ll spoon feed you. Least tolerant of those with which they disagree.

      • Nate says:

        Uhhhh…

        Yes Im intolerant of demagoguery, and the spreading of lies.

        • rah says:

          Like I said. You never listened to the man. All you can do is parrot what his enemies say about him and pull up quotes taken out of context to try and make a case that is exactly the opposite of what the man really was about. Rush alone supported more charity activities than any politician on the national stage now ever did.

          And as for saying Biden is not the legitimate POTUS? I and about 70 millions other American voters, agree! I mean really? Do you actually believe that a man that couldn’t draw flies at any rally or townhall, and is obviously suffering from progressive dementia actually got more votes than any other candidate in the history of this country?

          Do you actually believe that is was just a coincidence that five contested states all declared they would stop counting votes within an hour of each other early in the morning after?

          Do you actually believe that it was a legitimate act to ban or isolate GOP observers so they could not observe the counting and tabulation of the votes in so many places?

          Do you actually believe that it was proper not to match the names on the voter rolls with those on the mail in ballots?

          Do you actually believe the ballot drop boxes that aren’t even as secure as a postal mail box are a good idea? And that ballot harvesting is a legitimate way to get votes?

        • Nate says:

          You are making the case that right wing media has misled many people into believing that they have been cheated and should be angry, and to keep tuning in, including you.

          • rah says:

            Couldn’t answer or refute a single point I made. That says it all.

          • Nate says:

            State election officials, over 60 court cases, the SCOTUS, the Trump appointed Attorney General and FBI director, all refuted your claims.

          • Nate says:

            It is very strange that people keep saying absurdities like

            “Biden is not the legitimate POTUS? I and about 70 millions other American voters, agree!”

            as if somehow the 81 million people voting for Biden don’t matter!

            My candidate did not win in many other Presidential elections. Even ones closer than this one. Ones which the legal system got involved.

            Oh well. Still had to move on, get a life, try again next time.

            Do you not understand this is how democracy works?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…”as if somehow the 81 million people voting for Biden dont matter!”

            About 20 million of Biden’s votes came from stuffed ballot boxes.

          • Nate says:

            More declared ‘truths’ from the our cranky denier of Measles, HIV, and Covid.

            The very same genius who declares the crescent Moon is due to the Earth’s shadow!

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…”More declared truths from the our cranky denier of Measles, HIV, and Covid”.

            ***

            Typical Nate reply, ad homs and insults rather than scientific proof.

            I have never denied measles, HIV, or covid. All I have claimed is insufficient scientific evidence to prove a viral causation for the effects claimed. And, I have supplied convincing proof from experts. You have provided nothing but a pathetic appeal to authority.

            It’s obvious that measles is a real disease. It’s equally obvious that people have died from the opportunistic infections lumped under the umbrella of the acronym AIDS, which is claimed to be caused by HIV. It is equally obvious that some contagion is affecting a tiny fraction of 1% of populations currently around the world, even though no proof has been provided that all of the victims have been suffering the same contagion.

            It doesn’t seem to matter to you that Dr. Stefan Lanka, an expert on viruses has convinced two German courts, one a supreme court, that no scientific evidence exists to support the theory that measles is caused by a virus, or HIV. The courts accepted his arguments. Of course, German courts appear to be far more intelligent and mature than many of the kangaroo courts we have in North America.

            It doesn’t matter to you that the scientist who is credited with discovering HIV, Dr. Luc Montagnier, is now of the opinion that HIV does not cause AIDS, that AIDS is a lifestyle issue, and that HIV cannot infect the immune system until it is compromised. That was obvious in 1983, yet nearly 40 years later we are still told the opposite by the same people advising us on covid.

            It doesn’t matter to you that Montagnier admits he could not find HIV on an electron microscope. Many scientists faced with the same dilemma would admit there is no virus there. Not Montagnier. He was convinced there must be a virus there somewhere even if it could be seen, so he went looking for one, presuming it must be a retrovirus, a field in which he had expertise.

            So, he used his retrovirus theory, a science that was less than ten years old at the time to INFER a virus. That same inferential method is now being used to INFER covid.

            The first papers that came out of Wuhan in January, 2020, did not claim the isolation of a virus, they merely claimed an association. In other words, they inferred there must be a virus at work, even though they had no scientific proof. They inferred covid in exactly the way Montagnier inferred HIV, indirectly, using genetic material INFERRED to be from a virus. Then the media and unscrupulous scientists promoted covid to be the cause of the current contagion. The same happened with HIV.

            Excuse me, but that science is not good enough for me. I want to know why neither HIV nor covid can be isolated using an electron microscope. There are fake photos of both on the Net and the thing that has struck me most about the various micrographs is how much they differ from each other.

            Lanka has claimed they are nothing more than debris from dead cells and he has expertise in that field. In fact, when a paper was submitted decades ago claiming to provide micrographs of the first SARS virus, the paper was rejected. The reviewers claimed there was insufficient proof to distinguish the claimed SARS micrograph from those of dead cells.

            Coincidence??

            BTW…Lanka does not deny measles exists, or AIDS, or the current contagion.

            It concerns me that the world is currently being held hostage by ignorant, hysterical politicians who would not know a virus from a bread crumb. The irony here is that most scientists could not tell the difference either, yet they are advising the politicians.

            The entire theory of viruses over the past century plus is incredibly weak. When Koch laid down his postulates for identifying a contagious particle in 1884, the understanding of a virus was as clear as mud. As far on as 1937, no one could apply Koch to a virus, so Rivers, 1937, amended Koch’s postulate to allow INFERENCE of a virus. Even though theycould not isolate a virus as per Koch, the INFERRED one.

            That was still the case in 1953, around which time the inference changed from one of non-genetic to a genetic basis. Since the genetic inference began, the inference of a virus has taken on an aura of major bs. as it’s basis. Scientists these days are so arrogant, they talk about the spike proteins, meaning the proteins BELIEVED to make up the spikes on a virus with which they allegedly attach to a cell.

            Absolute bs!! To see a virus on an electron microscope, the proposed infected sample must be sliced down to about 100 billionth of a metre, otherwise the electron beam from the EM cannot penetrate the sample to produce the black and white imagery required for the image. When viewed, those alleged psikes are seen as nothing more than detritus around a circular object and the inference is that they detritus came from the spikes on the virus.

            NO one has ever seen a 3-D version of a virus, like a little golf ball with spikes sticking out of it. That model is pure sci-fu.

            I have a better explanation for the spikes from my years directly working with electronic apparatus that uses electron beams. The electrons beams consists of highly accelerated electrons which carry a negative charge and a magnetic field when in motion. It is apparent that those electromagnetic fields and the damage done by the interaction of the accelerated electrons and the material in the sample, produce some kind of corona effect. To me, it’s the same effect experience by someone in contact with a electrostatic field. The hair on that person’s head actually begins to stand up due to the electrostatic field spreading across his/her skin.

            From this murky theory comes the notion that a virus can attach itself to a cell and spread its load throughout the cell. There is not a shred of scientific evidence that has been physically witnessed to prove this.

            So, excuse me for being so skeptical. I don’t think the current wannabee experts advising governments on covid have the slightest idea what they are talking about. We certainly appear to have a contagion on our hands, which affects a tiny proportion of any population, and we’ll never find out exactly what is going on till we push the virologists aside and look at the problem with fresh eyes.

          • Nate says:

            Gordon, these ideas have been repeatedly debunked.

            We’re onto you now.

            Your strategy is transparent. Ignore the debunking. Offer no rebuttal, then come back later and repeat the FALSE claims.

            Such as here:

            “It doesnt seem to matter to you that Dr. Stefan Lanka, an expert on viruses has convinced two German courts, one a supreme court, that no scientific evidence exists to support the theory that measles is caused by a virus, or HIV. The courts accepted his arguments.”

            This was just thoroughly debunked a couple of weeks back.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/a-tribute-to-rush-limbaugh/#comment-623330

            And your response: Crickets.

            Now here is the repeat. And the denial just continues.

          • Nate says:

            “Since the genetic inference began, the inference of a virus has taken on an aura of major bs. ”

            Yes biochemistry and DNA fingerprinting and all of that are amazing tools.

            “NO one has ever seen a 3-D version of a virus, like a little golf ball with spikes sticking out of it. That model is pure sci-fu.”

            All of your ‘the virus hasnt been seen in an electron microscope’ is

            a. False

            b. A big red herring

            c. Ignores scientific advances of the last 50 y.

            For two centuries chemistry learned how to identify what molecules and atoms were present in a sample, BEFORE a molecule was ever seen in a microscope!

            According to your logic, having not directly seen molecules, the identification of substances via chemistry was all just ‘Major BS’ and useless.

            The uniqueness of the DNA and RNA molecule’s sequence, and the chemical tools we have for detecting it, means we can identify its fingerprints left behind at the scene of a crime, without a microscope!

            We don’t need to see the perp on camera at the scene if he’s left behind his DNA fingerprints, or finger fingerprints.

            If a COVID19 Corona virus is in your snot, we can detect its fingerprint quite easily.

            And the genetic sequences of the family of Corona Viruses has long been established.

            This way of identifying viruses is much more refined and useful than looking at a tiny fuzzy ball in microscope and trying to tell which one, among many others,

            https://img.webmd.com/dtmcms/live/webmd/consumer_assets/site_images/articles/health_tools/cold_or_flu_slideshow/webmd_rm_photo_of_cold_and_flu_virus_composite.jpg

            that all look like spiky, fuzzy balls, we got.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…”False. The first court ruled he was wrong on the science. The higher court ruling was not about science at all, but about the financial dispute”.

            Why don’t you try something really novel, try reading what the court actually said. You linked to some idiotic fact-checkers who claimed the court did not rule that measles does not exist.

            Surely you are not so stupid to think that Dr. Luc Montagnier, who is credited with discovering HIV, and now claims HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system, has been debunked. He’s a world renowned expert on HIV.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…”German courts, one a supreme court, that no scientific evidence exists to support the theory that measles is caused by a virus, or HIV. The courts accepted his arguments.

            This was just thoroughly debunked a couple of weeks back”

            So, why did the courts order the guy making charges against Lanka to pay court costs? I’ll bet you have a daily subscription to the National Enquirer.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            nate…”If a COVID19 Corona virus is in your snot, we can detect its fingerprint quite easily”.

            ********

            Tell me how you figure out a genetic sequence of a virus when you don’t have the virus and its genetic material with which to compare it.

            Maybe you have comprehension issues. I told you Montagnier has admitted he has never seen HIV with an electron microscope. You can easily verify that for yourself unless you go to an idiot fact checker who needs his/her facts checked. There is an hour long video in which Montagnier admits all this.

            Since Montagnier failed to see HIV, he went ahead and theorized it. Why?? If he could not see it on an EM, why would he presume it was hiding somewhere?

            Since then, all viruses like SARS 2002, the bird flue, swine flu, and now covid, have been theorized using Montagnier’s methodology. That applies to their genomes which have been created on computer models using strands of RNA theorized to be from a virus.

            We are being scammed big time by unscrupulous scientists and the idiotic politicians who believe them.

            As far as molecules being identified by chemistry the past couple of centuries, before EM, that’s nonsense. Linus Pauling identified the shapes of most major molecules in the 20th century using xray diffraction and his own theory/experience based on quantum theory. He developed the theory of the covalent bond circa 1930. The electron was not discovered till 1890 and it was not till 1913 that Bohr put forward the model of the hydrogen atom, involving one electron and one proton.

            How the heck could molecules be visualized when the electron was unknown, the relationship to the nucleus unknown, and the covalent bond unknown till Pauling developed the theory?

            Nate, old chap, I think you like to open your mouth and let your belly rumble.

          • Nate says:

            “Why dont you try something really novel, try reading what the court actually said. You linked to some idiotic fact-checkers who claimed the court did not rule that measles does not exist.”

            Sure, Gordon, Measles does not exist!

            If a court had said that, surely that would have made the news.

            Show us the direct quote of the courts saying that!

            Of course you won’t. Because that will allow you to come back and repeat the same BS again.

            Here is a direct quote from the lengthy court findings,

            “. It is not against good faith if the person who awards EUR 100,000 uses his / her own ideas – which can be seen by third parties – even if these make it difficult to earn the prize money – as the yardstick for the award. A custom that could oppose this is neither presented nor recognizable.”

            IOW, Lanka is allowed to use his own judgement (right or wrong) as to whether the requirements of his award are met.

          • Nate says:

            “As far as molecules being identified by chemistry the past couple of centuries, before EM, thats nonsense.”

            “How the heck could molecules be visualized when the electron was unknown”

            And the point seems to have gone whoosh way over your head.

            The point was there was no need to ‘visualize’ the molecules of a substance to know it is present in a sample.

            That’s exactly how chemists were able to discover most elements and compounds! Going back to H, O and H2O in the 1780s.

            Viruses HAVE BEEN visualized in SEM.

            But there is no need to visualize Covid to know it is in your snot.

            Biochemistry can determine if it is present by its DNA fingerprint.

          • Nate says:

            An early paper on COVID extracted from a sick patient.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045880/#:~:text=Currently%2C%20the%20diagnosis%20of%20COVID,virus%20detection%20will%20be%20required.

            Notice it is imaged in SEM.

            More importantly it does DNA sequencing, and is able to place it on the family tree of coronaviruses.

            Once this sort of work is done and replicated, the viruses DNA sequence is its fingerprint.

            It now has a barcode that can be scanned with the right scanner.

          • Nate says:

            http://www.rexresearch.com/montagnier/montagnier.htm

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/05/27/nobel-laureate-joins-anti-vaccination-crowd-at-autism-one/?sh=43d64b5d5c53

            Montagnier claims to have discovered that DNA leaves behind its fingerprints in purified water, IOW homeopathy.

            He has found that DNA communicates to other DNA via radio waves.

            And he claims DNA can ‘teleport’ between separated test tubes.

            Montagnier appears to have been infected with one of the worst cases ever of NOBEL’S DISEASE.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease#:~:text=Nobel%20disease%20is%20a%20hypothesized,ideas%2C%20usually%20later%20in%20life.

  59. gallopingcamel says:

    @rah,

    Thanks for presenting facts and evidence.

    Sadly none of that matters to Nate who has been brainwashed since Kindergarten by people who hate the USA.

    • Nate says:

      ‘facts and evidence’

      that has been refuted by Republican State election officials, State Legislatures, over 60 court cases, the Supreme Court, the Trump appointed Attorney General and FBI director, the Republican Senate Minority Leader.

      Sadly none of that matters to people who have been fed a steady stream of lies from the trough of right-wing-media.

  60. Chic Bowdrie says:

    Rush was the King of Talk Radio and it will always be his legacy.

    Nate IS this blog’s King of Obfuscation and Chief Purveyor of Left-Wing Extremism. It will always be his legacy.

    • Nate says:

      Left wing extremism: anyone to the left of Chic.

      IOW the vast majority of people.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        A simple majority of voters are mind-numbed robots, mostly democrats and young people. Others know and admit they are liberal and progressive. You, however, are a hard core leftist, therefore an extremist.

      • Nate says:

        “A simple majority of voters are mind-numbed robots,”

        Yes, anyone that disagrees with Chic must be.

        Meanwhile, when Chic loses science arguments on the facts, he resorts to silly ad-hominem attacks.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          Classic Nate obfuscation. Misrepresenting the facts and making a straw-man argument.

          Nate, you are the argument here. You made all the leftist arguments here. It wasn’t me making right-wing arguments, although I proudly can and would. You, on the other hand, won’t admit your hard left views as Rush accurately and frequently accused liberals and progressives of doing. Just like you claiming to be center-left.

          Where is the center, Nate?

        • Nate says:

          “You, however, are a hard core leftist, therefore an extremist.”

          As usual, you have no facts or evidence to back-up your claims, just clueless name-calling.

          “you made all the leftist arguments”

          What? Like this one?

          “Real conservatives, like the 17 Republicans in Congress who voted to impeach or convict Trump, understand that their party needs to stand FOR something other than ‘HATE the LEFT’ or looney conspiracies.

          Unfortunately they are all being CANCELLED by their party.

          Though Im Center-Left, I think we need a functional two party system, with Republicans who still have principles and want to govern pragmatically, like my Rep governor in Massachusetts.”

        • Nate says:

          Yes, center-left, means I supported Biden over Bernie Sanders for the DEM nomination, I voted for my moderate Republican governor, I’m not for blowing up the National Debt, I don’t think we should be giving out cash to people (like me) who don’t need it.

          Therefore, with regards to my political views, you have no idea what you are talking about, or you are so far right that you consider most American voters to be ‘hard-core-leftist’.

  61. Entropic man says:

    Chic Bowdrie

    What impressed me most about Trump’s lawyers was the way they presented evidence to the courts.

    They put forward affidavits and said “This is what so-and he-said”.

    They did not put forward anything substantial. I think the reason is that a lawyer who knowingly presents false evidence in court gets struck off, and none of them were willing to fall on their professional swords for Donald Trump

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      nate…”They put forward affidavits and said This is what so-and he-said. They did not put forward anything substantial”.

      The courts, including the Supreme Court, lacked the backbone to get involved. They did not want to shoulder the blame for over-turning an election. Good evidence was supplied, one of them a direct witness who was also a military security expert. He witness an unknown person walk into a polling station with a bag of USB drives and plug them into a computer. When he brought it to the attention of the polling manager all he got in reply was a shrug of the manager’s shoulder.

      There is no doubt they polling stations were in cahoots with Biden. Republicans were blocked from examining the voting count.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      I don’t want to get off topic of Rush by discussing election fraud evidence. Let’s just try to keep an unbiased eye on the future consequences of electing Biden president.

  62. Chic Bowdrie says:

    Trump gave Rush Limbaugh a Medal of Freedom for being a great American with much “talent on loan from God.” He was an extremely generous philanthropist, which I didn’t know about until the tributes came out from others substituting for him on the EIB after he died.

    The Presidential Medal of Freedom is an award bestowed by the president of the United States to recognize people who have made “an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.”

    Rush “single-handedly invented right-wing talk radio and in so doing created a model of media that laid the groundwork for Fox News and a thousand broad cast, print, and online imitators.”

    Bestselling author and talkshow host himself Mark “F. Lee” Levin was a supporter and advisor to Rush. Nationally known substitute hosts for Rush (sometimes called “Associate Professors from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies”) include Glenn Beck, Matt Drudge, Sean Hannity, Roger Hedgecock, Jason Lewis, Mary Matalin, Michael Medved, Karl Rove, Buck Sexton, Tony Snow, Mark Steyn, Tom Sullivan, and Walter Williams.

    Rush was right 99.8% of the time.

    • Nate says:

      99.8%. Yep, then you are probably on the Far Right end of his 15 Million listeners.

      Compared to you, most Americans are Far Left.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        You are so full of it, with regards to my political views, you have no idea what you are talking about. Just a hard-core King of Obfuscation.

      • Nate says:

        OK, maybe not. Maybe you’re in the middle of Limbaugh listeners. Still probably not a centrist?

  63. Chic Bowdrie says:

    You are so full of it, with regards to my political views, you have no idea what you are talking about. Just a hard-core King of Obfuscation.

  64. Fred Schreyer says:

    Rush claimed that AGW is a ‘hoax’ and you Dr. Spencer never set him straight. Shame on the both of you.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      fred…”Rush claimed that AGW is a hoax and you Dr. Spencer never set him straight. Shame on the both of you”.

      As a true professional, Roy is trying to be objective. He thinks AGW may be a factor but he has no idea how much.

      If you look at the origins of AGW in the modern era, with regard to the IPCC, it was a brainchild of ultra-Conservation, ex-British PM, Margaret Thatcher. She needed a way to control striking coal-miners and her solution seemed to be to give coal emissions a bad name, hence an excuse to get rid of coal-miners.

      Thatcher had a degree in chemistry and an aide suggested she use her chemistry knowledge at the UN to baffle them with regard to the danger of emissions like those from burning coal. She did, and it worked. The UN set up the IPCC with a Thatcher protege, John Houghton, as its first co-chair.

      Houghton was a climate modeler and he guided the IPCC into that dubious world of pseudo-science. I think it’s safe to claim that IPCC-based AGW began as a political hoax.

  65. Nate says:

    Sidney “Powell moved to dismiss the lawsuit on Monday, arguing that ‘no reasonable person would conclude’ that her accusations of Dominion being part of an election-rigging scheme with ties to Venezuela ‘were truly statements of fact.'”

    So she is claiming that Rush Limaugh, and his many listeners are among the not ‘reasonable persons’ if they believed her claims. Since, afterall, she offered no evidence to back her claims.

  66. Willard says:

    Sad.

    The best tribute of Rush still comes from Rush himself:

    [J]ust another dead doper. And a dirtbag.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/rush-limbaugh-spent-his-lifetime-speaking-ill-of-the-dead

  67. It is interesting to read that Rush was such a good listener. It is unexpected for someone who spoke on the radio for hours each day.

  68. Paul Cooper says:

    Lesson of the day never look at the media for opinions about anything

  69. Robert says:

    I am so thankful that there are a few University Professors that still listen to all sides. Dr. Spencer, you are unique and we need far more open-minded people like you at our universities.

  70. Russell says:

    Robert says:
    April 6, 2021 at 8:55 AM

    I am so thankful that there are a few University Professors that still listen to all sides. Dr. Spencer, you are unique and we need far more open-minded people like you at our universities.

    El-Rushbo and Trump Universities could have used a few too. Kudos to Roy for trying:

    https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/02/a-hard-act-for-mark-steyn-to-follow.html

  71. Michael S. Kelly says:

    Thanks for this post. I’m glad you had the personal interaction with him that you did. I only spoke with him once, in the late 1980’s, when I managed to get through the busy signals. It was for the purpose of giving him the gift of a subscription to Petr Beckmann’s newsletter “Access to Energy.” He was delighted that a caller would give HIM a gift, rather than ask for something.

    I did have rather extensive e-mail exchanges with him in the Compuserve era. He read a few of mine on the air, and pulled quotes from others without attribution. It always made me smile when I heard my words coming back to me in his chosen context. He congratulated me on the birth of my first son, and I sent my condolences upon the death of his father.

    There are a couple of things I regret about his world-view, though not in the way most might think. He didn’t consider himself an “intellectual,” and proceeded to prove it by reading a quote of someone who he did (correctly) consider a genuine intellectual,Jeane Kirkpatrick. I don’t recall the content, only that it was a very terse statement that packed an enormous amount of content. Rush unpacked that content to illustrate how a genuine intellectual thinks, and put an otherwise arcane statement in perfectly understandable form – and in so doing, unintentionally showed himself to be her equal in some respects, and superior in others. An intellectual is one who makes a living in the marketplace of ideas. I believe Rush was the most successful intellectual in all of history.

    I did cherish his love of life, and of humanity. That he is accused of “spewing” hate (the Left does like “spewing”) is just asinine, and anyone who says that he did never listened to him. I doubt there will ever be his equal.

  72. Everyone loves what you guys are up too. This kind of clever work and reporting!
    Keep up the amazing works guys I’ve included you guys to my personal blogroll.

  73. I like the helpful info you supply in your articles. I’ll bookmark your weblog and check again here
    regularly. I’m reasonably certain I will be told a lot of new stuff proper right here!

    Best of luck for the next!

  74. My programmer is trying to convince me to move to .net from PHP.
    I have always disliked the idea because of the costs.
    But he’s tryiong none the less. I’ve been using Movable-type on several websites for about a year and am worried about
    switching to another platform. I have heard
    very good things about blogengine.net. Is there a way I can transfer all my wordpress posts into it?
    Any help would be greatly appreciated!

  75. SM ___ says:

    I like the valuable information you supply to your articles.

    I’ll bookmark your blog and test again here regularly. I’m relatively sure I will learn plenty of new stuff right
    here! Good luck for the following!

  76. Ahaa, its pleasant conversation concerning this paragraph at this
    place at this web site, I have read all that, so at
    this time me also commenting here.

  77. I blog frequently and I truly thank you for your information. This great article has truly
    peaked my interest. I’m going to book mark your website and
    keep checking for new details about once a week. I subscribed to your Feed too.

  78. game b_n c says:

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts about keno minh chinh.
    Regards

  79. Hello There. I found your weblog the use of msn. That is an extremely smartly written article.
    I’ll be sure to bookmark it and come back to learn more of your helpful info.

    Thank you for the post. I will certainly comeback.

  80. x_ s_ hm nay says:

    Howdy, I do believe your web site could possibly be having
    web browser compatibility problems. When I look at your blog in Safari, it looks
    fine however, when opening in IE, it has some overlapping issues.
    I simply wanted to provide you with a quick heads up!
    Aside from that, wonderful site!

  81. Greetings from California! I’m bored to tears at work so I decided to check
    out your website on my iphone during lunch break.
    I really like the information you present here and can’t wait to take a look when I get home.
    I’m shocked at how fast your blog loaded on my mobile ..
    I’m not even using WIFI, just 3G .. Anyhow,
    excellent site!

  82. binh x_p xm says:

    I simply could not leave your web site prior to suggesting that I actually loved the standard information a person provide for your guests?

    Is going to be back incessantly to check out new
    posts

  83. What’s up to every body, it’s my first pay a visit of this website; this
    web site contains remarkable and in fact excellent information for readers.

  84. Pretty nice post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wished to mention that I have truly loved surfing around
    your blog posts. After all I’ll be subscribing in your rss feed and I
    am hoping you write again very soon!

  85. departamento cerca foro sol says:

    El mercado inmobiliario se ve afectado por el coronavirus y la venta de vivienda nueva ha visto una reduccin en sus ganancias a causa de la pandemia, no obstante, la compra de vivienda con fines de Inversin o con fin habitacional sigue siendo una excelente inversin a mediano y largo plazo.

  86. Hi there, I do believe your site could possibly be having web browser compatibility issues.

    When I look at your blog in Safari, it looks fine however when opening
    in I.E., it’s got some overlapping issues. I
    just wanted to provide you with a quick heads up!
    Besides that, great blog!

  87. x t_ says:

    Thanks , I have recently been looking for info approximately this topic
    for ages and yours is the greatest I’ve came upon so far.
    But, what in regards to the bottom line? Are you positive about the source?

  88. game xc __a says:

    Hi my friend! I wish to say that this post is amazing, nice written and come with almost all important infos.
    I’d like to peer extra posts like this .

  89. Great website you have here but I was wanting to know if you knew of any forums that cover the same topics talked about here?
    I’d really love to be a part of group where I can get feed-back from other knowledgeable people that share the same interest.
    If you have any recommendations, please let me know.
    Thanks a lot!

Leave a Reply