THE WAY THINGS REALLY ARE:
DEBUNKING RUSH LIMBAUGH ON THE ENVIRONMENT
By: Leonie Haimson
Michael Oppenheimer
David Wilcove
A publication of: Environmental Defense Fund
257 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10010
Phone: 212/505-2100
FAX: 212/505-2375
Acknowledgements:
The authors wish to thank Dr. D. Albritton, Dr. R. J. Gutierrez, and Dr.
S. Solomon for reviewing draft sections of this booklet.
About The Authors:
Leonie Haimson is a free-lance writer based in New York.
Dr. Michael Oppenheimer is an atmospheric scientist;
Dr. David Wilcove is an ecologist. Both are senior scientists with
the Environmental Defense Fund.
Chlorofluorocarbons and Ozone Depletion:
RUSH FICTION:
Limbaugh proposes that environmental "alarmists and prophets of doom" have
exaggerated the problem of ozone depletion, suggesting that it has been
limited to "occasional reduced levels of ozone over Antarctica."
SCIENTIFIC FACT:
Substantially reduced levels of ozone have been measured over most of the
globe, including North America, Europe, and elsewhere. In fact, scientists
have observed a thinning of the ozone layer at all latitudes outside the
tropics. By 1991, the depletion over North America averaged nearly 5
percent. Since 1991, ozone depletion has further intensified.
RUSH FICTION:
"Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times
the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one eruption than all the
fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical, and insensitive
corporations in history. . . . Conclusion: mankind can't possibly equal
the output of even one eruption from Pinatubo, much less a billion years'
worth, so how can we destroy ozone?"
SCIENTIFIC FACT:
Limbaugh's numbers are completely off-base. Volcanoes emit two sorts of
ozone-depleting compounds. One is hydrochloric acid, but the amount of
this chemical in the stratosphere, measured before and after Pinatubo's
eruption in 1991, was found to be largely unchanged.
The other ozone-depleting chemical emitted by Pinatubo, sulfur dioxide, is
converted in the stratosphere into tiny particles which, acting in
combination with man-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's), temporarily increased
the rate of ozone depletion by several percentage points during 1992 and
1993. Nevertheless, nearly all the particles resulting from the Mt.
Pinatubo eruption have already washed out of the atmosphere, unlike CFC's,
which remain in the stratosphere for as long as a century.
Cumulatively speaking, Pinatubo's destructive effect on the ozone layer has
been about fifty times less than that of CFC's, rather than a thousand times
greater, as Limbaugh claims. Thus, his estimate is off by a factor of fifty
thousand.
RUSH FICTION:
What "environmental wackos . . . really want to do is attack our way of
life" in the effort to limit CFC's. "Their primary enemy: capitalism."
SCIENTIFIC FACT:
Limbaugh ignores the fact that the conservative Reagan administration
signed onto the Montreal Protocol, the international agreement to
restrict CFC's, and that crucial support for the measure came from some of
the largest manufacturers of these chemicals, who, like Ronald Reagan, are
hardly enemies of capitalism. Although many of these corporations initially
resisted action when the ozone problem was discovered, Dupont, Allied
Signal, and other domestic producers of CFC's have long favored strong
restrictions concerning their production and use. Indeed, Dupont proposed a
global ban of CFC's before European or United States governments did.
RUSH FICTION:
"In just one day in January [1992], NASA measured the amount of chlorine and
another gas in the atmosphere of the Northern Hemisphere and found an
unusually high level compared to normal. . . . There were headlines for days
about an ozone hole in the atmosphere above North America. Senator Al Gore
. . .predicted that President Bush would soon come around on all this
because of the 'ozone hole over Kennebunkport,' despite the fact there was
no such thing. . . . Within a few weeks, it was learned that most of the
unusual measurements could be attributed to Mount Pinatubo's eruption, a
fact the agenda-oriented scientific community attempted to ignore."
SCIENTIFIC FACT:
Limbaugh's last statement is absolutely false. The measurements to which he
refers, of extremely high levels of chlorine monoxide, were made by NASA
only six months after Pinatubo's eruption and in a particular region of the
Arctic stratosphere that was at the time unaffected by the volcanic
emissions. Furthermore, large amounts of these chemicals were measured
throughout the month of January, not just on one day, as Limbaugh asserts.
As for the rest, the condition of the ozone layer in January of 1992 was a
great deal more complex than Limbaugh's account would suggest. Indeed, many
scientists were disturbed by the high chlorine monoxide levels. For a very
large depletion to occur, however, the Arctic stratosphere would have had to
remain cold for several more weeks, as it often does that time of year.
Instead, a sudden warming occurred the following month, so the damage to the
ozone layer never became as severe as originally feared. If it had, the
depletion might well have reached 20 to 30 percent in the lower
stratosphere, rather than the 10 to 15 percent that was recorded. Indeed,
such large depletions could occur over parts of Northern Europe and Canada
during any winter, and may do so in the future.
In his most recent book, See, I Told You So, Limbaugh returns to the subject
of ozone depletion. This time, he discusses the implications of a possible
prehistoric supernova that may have damaged the atmosphere:
RUSH FICTION:
"Scientists say a supernova 340,000 years ago disrupted 10 percent to 20
percent of the ozone layer, causing sunburn in prehistoric man. Wait a
minute - I thought only man could destroy the ozone. . . . And if
prehistoric man merely got a sunburn, how is it that we are going to destroy
the ozone layer with our air conditioners and underarm deodorants and cause
everybody to get cancer? Obviously we're not...and we can't ...and it's a
hoax."
SCIENTIFIC FACT:
The report of a prehistoric supernova exploding close enough to the Earth to
have possibly affected its ozone layer, thousands of years ago, though of
doubtful relevance to Limbaugh's argument, was published in the British
journal Nature and followed up by the New York Times in 1993. As quoted in
the Times, Dr. Neil Gehrels, one of the authors of the report, clearly did
not mean to minimize the possibility that the ozone loss that may have
resulted would have damaged whatever forms of life were roaming the planet.
Indeed, he was reported as saying that the effects of such an ozone
depletion may well "have impaired the health of human beings and other
creatures..."
RUSH FICTION:
"Even The Washington Post - that haven of liberal mythology - published a
front-page story on April 15, 1993, that dismissed most of the fears about
the so-called ozone hole... had this to say: 'In fact, researchers say
the problem appears to be heading toward solution before they can find any
solid evidence that serious harm was or is being done.'"
SCIENTIFIC FACT:
Limbaugh neglects to mention that the problem of ozone depletion appears to
be heading towards solution only as a result of international agreements to
restrict the production and use of CFC's. Thanks to these agreements, the
ozone layer should return to near-normal levels around the year 2045.
Before 1998, however, stratospheric ozone is expected to become thinner
every year, and the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth to
increase, assuming other influences remain constant. Although the
consequences of increased ultraviolet exposure for plants and marine life
are just beginning to be explored, the damage to humans from long-term
exposure is well known. In many parts of the globe, ozone depletion is
likely to cause a rise in rates of skin cancer, particularly non-melanoma
cancers, which, due to lifestyle factors, are already at record levels.
RUSH FICTION:
"A few days later, the authoritative journal Science published a story
headlined 'Ozone Takes Nose Dive After the Eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.' It
pointed out that the ozone layer should show significant signs of recovery
by 1994. But have you heard Algore (sic) or any other ozone alarmist step
up and admit that he or she perpetuated (sic) a fraud on the American
people?"
SCIENTIFIC FACT:
Indeed, the ozone layer did not thin as much in 1994 as it did in 1993, due
to the washing out of emissions from Mount Pinatubo (see above).
Nevertheless, as Science magazine pointed out in a recent issue, this
improvement is only temporary, since levels of "atmospheric chlorine will
continue to increase until controls on CFC emissions take hold late in this
decade. Pinatubo or no, things will get worse."
Global Warming and the Greenhouse Effect:
Global warming is another topic about which Limbaugh attempts to mislead
his readers, despite the international scientific consensus on many aspects
of this issue. This consensus is reflected in the findings of the top
researchers in the field, as published in the peer-reviewed scientific
literature, and the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), the international scientific panel assessing climate change,
which consists of a network of 2,500 experts worldwide. The IPCC has issued
two reports clearly stating and then reaffirming that the Earth's climate
will warm due to the buildup of man-made greenhouse gases. In 1992, the
National Academy of Sciences published its own report, concluding that
"greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt
responses."
Instead of taking on the international scientific community directly,
however, Limbaugh chooses to attack Vice-President Al Gore, and his book
Earth in the Balance.
RUSH FICTION:
"Algore's (sic) book is full of calculated disinformation. For instance,
he claims that 98 percent of scientists believe global warming is taking
place. However a Gallup poll of scientists involved in global climate
research shows that 53 percent do not believe that global warming has
occurred, 30 percent say they don't know, and only 17 percent are devotees
of this dubious theory."
SCIENTIFIC FACT:
These numbers, apparently lifted from a George Will syndicated column of
September 3, 1992, are supposed to reflect the findings of a Gallup poll
taken in late 1991 to ascertain the opinions of research scientists
concerning global warming. Even though polling is of doubtful relevance
for determining the scientific truth of any proposition, it should be
pointed out that nowhere in the actual poll results are there figures that
resemble those cited by Will or Limbaugh.
Instead, the Gallup poll found that a substantial majority of the scientists
polled, 66 percent, believed that human-induced global warming was already
occurring. Only 10 percent disagreed, and the remainder were undecided.
Moreover, the 98 percent figure appears in the context of Al Gore's book to
refer to the percentage of scientists who believe that human-induced global
warming is a legitimate threat, not, as Limbaugh frames it, to the number
of those who argue that it is already in effect. In fact, the Gallup poll
seems to bear out Gore's estimate as well, finding that only 2 percent of
the scientists polled believed that there was no chance that substantial,
human-caused warming will occur over the next fifty to one hundred years.
RUSH FICTION:
"Algore told the Washington Times on May 19, 1993: 'That increased
accumulations of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, cause global warming,
there is no longer any serious debate. There are a few naysayers far
outside the consensus who try to dispute that. They are not really taken
seriously by the mainstream scientific community.' Yet we saw in the last
chapter that there is nothing resembling a consensus on this issue among
scientists who have some expertise in this area. In fact, a majority
clearly does not believe global warming has occurred."
SCIENTIFIC FACT:
See the preceding item. Furthermore, even the most publicized and vehement
of scientific naysayers, such as Pat Michaels of the University of Virginia,
agree that increased accumulation of carbon dioxide will eventually cause
global warming. What they disagree about is how much warming will occur
over what period of time.
RUSH FICTION:
"...back at the time of the first Earth Day, the big concern wasn't global
warming, it was global cooling. . . . the view of most
environmentalists for years after."
SCIENTIFIC FACT:
Although the Earth has warmed by about one degree Fahrenheit over the past
hundred years, this warming has not occurred uniformly. In particular,
during the period from 1940 to1970, the Northern Hemisphere stopped warming
and may have even cooled slightly. This hiatus in the long-term trend
contributed to concerns that the Earth was about to cool significantly,
possibly due to the increased amount of soot and other particulates in the
atmosphere. However, warming resumed again in the 1970's and the nine
warmest years on record have all occurred since 1980. Recent calculations
indicate that the greenhouse effect will outrun the effects of particulate
cooling in the future, although the accumulation of particulates in the
atmosphere may slow the overall rate of warming.
RUSH FICTION:
"A fact you never hear the environmentalist wacko crowd acknowledge is that
96 percent of the so-called 'greenhouse' gases are not created by man, but
by nature."
SCIENTIFIC FACT:
This is an obvious straw man set up by Limbaugh. It is true that the
greenhouse effect is, by and large, a natural phenomenon, produced by gases
in the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide and water vapor that have warmed
the Earth for eons, making its climate moderate enough to support life as
we know it. Without these gases, Earth would be forty to sixty degrees
colder, essentially a frigid desert.
However, in nature these gases usually remain in balance, leading to a
stable climate, while the greenhouse gases added by humans over the last
two hundred years have accumulated to the point that the amount of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere, for example, is now more than 25 percent above
what it had been for the previous 10,000 years. (Scientists have direct
evidence of this data, from measurements of air bubbles trapped in polar
ice cores.) The scientific consensus is that the accumulation of carbon
dioxide and other gases due to human activity will alter the climate
substantially, warming the globe by three to eight degrees Fahrenheit over
the next century.
Forests and the Spotted Owl:
One of the most contentious of current political debates concerns the
old-growth forests in the Northwest. Limbaugh addresses this issue in See,
I Told You So by citing mostly irrelevant statistics on tree growth in the
United States as a whole:
RUSH FICTION:
"Would it surprise you to learn, for instance, that America's forests are
much healthier today in the 1990s than they were at the turn of the century?
In fact, you could say that in the last seventy years America's forests have
been reborn. There are 730 million acres of forest land in our country
today, and the growth on those acres is denser than at any time. . . . New
England has more forested acres than it did in the mid-1800s. Vermont is
twice as forested as it was then. Almost half of the densely populated
northeastern United States is covered by forest. Why? How could this be?
If we are ravaging our land, as the environmentalists suggest, why are there
more trees around -- more forests?"
SCIENTIFIC FACT:
Here, it seems, Limbaugh cannot see the forests for all those trees. It is
true that due to the abandonment of farming, there has been a regeneration
of forests in the northeastern United States over the past century, although
not with all the species they originally contained.
Instead, environmentalists' primary concern during the last decade has been
the rampant destruction of old-growth forests, particularly in the
Northwest, where ancient trees were being cut down at an unprecedented rate,
leaving only about 11 to 14 percent of the original forests still standing.
RUSH FICTION:
"What the environmentalists are saying, in effect, is that some trees are
better than others. Trees that have been planted by man are not as worthy
or valuable as those that grow in 'virgin' forests. What is a virgin forest
anyway? Most trees live for only a couple of hundred years and then die.
No tree lives forever."
SCIENTIFIC FACT:
Virgin forests are forests untouched by humans. In the Northwest, they are
mostly old-growth forests, featuring towering stands of trees, 200 to over
1,000 years old. These trees are known to harbor a number of endangered or
threatened species, among them (but not limited to) the Northern spotted
owl. Which brings us to Limbaugh's next point:
RUSH FICTION:
"It reminds me of the researchers who recently ventured into the forests of
California. Do you know what they found? No, not Algore. They found
spotted owls. It seems the place is teeming with spotted owls - even
though they're supposed to be an endangered species."
SCIENTIFIC FACT:
Fewer than two thousand pairs of the Northern spotted owl are thought to
survive in California forests -- a number that could hardly be described as
"teeming". Even more importantly, at a meeting of experts called by the
U.S. government in December 1993 at Fort Collins, Colorado, virtually every
biologist who presented data concluded that the total numbers of the owl
are still in decline. Moreover, the population loss rate appears to be
accelerating.
On the whole, Limbaugh dealt with this issue more honestly in his first
book, The Way Things Ought to Be, when he asserted, "If the owl can't adapt
to the superiority of humans, screw it. . . ."
CONCLUSION
Although he attacks his opponents in the scientific community for being
driven by ideology, it is Rush Limbaugh who clearly allows his political
biases to distort the truth about a whole range of important scientific
issues.
All in all, the words he uses to describe Al Gore's book could more
appropriately be applied to his own. Limbaugh's most recent work, just
like the previous one, is "nothing more than a hysterical, pseudo-scientific
tract designed to cut off calm, reasoned discussion of environmental issues
and simply push the nation toward irrational, irreversible, misguided (not
to mention expensive) public policies." If the words of Rush Limbaugh on
scientific subjects prove anything, it should be "to discredit (him) from
any serious participation in our nation's debate over the environment."
The American public deserves better: to have its intelligence respected,
not abused.
[back to previous page]