GLENN: Well, a Silicon Valley lawmaker is gaining momentum with a bill now that would require "climate change" to be among the science topics that all schoolchildren are taught. State senator John Simitian who also wants to have future textbooks contain climate change material says you can’t have a science book that is current and relevant if it doesn’t deal with the science of climate change. Gosh, John, actually you can and you should. Since when is the science of the month required? Maybe we can is a science of the month club. How many trees, Mr. Environmentalist, would have been wasted if we rushed to print textbooks on global cooling in 1975? I’m just — wasn’t that the scientific consensus at the time? Global cooling. Then how many trees would have been wasted when we had global warming? And now we would have to reprint because it’s global climate change. That way you get it covered either direction. He says this is a phenomenon of global importance and our kids ought to understand the science behind that phenomenon. You know what? I’ve got to tell you something. He used a couple of words here that are exactly, exactly appropriate. He used the word "Phenomena" because that’s exactly what it is, a global phenomena. Wow. How about the scientists who understand it first? Could we do that? Right now we have a bunch of theories and despite what Al Gore’s proclamation, you know, says, it’s hardly settled. The state Senate in California approved a bill 26-13. Now it heads to the state assembly. Some say the science isn’t clear. Others worry that this would inject environmentalism propaganda into the classroom. No, where would they get that crazy idea? In California? Never! Opponents want guarantees that the views of skeptics will be included. Oh, yeah, that’s going to happen, yeah. Just like intelligent design, uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh. That’s included in the science behind — it was a big bang; it just started. Just, boom! "What happened before the Big Bang?" What was — shhh, quiet. Wouldn’t that be one of the theories in forgive me if my confidence is a little low on the, "We just want the opposite side, you know, to be able to be in there as well." Uh-huh. Jeff Denham, United States senator, he has said we don’t have factual information yet. The Earth is heated and cooled on its own for thousands of years. I don’t know if there’s any direct cause right now other than this is what the Earth does." We can do a better job of cleaning up the planet. That’s what we should talk about." Whoa, what a hate monger Jeff is, huh? How did that guy get elected state senator? Why do you hate the environment so much? You just want to clean it? Are you in the pocket of big oil there, Jeff? Oh, crap, he operates a recycling business. Well, I’ll have to reevaluate. Okay, I just does. He’s a hate monger.
The main problem with the global warming argument is that the activists try to paint anyone who, you know, is skeptical of "Man is behind it," they try to paint them as in the pocket of big oil and haters of the environment. I’m neither. I think all of us love the environment. Who hates the environment? Is there anybody — have you ever met anybody that’s like, this damn environment; I hate it. I don’t know anybody. I’m all for going green. That’s great. Let’s leave it in better shape. Just don’t try to scare me into it, you know? There are other reasons to go green. The problem is the movement to go green has been hijacked by the radical socialist whose main purpose is to spread around wealth. You want to be afraid of something? Be afraid of global socialism. It’s coming, my friend. Ooh, freak out; or just calmly look at the facts. Just calmly do your research and then go, wow, hmmm, maybe we should stop that. You know, here’s a question. Why is it so many things are split right down party lines? Is it because the Republicans hate the environment? Do Republicans hate the environment?
See, this is what Jonah Goldberg, you know, wrote the book. He said that liberals never have to self-examine. They never have to self-examine. If you call, you know, a Democrat a socialist, they will say, yeah, that’s right because socialized medicine, okay, that might be bad but we’ve got to help people out. We’ve got to spread the wealth, these evil hate mongering rich people.
We had a woman on the phone last week. She said she was a Progressive. I said, do you know what the history of Progressive movement is? Do you know who these people are? She said, no, it just sounds good because it’s Progressive; it’s for the future. Oh, jeez, what a pinhead. Yet, if you disagree with global warming, you’re either in the pocket of big oil which, I mean, you can pretty much do a self-exam there and say, gee, do I have money from big oil? No, I’m giving them a lot of money every time I fill up my car. Or you hate the environment. Do I hate the environment? Why is it that I — see, you have to ask questions: Why is it I don’t recycle more than I should? Should I use styrofoam companies? We’re constantly self-examining because we’re constantly told we’re evil people. Why do you think it’s split down the party lines? We don’t hate the environment. It’s because the bills that have been put forth have socialist principles behind them. It is redistributing wealth. It’s moving wealth from here to over here. That’s what it is. It’s the Global Poverty Act that passed last week with Barack Obama. The Global Poverty Act. He says we’ve got to stop spending money over in Iraq; we’ve got to start spending money fixing America first. But yet he okays and sponsors a bill that will give us almost a 1% GDP tax to the United Nations. Take a look at the viewpoints of these parties in the coming election. Which one tends to agree with socialist principles? That’s why they don’t have a problem with these bills. They’re socialist principles. They also believe the U.S. should be propping up third world countries everywhere. I think this is a bad idea for many reasons but honestly if I were on the left, I think I would be against this bill as well. I would be saying, "Hey, hey, hey, keep it quiet on this bill, shhh. Dude, teachers are already indoctrinating the kids. They are teaching this without any mandate. Let’s not rile anybody up. Keep it on the down low. You can show the Al Gore thing without showing the other side once." I mean, even the teachers who like the bill have a lot to learn before they, you know, before they really start teaching climate change.
Try this on for size. Although global warming is mentioned in high school classes about weather, it’s currently not required to be mentioned in all textbooks. This is a great idea. I don’t think there’s any reason to talk about politics. There’s no argument that there’s climate change. The argument is how much is caused by the activities of man. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The argument is how much is caused by the activity of mankind, really? Silly teacher, that argument is already over. You need to go back and rewatch the Al Gore movie.