He clearly specifies the way they were affected: They were hit by the tsunami, and obviously higher sea levels due to global warming would exacerbate the effects of such flooding. Please telling me your just working over time to be obtuse here; the alternative is rather appalling.

It's really simple: He didn't provide an example of what he was talking about for the very obvious reason that there is none--yet he made the accusation anyway. Making the accusation still requires him to prove the accusation, but I was giving him the benefit of the doubt on making it up completely because I hadn't read the transcripts: Now I have, and he did. While making light of the tragedy at length. The transcript doesn't change the meaning of his statement, it simply reinforces that statement and provides others as bad or worse. As I said above, it's practically a clinic in begging the question: He starts off with Obama, Obama, Obama, I really hate Obama, Obama sucks, and y'know, friends, the worst part is that the media's gonna try to bring Obama into this! Um, the evil liberal media didn't, YOU did, at length, just so you could complain about them doing it. Then it's "[environmentalists] are scrambling to blame this on global warming" even though he provides no example of them doing so and later all but admits he's begging the question when he talks about how they're "gonna try" to make global warming the culprit, that "they will". Not, they've done it, and here's the example of them doing it like I said earlier but more like I HAVE no such example or I'd reference it instead of promising you that they're GOING to do it, honest! Rush Limbaugh: The Precrime authority on politics.

This is becoming painful, man.